Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Faqeeria vs The State1993 MLD 2473 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-04Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The State1993 MLD 2475 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Mohammad Mumtaz And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 62 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2365 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Alam and others vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 1818 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Karam Abbas Shah1993 MLD 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs Ghulam Mustafa and 4 others1993 CLC 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ewan Khan vs Election Tribunal and others1993 MLD 2519 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Allah Rakha and others1993 CLC 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Emirates Bank Ltd. vs M. Irfan Monno O and another1993 CLC 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
• Elahi Bakhsh vs Muhammad AzamK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Hussain vs Abbas Ali1993 CLC 2478 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16
  specific performancepermanent injunctionbar of suitcontemporaneous suitsequally efficacious reliefagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the decision of the original court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant had initially filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from alienating property subject to an agreement to sell, and subsequently instituted a suit for specific performance while withdrawing the first suit. The trial court rejected the plaint, holding that the second suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code. The Lahore High Court examined whether a suit for specific performance is barred when preceded by an incompetent suit for perpetual injunction based on the same cause of action, and whether Order II, Rule 2 applies to contemporaneous suits. The Court held that since the initial suit for perpetual injunction was barred under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 due to the availability of an equally efficacious remedy, the subsequent suit for specific performance was not hit by Order II, Rule 2. Furthermore, the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 apply to subsequent suits rather than contemporaneous ones. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the case remanded for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance is barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when preceded by an incompetent suit for permanent injunction?
  • Does Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to contemporaneous suits or only to subsequent suits?
  • Is a suit for permanent injunction competent under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 when an equally efficacious remedy like specific performance is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad alias Ejaz Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1154 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
• Eitbar Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-10Read full judgment →
• Ehtisham Abbas Kazmi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Samina Mansoor vs P.M.D.C. and others1993 CLC 2346 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Latif vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department and 2 others1993 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hanif Arif vs Secretary Health, Government of Punjab and another1993 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Dr. Arslan Razzaq vs Ali Hussain1993 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-12
  consolidation of proceedingsinherent powers of courtspecific performancerent evictionabuse of processinjunctionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a Civil Revision and a First Appeal from Order arising from a Senior Civil Judge's decision to consolidate an eviction petition filed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 with a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether a court possesses the inherent power to consolidate proceedings of a rent eviction petition with a civil suit, and whether a court can mandate the deposit of the full sale consideration as a condition for granting an injunction. The Court held that under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a court has the inherent power to consolidate such matters to prevent the abuse of process and ensure a fair trial, as the procedure is not prohibited by law. However, the Court set aside the order requiring the petitioner to deposit the full sale consideration, noting that such a condition was inappropriate where the underlying agreement was disputed. The judgment affirms that procedural rules exist to facilitate justice rather than obstruct it.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the inherent power under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to consolidate an eviction petition under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 with a civil suit for specific performance?
  • Can a court condition the grant of an injunction on the deposit of the full sale consideration when the validity of the underlying agreement to sell is disputed?
  • Is the consolidation of proceedings permissible where one matter is a rent eviction petition and the other is a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Anwar Mahmud Ijaz vs The University of the Punjab through ViceChancellor and 2 others1993 CLC 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Station House Officer, Police Station1993 PLD Lahore 403 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs S.H.O., P.S. FarooqabadK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 324 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Anwar and 5 others1993 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad alias Dosso vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 388 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05
  Arms Ordinance 1965Section 342 CrPCSection 340(2) CrPCexamination of accusedremand of caseretrialprocedural irregularityprejudice to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed before the Lahore High Court against the judgment dated 09-10-1991 passed by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Bahawalpur, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions pertained to the validity of a trial conducted after remand without framing a fresh charge, the total omission to record the accused's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the failure to obtain signatures or thumb impressions on the accused's testimony under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the failure to record the examination of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. deprived him of an opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances, causing serious prejudice and rendering the trial a nullity. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the case to the trial court for a lawful retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to record the statement of an accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. vitiate the trial and conviction?
  • Is a conviction sustainable where the trial court fails to frame a fresh charge after remand and omits proper recording of the accused's statements?
  • What is the effect of an unsigned statement of an accused recorded under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. on the legality of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Ditta Khan vs Muhammad Zaman and others1993 MLD 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26
  pre-emptionjurisdictional valuecourt-feerejection of plaintforum of appealcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the pre-emption suits on the ground that the plaints were deficiently stamped based on the ostensible sale price, treating it as the jurisdictional value. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed this finding, calculated the jurisdictional value as 15 times the net profits under the Suits Valuation Act rules, held that the plaints could not be rejected without an opportunity to make up the deficiency in court-fee, and decreed the suit in favour of the pre-emptors. The vendee challenged this appellate decree through a civil revision before the High Court, contending that the appeal before the District Judge was incompetent due to the trial court's valuation. The Lahore High Court held that where the trial court determines a valuation for jurisdiction, that valuation governs the appellate forum; thus, the appeal before the District Court was without jurisdiction. However, exercising its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary hardship, the High Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and decreed the pre-emption suit upon payment of the sale price within the stipulated time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdictional value of a pre-emption suit for land not permanently assessed to land revenue is to be determined on the basis of market value or fifteen times the net profits under the Suits Valuation Act rules?
  • Can a plaint be rejected straightaway for being deficiently stamped without first determining the exact amount of court-fee and affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to make up the deficiency?
  • What determines the forum of appeal when the trial court modifies or determines the valuation of the subject-matter for the purposes of jurisdiction?
  • Whether the High Court can bypass remanding a matter and instead exercise its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary hardship?
  Read full judgment →
• District Sargodha vs Government of the Punjab through District1993 MLD 930 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-13Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Hussain alias Hidayatullah and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-26Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2340 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
• Dais Muhammad and 7 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• D.S. Railways Etc. vs P.L.C.K.L.R 1993 Labour & Service Cases 30 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Sarwar Bhatti vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi vs Malik1993 PTD 508 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-26
  income taxjurisdictionassessmentreference applicationtransfer of caseregistered office
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act arose from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which annulled an assessment made against the respondent-assessee as being without jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was legally justified in annulling the assessment on the point of jurisdiction where the assessee raised objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the Tribunal's decision was unexceptionable, noting that the assessee had repeatedly disputed the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, and under Section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act, it was incumbent upon the Income-tax Officer to refer the objection to the Commissioner of Income-tax for a formal decision. The Court established the principle that when an objection to the place of assessment and jurisdiction is raised at the earliest opportunity, the assessing officer must adhere to the statutory procedure of referring the matter for a determination rather than proceeding unilaterally.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Income-tax Officer is bound to refer an objection regarding jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act?
  • Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in annulling an assessment on the point of jurisdiction when the assessee disputes the territorial jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity?
  • Whether the High Court can sit in appeal against the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in permitting an assessee to raise a jurisdictional plea for the first time?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore vs National Typewriter Co.1993 PTD 37 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Aizaz Mansoor1993 PTD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore vs Fazal Muhammad1993 PTD 635 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax Companies Zone, Lahore. vs Naveed A.PTCL 1993 CL. 31 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Col. Mahboob Khan vs Abdur Rashid and another1993 MLD 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16
  regular second appealdemarcation reportlocal commissionerencroachmentadditional evidenceremand of suithigh court rules and orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a suit for possession through alleged encroachment on land, which was decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. The core legal question concerns the legality of relying on a Local Commissioner's demarcation report prepared without following mandatory High Court Rules and Orders, and on a revenue document (Jamabandi) not formally admitted into evidence. The Lahore High Court held that a demarcation report lacking measurements from fixed permanent points is of no evidentiary value, and that an appellate court cannot base its findings on documents or set-aside reports that do not form part of the legal evidence without following due process for additional evidence. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgments of both lower courts, and remanded the suit for a fresh decision after appointing a new Local Commissioner for proper demarcation in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a Local Commissioner's demarcation report prepared without fixing permanent points as required by High Court Rules and Orders?
  • Can an appellate court rely upon a Jamabandi or document that was not formally produced and admitted as a piece of evidence in the case?
  • Is it lawful for an appellate court to take into consideration a previous Local Commissioner's report that has already been set aside?
  • What are the legal consequences of basing findings of fact on inadmissible evidence and misdirected procedure in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Col. (Retd.) Sadiq Hasan Sheikh vs Abdul Rashid and another1993 MLD 486 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30
  specific performanceres judicatafrivolous litigationabuse of processrevenue recordcontempt of courtejectment proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale regarding a specific parcel of land, claiming ownership against respondent No. 1. This suit followed multiple unsuccessful rounds of litigation, including ejectment proceedings where the petitioner was found to be a tenant of respondent No. 2. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-open the settled issue of property title based on a recent correction mutation in the Revenue Record, and whether the trial court acted lawfully in summarily dismissing the suit while deciding a stay application. The Court held that the suit was a vexatious, repetitive attempt to re-litigate matters already finalized by the Supreme Court. The Court found the petitioner's documents to be fictitious and the Revenue Record correction irrelevant to the established title. Consequently, the Court dismissed the civil revision, affirming the lower courts' dismissal of the suit. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must summarily reject frivolous, repetitive litigation to prevent the abuse of process and protect the integrity of the judicial system, particularly when parties ignore the doctrine of res judicata.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party re-open a settled title dispute by relying on a subsequent correction mutation in the Revenue Record?
  • Is a trial court empowered to summarily dismiss a suit while disposing of an application for a stay order when the litigation is vexatious?
  • Does the principle of lis pendens apply to a mutation sanctioned during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Can a court initiate contempt proceedings against a litigant and counsel for repeatedly filing frivolous suits on the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Chan Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Chan Shah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1344 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Champion Clock Company vs Central Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 1993 CL. 435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
• CH.Parvaiz Elahi vs 1. Province of Punjab 2. Mian Manzoor Ahmad WatooK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 849 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Pervaiz Elahi vs Province of Punjab and others1993 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervaiz Elahi vs Province of Punjab and another1993 PLD Lahore 595 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-28
  dissolution of assemblyno-confidence motionconstitutional petitionjudicial reviewmala fidesfundamental rightsprovincial assemblychief minister
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the dissolution of the Punjab Provincial Assembly by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. The core legal question was whether the Chief Minister, having received a notice of a no-confidence motion, was constitutionally barred from advising dissolution under the Explanation to Article 112(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and whether the dissolution order was mala fide. The Lahore High Court held that the dissolution order was illegal and void, thereby restoring the Provincial Assembly. The Court determined that the notice of no-confidence was served prior to the advice for dissolution, rendering the advice ineffective. Crucially, the Court laid down that the constitutional bar on a Chief Minister advising dissolution upon receipt of a no-confidence notice is absolute. It further established that the phrase 'in the Assembly' for notice service includes service upon the Secretary, and that constitutional immunity under Article 105(2) does not protect mala fide acts, which remain subject to judicial review. The Court affirmed its power to record evidence in constitutional petitions involving fundamental rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the service of a notice of a no-confidence motion upon the Secretary of the Provincial Assembly satisfy the requirement of 'in the Assembly' under the Explanation to Article 112(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a High Court record evidence in a constitutional petition under Article 199 to determine disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the constitutional protection under Article 105(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 immunize an advice for dissolution of an assembly from judicial review if the advice is shown to be mala fide?
  • Is a Chief Minister against whom a notice of a no-confidence motion has been served legally competent to advise the Governor to dissolve the Provincial Assembly?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervaiz Elahi and others vs Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and others1993 P Cr. L J 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
• Ch. Pervaiz Elahi and another vs Province of Punjab and others1993 CLC 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
• CH. Nazir Ahmad vs Usman KhanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 83 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ch. Nazir Ahmad vs Usman Khan and others1993 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Additional District Judge, Lahore1993 CLC 470 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sharif vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Shafi vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Multan1993 CLC 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Salem and others vs Nazir Ahmad and others1993 MLD 312 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Saleem vs Ch. Yaqoob Hussain and another1993 CLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Bashir and others vs Mahmood Ahmad1993 CLC 2039 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• CH. Mubashir Ahmad-D.S.P., Special Branch, LHR. vs The InspectorK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ch. Hamid Ali vs Ch. Rehmat Ali and 5 others1993 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Rasool and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Asghar Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1993 CLC 858 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06
  Lambardar appointmentrule of primogeniturefemale LambardarWest Pakistan Land Revenue Rules 1968Board of Revenueconstitutional jurisdictiongender discrimination
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court challenging an order of the Member, Board of Revenue, which upheld the appointment of a female candidate as Lambardar of Chak No. 180/EB, Vehari, succeeding her deceased father. The petitioner, an advocate claiming eligibility, contended that under the rule of primogeniture a female cannot be appointed as Lambardar and that he was better qualified. The primary legal issue was whether a female heir can be appointed as Lambardar under Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and whether 'primogeniture' restricts succession exclusively to male descendants.

  The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming the appointment. The Court held that appointment of a Lambardar is an administrative function within the executive purview of revenue authorities and will not be lightly interfered with under constitutional jurisdiction unless there is a jurisdictional error. Furthermore, Rule 19(2) does not bar females from appointment under primogeniture where the female heir is the eldest child, a full owner, and no disqualification exists, consistent with Article 25(2) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a female heir can be appointed as a Lambardar under the rule of primogeniture pursuant to Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968?
  • Does the term 'primogeniture' in Rule 19(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 strictly restrict succession to male heirs in the absence of a male descendant?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with an administrative decision of the Board of Revenue appointing a Lambardar?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahmad Khan and 3 others vs Province of the Punjab through District1993 MLD 807 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Capt. Raja Ajaib Khan and others vs Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1993 CLC 196 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Cantonment Executive Officer, M.E. Section, Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur vs Syed Iqbal Mustafa and 2 others1993 CLC 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-01
  land acquisitionlapse of acquisitionstatutory interpretationwithdrawal from acquisitionPunjab Land Acquisition RulesCantonment Board
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question was whether acquisition proceedings lapse if no action is taken under Section 5 of the Act within one year of the Section 4 notification, specifically in light of Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983. The Cantonment Board argued that only the Provincial Government could withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act, and that a general rule could not effect such withdrawal. The Court held that the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 were framed by the Provincial Government under Section 55 of the Act and are intra vires. The Court determined that Rule 7 operates as a statutory withdrawal from acquisition by the Provincial Government when the prescribed one-year period expires without further action. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed by operation of law, dismissing the appeals and affirming that the Provincial Government may establish such policy-based rules for automatic withdrawal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 constitute a valid withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can the Provincial Government issue a general rule for the automatic lapse of acquisition proceedings if no action is taken within one year of the Section 4 notification?
  • Are the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 intra vires the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. Sadaat Ali Shah vs Muhammad Hanif and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 694 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17
  consolidation of holdingsconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionintra-court appealcondonation of delayconsent orderpower of attorneynon-joinder of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves Intra-Court Appeals against a single judge's order in writ petitions concerning land consolidation proceedings under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with the orders of consolidation authorities regarding the condonation of delay and the merits of a consolidation scheme, and whether an appeal lies against a consent order in consolidation proceedings. The Division Bench held that the High Court erred in interfering with the orders of the consolidation authorities, which possessed exclusive jurisdiction over the propriety and legality of such schemes. The Court ruled that the Collector had the discretion to condone delay, and such discretion is not amenable to constitutional interference. Furthermore, the Court established that there is no provision in consolidation laws equivalent to Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 that bars appeals against consent orders. Consequently, the Court restored the Collector’s order, affirming that constitutional jurisdiction is limited to cases involving a decrease in entitlement, not mere situational disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, interfere with the discretion of a Collector in a consolidation matter to condone a delay?
  • Does the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 contain a provision equivalent to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 that bars appeals against consent orders?
  • Is the non-joinder of a necessary party in a consolidation appeal fatal to the proceedings if the party subsequently consents to the order?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with the orders of consolidation authorities regarding the propriety of a consolidation scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Brig. (Retd.) Mazharulhaq and another vs M/s. Muslim Commercial Bank1993 PLD Lahore 706 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-10
  ex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreeauction salesetting aside saleservice of summonssubstituted servicefraudmaterial irregularityBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979Code of Civil Procedure 1908limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns two appeals challenging the dismissal of applications to set aside an ex parte decree and a subsequent auction sale of mortgaged property. The core legal questions revolved around the validity of service of summons, the legality of the ex parte decree, the presence of material irregularities and fraud in the auction sale, and the applicability of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants were not duly served, as the plaintiff-Bank failed to provide their correct address despite knowing it, rendering the ex parte decree a nullity. The Court further found that the auction sale was vitiated by numerous material irregularities and fraud, including non-issuance of proclamation of sale, improper description of property, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding deposit of purchase money. The Court also determined that the applications to set aside the decree and sale were not time-barred, as Section 18 of the Limitation Act applied due to the fraud and concealment that kept the appellants from knowledge of the proceedings. Consequently, both appeals were accepted, the ex parte decree, the sale, and all consequential orders were set aside, and the suit was remanded for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex parte decree be set aside if the defendant was not duly served due to the plaintiff's failure to provide a correct address?
  • Whether a Banking Court acting under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, is bound to follow the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for service of summons and execution of decrees?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for a proclamation of sale under Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and what is the effect of non-compliance?
  • Can a confirmed auction sale be set aside on grounds of fraud and material irregularity, even if the application is filed after the usual limitation period?
  • Is the deposit of purchase money under Order 21 Rules 84 and 85, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, mandatory, and what are the consequences of non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Boota Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha_Defendant vs Mehr Ahmed Khan1993 MLD 680 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha vs Muhammad Akram1993 CLC 926 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21
  revision petitionex parte decreedate of hearingdate of birth correctionvoid ab initioremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioner Board's appeal against an ex parte decree in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction regarding a date of birth correction was dismissed. The core legal question was whether ex parte proceedings could lawfully be initiated against a defendant for non-appearance on a date that was not a genuine 'date of hearing'. The Lahore High Court held that dates fixed merely for 'further proceedings and proper orders' or administrative purposes, where no investigation of the controversy is scheduled, do not constitute a 'date of hearing' under the law. Consequently, taking ex parte proceedings and passing an ex parte decree on such a date is void ab initio. The Court laid down the principle that a purely legal plea not raised before the lower appellate court can be permitted in revision, and that ex parte proceedings cannot be sustained if the absence occurs on a date not fixed for the actual hearing or judicial examination of the dispute. The revision petition was accepted, the lower judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can ex parte proceedings be lawfully initiated against a defendant for absence on a date that is not fixed for the hearing of the case?
  • Does a date fixed merely for further proceedings and proper orders constitute a date of hearing?
  • Can a purely legal plea be raised for the first time in a revision petition before the High Court if it was not raised before the lower appellate court?
  • What is the effect of ex parte proceedings taken on a date that is not a date of hearing upon the subsequent ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Cotton Factory vs WAPDA through Chairman and 3 others1993 MLD 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
• Beram Khan- vs District Nazir, District Court, Mianwali and others1993 MLD 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Begum Zia Farhat Awan and 2 others vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1993 CLC 365 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24
  surety liabilityfrustration of contractnationalizationbank loandischarge of suretyconstitutional petitionequitable mortgage
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the release of securities deposited by the petitioners as sureties for a loan facility granted to a private company, which was subsequently nationalized. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' liability as sureties was discharged, and their securities returnable, following the Federal Government's takeover of both the debtor company and the creditor bank, and the bank's subsequent acceptance of government bonds as sufficient security for the loan. The Court held that the takeover of the debtor company and the creditor bank by the same entity (the Federal Government), coupled with the bank's acceptance of government bonds as valid security and the closure of the company's loan account, effectively discharged the sureties' liability. Applying the principles of frustration of contract under the Contract Act 1872, the Court determined that legislative intervention rendered the original contract incapable of performance, thereby extinguishing the sureties' obligations. Consequently, the Court ruled that the bank's retention of the petitioners' securities was illegal and without lawful authority, directing their immediate return.

  Questions settled

  • Does the nationalization of both a debtor company and a creditor bank by the Federal Government discharge the liability of a third-party surety?
  • Can a contract be considered frustrated under Section 56 of the Contract Act 1872 when legislative measures by the State fundamentally alter the obligations of the parties?
  • Is a creditor bank legally entitled to retain securities deposited by a surety after the underlying loan liability has been satisfied by government-issued bonds and the loan account has been closed?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Shireen Bahar Cheema vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Islamabad and 14 others1993 PLD Lahore 822 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-28Read full judgment →
• Bashiran Bibi vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 612 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Bashir Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. vs C.B.R.1993 PTD 753 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1757 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs S.H.O Mamun Kanjan & 7 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Family Court and another1993 CLC 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs Sardar Khan and others1993 MLD 2298 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
• Basharat Iqbal vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2151 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-21Read full judgment →
• Basharat Iqbal vs Dr. Nargis Rehana and another1993 MLD 571 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18
  constitutional petitionpolygamyabetmentNikahnama witnessspecial lawquashment of proceedingssecond marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The complainant alleged that the petitioner's brother contracted a second marriage without disclosing his existing marriage, and that the petitioner abetted the offence by signing the Nikahnama as a witness. The core legal question was whether the provisions of abetment under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be applied to a special law like the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and whether a witness to a Nikahnama can be held criminally liable for the groom's failure to obtain permission for a polygamous marriage. The Lahore High Court held that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is a special law which does not incorporate the abetment provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court ruled that only the person contracting the marriage in contravention of the law can be prosecuted, and signing a Nikahnama as a witness does not constitute abetment or shared common intention. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the abetment provisions of Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be applied to offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • Whether a person who merely signs a Nikahnama as a witness can be held criminally liable for abetting an illegal polygamous marriage under Section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • Does the signing of a Nikahnama as a witness imply that the witness shares a common intention or assumes responsibility for the truth of the declarations made by the bridegroom?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali and another vs The State1993 MLD 159 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
• Barkhurdar and others vs Lal and others1993 CLC 2539 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Barkat vs Fazal Elahi and others1993 CLC 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Barkat Masih vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Barkat Bibi vs Incharge, Highway Rest House, Dunyapur, District1993 MLD 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Sh. Anwar and others1993 MLD 2329 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Election Tribunal/Civil Judge Class III, Kasur and 21993 MLD 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
• Bank of Oman Ltd. vs Crescent International and others1993 MLD 1716 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
• Bakhtawar vs Sikandar Khan and others1993 CLC 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
• Bakhsh vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Lyalipur/Faisalabad1993 MLD 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Kamal vs Muhammad Ashraf1993 CLC 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-19
  restoration of appealdismissal for defaultex parte decreepre-emption suitcondonation of delayLimitation Actsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals arising from pre-emption suits where the trial court decreed the suits ex parte without recording evidence, relying solely on the plaints. The lower appellate court set aside the ex parte decrees and remanded the matters for decision on merits. The appellants subsequently failed to appear when their appeals were fixed for hearing before the High Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeals for default. The core legal questions concern whether sufficient cause was shown for the restoration of appeals dismissed in default, whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to such restoration applications, and whether the trial court can decree an ex parte suit without requiring proof. The court held that mere omission to check the cause-list does not constitute sufficient cause for non-appearance, that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications for restoration of appeals dismissed for default under Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that courts should generally ensure cases are decided on merits after requiring proof. The petitions for restoration were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether omission by a counsel to notice a case in the printed cause-list constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside a dismissal for default?
  • Does section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for default in appearance under Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a trial court decree a pre-parte suit without taking any evidence or requiring proof of the averments in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur and others vs Umar Hayat and others1993 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26
  res judicatacivil revisiongeneral jurisdictionjudicial reviewmortgage redemptioncollateral attacknullity of decreeCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition addresses whether a decree of a Civil Court, which declared an administrative order void, can be challenged in a subsequent civil suit, and whether a Civil Court can declare a prior decree of a competent Civil Court to be without jurisdiction. The dispute arose from a previous decree that declared a Collector’s order regarding mortgage redemption to be unlawful. The respondents later filed a new suit seeking to declare that previous decree void. The High Court held that Civil Courts are courts of general jurisdiction; thus, they possess the authority to decide questions of law. A decision, even if legally erroneous, is not a nullity or "without jurisdiction" simply because the conclusion is incorrect. Such errors must be corrected through the appellate process, not by a collateral suit. Consequently, the previous decree remained valid and operated as res judicata. The Court affirmed that judicial review of a Civil Court's judgment is unavailable via a subsequent suit, emphasizing the finality of litigation and the prohibition against re-litigating settled matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Civil Court declare a decree passed by another Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to be void in a subsequent suit?
  • Does an incorrect decision on a point of law by a Civil Court render its decree a nullity or without jurisdiction?
  • Is a subsequent civil suit maintainable to challenge a final decree that has attained finality through the failure to file an appeal?
  • Does the doctrine of res judicata bar a party from challenging a previous decree in a separate suit on the grounds that the previous court erred in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadar vs Haji Muhammad Rafiq1993 CLC 295 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Bahadar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 267 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-29Read full judgment →
• Babar Islam vs Government of the Punjab1993 CLC 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-20Read full judgment →
• Azmat Ullah Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 270 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Azmat Ullah Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23
  compromiseqisas and diyatmurderframing of chargerevision petitiontazir
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, dismissing the petitioner's application for acquittal based on a compromise in a murder case registered under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner contended that since some legal heirs compounded the offence and received Diyat, the charge should be altered to section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court is bound to alter a charge from section 302 to section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and force unwilling legal heirs to accept Diyat prior to the recording of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court rightly framed the charge under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and that it would be premature to alter the charge before the prosecution evidence is recorded, especially when material eye-witnesses refuse to compound the offence. The court laid down the principle that an accused charged with a graver offence can be convicted of a lesser offence if established during trial, whereas initially charging a lesser offence prejudices a proper determination, and provisions relating to Tazir under section 311 are attracted only at the stage of conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can force unwilling legal heirs of a deceased to accept Diyat and compound an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to alter a charge from section 302 to section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 prior to the recording of prosecution evidence when some heirs refuse to compromise?
  • At what stage of the trial are the provisions of section 311 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attracted?
  Read full judgment →
• Azmat Javed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →