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.

• Azmat Farooq vs The Regional Commissioner of Income-Tax Central1993 PTD 801 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. and others vs Mst. Jannat Bibi1993 MLD 345 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ayub Khan vs Muhammad Fayaz Ahmad and others1993 MLD 573 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1993 PLD Lahore 194 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-17
  import licence feerural industrial development incentivespromissory estoppeltax versus feevested rightsconstitutional petitionimport policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions challenging the levy of a 6% ad valorem import licence fee on machinery imported for rural industrial development under the Rural Industrial Development Incentives scheme. The core legal questions involved whether the levy of the fee amounted to an unconstitutional tax, whether the government was bound by promissory estoppel to grant total exemption from licence fees as initially announced, and whether the fee charged was reasonable. The Lahore High Court held that the import licence fee is a composite charge for a privilege conferred and services rendered, and while the government has the discretion to levy such a fee, it must be reasonable and not excessive. The court ruled that the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against a statute, and since no concluded contract had been finalized before the policy modification, no vested rights had accrued. However, the court found the 6% fee to be exorbitant and unreasonable under the circumstances, noting that the government itself had subsequently reduced the fee to 2% ad valorem. The petitions were accepted, declaring the 6% levy without lawful authority, and holding that the petitioners were entitled to import licences upon the payment of a fair and reasonable 2% ad valorem licence fee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the levy of an import licence fee at the rate of 6% ad valorem amounts to an unconstitutional tax?
  • Can the principle of promissory estoppel be invoked against the statutory powers of the Federal Government to alter import policies and levy fees?
  • Whether an applicant acquires a vested right to the grant of an import licence merely by submitting an application and entering into preliminary negotiations prior to a change in government policy?
  • Whether the import licence fee charged by the Government for the import of machinery is required to be reasonable and commensurate with the privileges conferred and services rendered?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayaz Texile Mills Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan Through SecretaryPTCL 1993 CL. 746 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs Massan and 13 others1993 CLC 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14
  pre-emptionSection 12(2) CPCnullity of decreetarget daterestitutionjurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a pre-emption suit wherein the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner on 20-10-1987, based on collateralship, after the target date of 31-7-1986 established in the landmark judgment of Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360). Subsequently, the respondents filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the decree as being without jurisdiction and a nullity. The trial court dismissed the application, but the Additional District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the pre-emption decree. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that any pre-emption decree passed on the ground of mere relationship after the constitutional deadline is a nullity without jurisdiction. The Court laid down that neither consent nor estoppel can confer jurisdiction where it does not exist, and a decree passed in disregard of binding judgments of superior courts can be recalled under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, with consequential restitution ordered under Section 144.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption decree passed on the ground of collateralship after the target date of 31-7-1986 be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the withdrawal of pre-emption money by vendees estop them from filing an application for the rescission of an invalid decree?
  • Whether consent or estoppel can confer jurisdiction upon a court where it does not exist in law?
  • Is restitution required when an invalid pre-emption decree is set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs Hassan EtcK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 109 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Attiqur Rahman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 619 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 210 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ata Ullah Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1718 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
• Aslam and 9 others vs The Station House Officer, Police Station1993 MLD 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Sugar Mills vs Federation of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 910 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07
  excise dutyretrospective exemptionbenefit-conferring notificationrefund of dutyvested rightstaxation law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the legality of a notice issued by the Central Excise authorities demanding the recovery of excise duty refunds previously granted to the petitioner, a sugar mill. The petitioner had been granted a 50% exemption on excise duty for its first two years of production under a 1985 notification, which was later revoked by the authorities on the grounds that the notification was void ab initio for having retrospective effect. The core legal question was whether the government could retrospectively withdraw a benefit-conferring notification that had already been acted upon. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent involving identical circumstances, the Lahore High Court held that while a notification cannot retrospectively impair vested rights or impose new liabilities, there is a valid distinction when a notification confers a benefit retrospectively. Consequently, the Court declared the recovery notice illegal and without lawful authority, ruling that the government could not unilaterally revoke the granted exemption. The principle established is that notifications conferring benefits retrospectively are permissible and distinct from those that impose burdens or impair vested rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a notification granting a tax exemption be applied retrospectively if it confers a benefit rather than imposing a liability?
  • Is a notification granting a retrospective benefit void ab initio?
  • Does the distinction between notifications impairing vested rights and those conferring benefits affect their retrospective validity?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Masih and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2568 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Iiussain vs Additional District Judge and 2 others1993 CLC 799 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18
  landlord and tenantcompromise deedestoppelejectmentexecution proceedingscompetency of appealinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions arise from a dispute over the ejectment of a tenant following a compromise deed. The tenant, having initially admitted the landlord-tenant relationship in a formal compromise deed filed before the Rent Controller, later sought to challenge the relationship, arguing the transaction was a mortgage rather than a tenancy. The core legal questions were whether a party is estopped from denying a tenancy after formally admitting it in a compromise, whether an appeal against an interlocutory order in execution proceedings is competent, and whether a compromise deed stipulating ejectment upon default is enforceable. The Court held that the tenant was estopped from denying the relationship after acting upon the compromise and partially paying the arrears. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appeal before the Additional District Judge against the interlocutory order was incompetent. The Court affirmed that the compromise deed was binding and that the tenant's default in payment triggered the ejectment clause. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by challenging a relationship formally admitted in a judicial compromise, and that interlocutory orders in execution proceedings are not appealable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tenant estopped from denying the landlord-tenant relationship after admitting it in a compromise deed filed before a Rent Controller?
  • Is an appeal competent against an interlocutory order passed during execution proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a party raise an objection to the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal for the first time in a writ petition if the objection was not raised before the lower appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashgar Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 337 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 722 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Asghar Abbas vs Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others1993 CLC 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16
  civil revisionrestoration of suitdismissal in defaultmisconception of datedecision on meritsprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent orders passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application for the restoration of a civil suit for possession and removal of debris, which had been dismissed in default of appearance. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's absence on the date of hearing was intentional or due to a bona fide misconception regarding the date, and whether the dismissal of a suit in default should be set aside to advance the cause of justice. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of the plaintiff and his attorney was not intentional but resulted from confusion over the hearing date, particularly since the presiding officer was on election duty on the previous date and attendance records were loosely maintained. Emphasizing that superior courts favour decisions on merits over technicalities, the Court set aside the impugned orders, accepted the revision petition, and restored the suit for trial on merits, laying down the principle that procedural defaults caused by honest confusion or counsel oversight should be condoned to ensure substantive justice in valuable property disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the dismissal of a civil suit in default of appearance should be set aside when the absence is caused by a bona fide misconception of the hearing date?
  • Does the failure to record the presence of a party's attorney in routine adjournment orders conclusively prove the absence of the attorney?
  • Can the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court be exercised liberally to condone technical defects such as the failure to attach certified copies of documents with a revision petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Ullah Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2272 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Arshad Zubair vs S.H.O.1993 P Cr. L J 858 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
• Arshad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2481 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-13Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs Directorgeneral, Lahore Development Authority1993 CLC 376 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 758 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Arif Khan vs The District Magistrate, Lahore1993 MLD 2245 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
• Arif and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1971 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ansar Hussain vs Allah Ditta and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 1593 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
• Anar Gul and 5 others vs Hindostan Khan through Legal Heirs1993 MLD 170 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Amshaid Hussain Rana vs Mst. Rehana Kausar1993 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-04
  dowry articleslimitation periodcivil revisionunlawful detentionrevisional jurisdictionmuslim family laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed a sum of Rs. 24,800 in favour of the respondent-wife as the equivalent money-value of her unreturned articles of dowry against the petitioner-husband. The core legal questions involved whether the suit for recovery of dowry articles was barred by limitation under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and whether concurrent factual findings regarding the possession and value of the dowry articles could be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the initial possession of dowry articles by the husband during marriage is permissive and lawful, and under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908, time begins to run from the date of demand and refusal or when the detention becomes unlawful following an effective divorce, rendering the suit within limitation. The Court laid down the principle that in marital disputes, the possession of dowry articles becomes unlawful upon the pronouncement of an effective divorce and subsequent refusal upon demand, and that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • When does the period of limitation under Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1908 start to run for the recovery of dowry articles detained by a husband?
  • Does the initial possession of dowry articles by a husband in the matrimonial home constitute unlawful detention from the beginning?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the value and possession of dowry articles be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the pronouncement of an effective divorce render the continued retention of a wife's dowry articles by the husband unlawful?
  Read full judgment →
• Amroo Khan vs Dhanney KhanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 142 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Amir Zaman and another vs Abdul Khaliq and 2 others1993 CLC 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12
  civil revisionrefereeconsent decreeapprobate and reprobatemode of trialappellate jurisdictionremand proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision arises from a dispute over land ownership and possession. The parties, having previously litigated the matter through trial and remand, agreed during post-remand appellate proceedings to have their dispute resolved based on the statement of a specific individual, Muhammad Ijaz Khan. The appellate court passed a decree in accordance with this statement. The petitioners (defendants) challenged this, arguing that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to delegate the decision to a witness and that they should not be bound by the parts of the statement adverse to their interests. The High Court held that parties to a lis are at liberty to adopt any mode of trial, including referring the dispute to a referee, even during post-remand proceedings. The Court clarified that the individual acted as a referee, not a mere witness. Consequently, the Court ruled that parties cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting only favorable portions of a referee's statement. The revision was dismissed, affirming that a consent-based order cannot be challenged on technicalities when justice has been served.

  Questions settled

  • Can parties to a civil suit agree to have their dispute decided by a referee during post-remand proceedings?
  • Does the description of a referee as a 'witness' in court records invalidate the nature of the reference if the parties clearly agreed to be bound by the statement?
  • Can a party challenge a consent-based judgment by accepting only the favorable portions of a referee's statement while rejecting the unfavorable ones?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain Khan vs Ghulam Akbar Khan1993 MLD 686 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-12Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali vs The Tehsildar (Recovery), Provincial Agricultural1993 P Cr. L J 927 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali and others vs Shamsul HAQComplainant1993 P Cr. L J 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
• Amina Sultana vs Amanat Alt1993 P Cr. L J 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Amina Rehman vs Mirza Karamat Hussain and others1993 MLD 1898 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06
  administration suitoral giftIslamic law of inheritanceburden of proofMuhammadan Lawcivil revisionestate of deceased
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for the administration of the estate of the deceased Major Ajmal Hussain, and instead decreed the suit by apportioning the estate among the legal heirs according to Islamic law. The core legal questions involved whether the deceased had made valid inter vivos oral gifts of his residential properties and a car to his second wife during his lifetime, and whether a suit for administration of the estate was a competent legal remedy to challenge such dispositions. The Lahore High Court held that the oral gifts were not proved as the evidence adduced by the defendant-wife was insufficient and failed to satisfy the essential requirements of a gift under Muhammadan Law. The Court further observed that the administration suit was competent and that questions regarding the existence of property belonging to the deceased's estate are rightly determinable therein. The key principle laid down is that an oral gift of valuable immovable property requires unimpeachable and high-order evidence to establish its completion, and an administration suit properly encompasses the determination of the assets rightfully forming part of a deceased's estate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral gift of immovable property by a husband to his wife is validly established by interested oral testimony without written records?
  • Can a suit for administration of the estate of a deceased person competently inquire into the existence of property claimed under an inter vivos gift?
  • Does the onus of proving an inter vivos gift of property lie upon the person claiming as donee?
  • Is an objection to the form and maintainability of an administration suit permissible for the first time at the hearing of a civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Amer Shujat Khan vs The Province of Punjab and others1993 CLC 812 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Butt vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 377 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 743 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Amanat Khan and others vs Settlement Department and others1993 CLC 919 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs Waris Ali And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 165 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs Muhammad Yousaf and another1993 P Cr. L J 1296 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali and 5 others vs Muhammad Sharif and 2 others1993 MLD 377 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station City Khushab and others1993 P Cr. L J 854 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs S.H.O. and 2 others1993 MLD 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-15Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Lal Khan1993 CLC 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20
  pre-emptionspecific performancecourt-executed sale-deedsuperior right of pre-emptioncivil revisionburden of prooforal testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition before the Lahore High Court arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, claiming a superior right of pre-emption against a sale-deed executed through a court decree in a specific performance suit. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the transaction was not pre-emptible and that the petitioner failed to prove his superior right. Upon review, the High Court held that a sale executed by the court on behalf of a vendor pursuant to a decree for specific performance is indeed pre-emptible, as the court acts as the agent of the vendor. However, the High Court upheld the appellate court's finding on the second point, ruling that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily prove his alleged relationship to the vendors through reliable affirmative evidence, noting that a plaintiff cannot reserve their own statement in affirmative until after the close of defence evidence. The civil revision was accordingly dismissed on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sale of land concluded through a court-executed sale-deed in pursuance of a decree for specific performance is pre-emptible?
  • Can a plaintiff reserve their own statement in affirmative to be recorded after the close of the defendant's evidence?
  • Whether uncorroborated oral testimony of a plaintiff is sufficient to establish a disputed relationship for a claim of superior right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf and Co. vs Adam Sugar Mills Ltd Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 45 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-23Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 50 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya Sheikh vs The Government of Punjab And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 145 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya Alias Allah Ditta vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya alias Allah Ditta and 4 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Yousaf1993 MLD 2504 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-31Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 368 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others1993 MLD 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Hakim Ali and 5 others1993 MLD 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Hafiz Zahoor Ahmed and another1993 CLC 1359 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-23
  civil revisionclosing evidencejudicial disciplineburden of proofprocedural delayadjournmentsCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, which affirmed the trial court's decision to close the plaintiffs' evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and subsequently dismiss their suit for want of proof. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction and discretion in closing the plaintiffs' evidence after numerous adjournments were granted without the plaintiffs producing evidence to discharge their burden of proof. The High Court held that the trial court's application of Order XVII, Rule 3 was neither improper nor illegal, noting that the record was replete with unjustified delays and procrastination by the plaintiffs despite multiple opportunities. The court affirmed that a trial court is not at the mercy of litigants and possesses the inherent power to enforce judicial discipline to prevent the abuse of process. Consequently, the revision petition was found to be without merit and dismissed in limine, as there was no scope for interference with the lower courts' exercise of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court close a party's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to persistent failure to produce evidence after multiple adjournments?
  • Is the exercise of discretion by a trial court to close evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subject to interference in civil revision if the record shows unjustified delay?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to substantiate their claim when the defendant denies the alleged donation?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 7 others vs Mst. Hussain Bibi1993 CLC 228 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03
  co-shareradverse possessionousterinheritance mutationlimitationIslamic law of inheritancecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a judgment and decree of the lower appellate court which decreed the respondent-daughter's suit for possession of agricultural land as an heir of her deceased father, reversing the trial court's dismissal. The core legal questions involve whether a co-sharer sister can be ousted by her brothers through adverse possession and whether such a suit is barred by time when inheritance mutation was sanctioned years prior. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that a sister becomes a co-sharer automatically upon the death of her father under Islamic law and that the possession of one co-sharer is deemed to be for the benefit of all. The court ruled that the plea of adverse possession or ouster by brothers against a sister is untenable, that wrong mutations confer no title, and that the suit is within limitation. The key principles laid down are that adverse possession and ouster cannot be successfully pleaded amongst co-sharers, particularly between brothers and a sister, and that an inheritance mutation is merely a fiscal arrangement for land revenue and does not extinguish the title of rightful heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a brother can claim adverse possession or ouster against his sister in respect of joint ancestral property?
  • Does a wrong inheritance mutation confer any right or title in property against a rightful legal heir?
  • Is a suit for possession and declaration filed by a co-sharer barred by time merely due to the lapse of years since the sanctioning of a contested inheritance mutation?
  • Does the possession of one co-sharer operate as constructive possession on behalf of all other co-sharers?
  Read full judgment →
• Aljehad Trust and others vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and 7 others1993 PLD Lahore 855 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Aljehad Trust and anothers vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and 81993 PLD Lahore 875 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Wali Muhammad1993 MLD 666 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 557 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20
  grave and sudden provocationright of private defenceprotection of honourZinamurderQisas and DiyatInjunctions of Islam
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal appeal against conviction under section 304-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and a criminal revision for enhancement of sentence. The core legal question was whether a husband killing a trespasser caught committing Zina with his wife under grave and sudden provocation is liable to Qisas, Tazir, or Diyat, or if the act is protected under Islamic injunctions regarding self-defence and the protection of honour. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant acted within his lawful right to defend his home and honour when he surprised the deceased committing Zina with his wife at night, and that such an act under grave and sudden provocation incurs no liability to Qisas, Tazir, or Diyat. The court laid down the principle that Islamic injunctions, read in conjunction with statutory provisions such as section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, justify taking the life of an aggressor to prevent the violation of domestic sanctity and honour, and the appellant was accordingly acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a husband have the right under Islamic law to kill a trespasser caught committing Zina with his wife in his house at night?
  • Whether the murder of a person committing Zina with one's wife attracts liability to Qisas or Tazir?
  • Can a court assess the culpability of an accused under the Injunctions of Qur'an and Sunnah pursuant to section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether an accused who kills an aggressor under grave and sudden provocation while defending his home and honour is entitled to acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2211 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and another vs Additional Chief Land Commissioner and others1993 CLC 190 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Bakhsh and 3 others vs Ghulam Muhammad (deceased) and 3 others1993 CLC 876 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Badshah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1290 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs Mushtaq Ahmad and others1993 CLC 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• AlHaj Raees Ahmed Qureshi vs Secretary, Chief Minister's Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan and 3 others vs The State1993 MLD 536 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Shah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Abbas vs Niaz Ahmad and another1993 MLD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan and another vs Muhammad Sharif and 2 others1993 MLD 2288 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Superintendent, District Jail Faisalabad1993 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Goraya vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 310 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Goraia vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ainuddin Khan vs The Collector, Lahore District, Lahore1993 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Aimas Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2072 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Saleem vs Government of the Punjab and others1993 PLD Lahore 118 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Sipra, Mst. Nazeeran Bibi vs The State1993 MLD 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Sipra, Abdul Rehman vs Muhammad Yaqub and 21 others1993 MLD 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmed (deceased) and others vs Sheikh Abdullah and others1993 CLC 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Zaman Khan, Barrister vs Government of Punjab through Collector, Multan and 2 others1993 CLC 1327 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06
  mandatory injunctionnecessary partiescivil revisionabuse of processrevenue record correctionstriking off defencediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a plaintiff in a civil suit for mandatory injunction and damages, sought to delete one of the defendants (the Tehsildar) from the suit, which the trial court refused. The petitioner argued that a plaintiff has the absolute right to control the array of defendants. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that while a plaintiff initiates litigation, the Court controls the proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff cannot unilaterally delete necessary parties, especially when the relief sought (declaration of exclusive ownership and correction of revenue records) affects the rights of third parties (co-owners) who must be impleaded. Furthermore, the Court held that the suit was improperly framed as a mandatory injunction rather than a suit for declaration and injunction. The Court also set aside the order striking off the defence of the government defendants, emphasizing that cases should be decided on merits rather than technicalities, and directed that they be allowed to file written statements upon payment of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff have an absolute right to unilaterally delete a defendant from a suit?
  • Can a court allow a defendant to file a written statement after their defence has been struck off?
  • Is a suit for mandatory injunction the appropriate remedy for seeking a declaration of exclusive ownership of land?
  • Are co-owners of land necessary parties in a suit seeking to correct revenue records to show exclusive ownership?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sipra, Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1993 MLD 360 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sipra, Ghulam Rasool vs S.H.O., P.S. Qadirpur District, Jhang1993 MLD 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 307 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nadeem vs Assia Bibi and another1993 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15
  dissolution of marriageKhulaconstitutional petitionappellate jurisdictionwria jurisdictionfamily court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the husband to challenge the appellate judgment and decree of the District Judge, Rajanpur, which reversed the decision of the Family Court and dissolved the marriage between the parties on the basis of Khula. The core legal question was whether the appellate court had the jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal of the suit and dissolve the marriage on the principle of Khula where the wife demonstrated a fixed aversion and refusal to live with the husband. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the right of a wife to seek dissolution on the ground of Khula is equal to the husband's right to pronounce Talaq, and a court cannot force a wife to live with her husband if she has developed a settled hatred towards him and the parties cannot live within the limits ordained by Allah. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court exercising jurisdiction in family matters acts as a Qazi with powers to assess the possibility of a harmonious marital union, and where the wife shows a determined aversion coupled with prolonged separation, dissolution of marriage on the principle of Khula is fully justified.

  Questions settled

  • Can a marriage be dissolved on the principle of Khula if the wife exhibits a fixed aversion towards her husband?
  • Does an appellate court acting within the hierarchy of family laws possess the status and powers of a Qazi to assess marital discord?
  • Can a writ petition be entertained for the reappreciation of evidence regarding the dissolution of marriage?
  • Is a wife to be forced to live with her husband if she has developed hatred and cannot observe the limits of Allah?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Province of Punjab and others1993 MLD 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs Muhammad HusainK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain Shah vs Mst. Taj Bibi and another1993 CLC 2152 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Badar Din1993 CLC 817 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 888 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and 4 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1768 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Chairman, Islamabad vs Sheikh Siraj-Ud-Din and 2 others1993 MLD 2381 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aftab Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-03Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 882 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-05Read full judgment →
• Adnan Tariq vs Vice-Chancellor of the University of Punjab1993 PLD Lahore 341 · Lahore High Court
  medical educationuniversity regulationemergency powersretrospective applicationvested rightsacademic councilsyndicate approval
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, medical students, challenged a regulation framed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Punjab on April 13, 1992, which barred candidates failing to clear the First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances (availed or unavailed) from further medical education. The petitioners contended that the Vice-Chancellor lacked jurisdiction under his emergency powers to frame the regulation without the Academic Council's recommendation and Syndicate's approval, and that the regulation could not apply retrospectively to students admitted before its passage. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that any initial procedural defect in the regulation's framing was cured when the Academic Council and Syndicate subsequently approved it. Furthermore, the Court ruled that students do not possess a vested right to be examined under the regulations in force at the time of their admission, and that the regulation was reasonable and aligned with the directives of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council.

  Questions settled

  • Does the subsequent approval of a university regulation by the Academic Council and the Syndicate cure any initial jurisdictional defect in its framing by the Vice-Chancellor?
  • Do medical students have a vested right to be examined under the regulations that were in force at the time of their admission?
  • Can a university regulation validly count unavailed examination chances as failures to determine a student's eligibility for further education?
  Read full judgment →