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.

• Muhammad Tariq Raza vs Province of Punjab and others,1992 CLC 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02
  Constitutional petitionMedical college admissionMerit determinationAdministrative fairnessEligibility criteriaProspectus interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the respondents to admit the petitioner to an M.B.,B.S. program in a Punjab medical college. The core legal question was whether a candidate, who submitted an application before the deadline but whose examination result was declared shortly thereafter, could be denied admission despite qualifying on merit before the final selection date. The Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to grant the petitioner admission. The Court held that the eligibility and merit of a candidate must be determined as of the date of final selection, rather than the application deadline. It reasoned that administrative authorities are obligated to act fairly and reasonably. Denying admission to a qualified candidate solely because their result was pending at the time of application, when it was available well before the final selection, was deemed unreasonable and discriminatory. The Court clarified that the relevant Prospectus provisions did not explicitly prohibit the consideration of candidates whose results were pending at the time of application, provided they qualified before the final selection process concluded.

  Questions settled

  • Is the eligibility and merit of a candidate for admission to a medical college determined as of the date of application or the date of final selection?
  • Can a candidate be denied admission to a medical college if their examination result was declared after the application deadline but before the final selection date?
  • Are administrative authorities required to act fairly and reasonably when interpreting admission rules in a prospectus?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tallat vs Mst. Yasmin Zohra and another1992 CLC 1180 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs General Manager, Lahore Telecommunication(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 287) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1093 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 702 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Inayat Khan1992 CLC 1748 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 885 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq Khan vs District Magistrate1992 PLD Lahore 140 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-11
  preventive detentionadequate remedyconstitutional petitionrepresentation against detentionwritsdelegation of powerspublic order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a reference made by a learned Single Judge regarding whether a representation under section 6(a) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance XXXI of 1960 constitutes an adequate remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, thereby barring a direct constitutional petition. The core legal question concerns the efficacy and mandatory nature of the statutory representation against preventive detention orders. The Lahore High Court held that the right to make a representation against preventive detention, rooted in Article 10(5) of the Constitution and effectuated through section 3(6) and (6-a) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance XXXI of 1960, carries an implicit legal obligation upon the Government to decide the representation expeditiously. Consequently, this remedy is adequate within the meaning of Article 199, making the filing of a representation generally a prerequisite, though exceptions exist based on the facts of each case, such as lack of jurisdiction or where grounds are not communicated. Furthermore, delegated powers to District Magistrates under section 3(1) do not require a separate reference to the Government under subsection (2).

  Questions settled

  • Whether a representation under section 6(a) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance XXXI of 1960 can be considered to be an adequate remedy within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does the right of a detenu to make a representation against a detention order carry with it a corresponding legal obligation on the Government to decide the representation?
  • Can a District Magistrate pass an order of detention independently when powers under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 have been delegated, or is a reference to the Government mandatory under subsection (2)?
  • Does the failure to file a statutory representation invariably bar a detenu from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court straightaway?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher Alias Shera And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23
  narcoticsheroin possessionbail applicationcognizable offencechemical examinationProhibition Ordersearch and seizure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, who was arrested following the recovery of eighty grams of heroin from his possession during a raid at the house of a co-accused. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of false implication, lack of commercial intent, non-cognizability of the alleged offences, and procedural violations under Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions were whether the possession of eighty grams of heroin attracted the provisions of Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979, whether the offence was cognizable, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the quantity sent for chemical examination. The Court held that the quantity recovered militated against the argument of personal consumption, thereby attracting Article 3, which is a cognizable offence. The Court further held that Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not apply to this search and that the prosecution is not limited to the quantity sent for chemical analysis. The petition for bail was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of eighty grams of heroin fall under Article 3 or Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
  • Are searches conducted under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 subject to the requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused liable only for the quantity of narcotics sent for chemical examination, or for the total quantity recovered?
  • Is the offence of possessing narcotics under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979 a cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Returning Officer1992 CLC 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Shafique and 2 others1992 CLC 2476 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mehbub Alam and 4 others1992 MLD 37 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Sheikh vs District Health Offi( .R, Mi Tan And 4 Other1992 PLD Lahore 415 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-17
  fundamental rightsfreedom of tradedrug sale licensequalified dispenserpharmacist registrationunreasonable restrictionlicensing regulation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Secretary-General of the Dispensers Association, Punjab, challenging the validity of Rule 20 of the Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988. The petitioner sought a declaration that the requirement for dispensers to be registered as pharmacists under the Pharmacy Act, 1967, to obtain a drug sale license was unconstitutional. The core legal question was whether mandating that a person must be a registered pharmacist to obtain a license for the simple sale of drugs constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to engage in a lawful trade or business under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the business of selling drugs does not involve manufacturing or administration, and requiring a dispenser to qualify as a pharmacist imposes an unreasonable, arbitrary restriction. Consequently, the Court declared Rule 20(2) of the Punjab Drugs Rules, 1988, void as violative of Article 18. The principle established is that while the state may regulate trade through licensing, it cannot impose qualifications that effectively deprive citizens of their right to earn a livelihood by conflating the requirements of a profession with those of a trade.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement for a drug seller to be a registered pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act 1967 constitute an unreasonable restriction on the right to trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the state impose professional qualification requirements on a trade or business under the guise of licensing regulations?
  • Is a rule requiring a dispenser to become a registered pharmacist to obtain a drug sale license violative of the fundamental right to enter upon a lawful profession or business?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Khan vs Muhammad AliK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 73 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham Alias Sona vs Thestate .1992 PLD Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahbaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1476 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft vs The State1992 P Cr: L J 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft and others vs Sher Muhammad through his Legal Heirs1992 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 326 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Khan and others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land)1992 CLC 372 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The. State1992 P Cr. L J 2232 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2606 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Sultan Mahmood and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Qazi Imtialulhassan and others1992 CLC 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muniran Bibi and others1992 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15
  custody of minorconstitutional jurisdictionpast and closed transactionfamily courtconsolidation of holdings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment by the Additional District Judge, Okara, which had set aside a Family Court order regarding the custody of a minor, Mst. Kashmiran. The dispute arose following the divorce of the petitioner and respondent, with the respondent seeking custody of the minor child. However, the judgment text provided is highly fragmented and appears to conflate the custody matter with unrelated observations regarding the 'Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance' and the concept of 'past and closed' transactions. The Court observed that the possessions had changed and the operation had concluded, rendering it unfair and unjust to reopen the case at this stage. Consequently, the Court held that the principles underlying the relevant Ordinance had been complied with, and no case was made out to warrant interference under its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed on the basis that the matter was a past and closed transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere in a custody matter where the underlying transaction is considered past and closed?
  • Does the principle of 'past and closed' transactions apply to custody disputes under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an appellate order of an Additional District Judge in a custody case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Deputy Superintendent of Police (Malik Gul1992 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-23
  forged documentcriminal procedurejurisdiction of policebar to cognizancepurposive constructioncivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter before the Lahore High Court involved a reference to a larger Bench concerning the interpretation of section 195, subsection (1), clause (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically whether its bar against private complaints or police investigation applies to a document forged before the institution of a suit or proceeding in which it is subsequently produced or given in evidence. Reviewing conflicting judicial authorities from pre-partition India and various High Courts, Justice Fazal Karim examined both literal and purposive approaches to statutory construction. The Court held that section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applies only to cases where the offence of forgery is committed by a party to a proceeding while that proceeding is pending, possessing a close nexus with the judicial process, and does not extend to documents forged prior to the institution of the suit. Consequently, the first referred question was answered in the negative, establishing that the police are not barred from registering and investigating a case regarding a pre-forged document simply because it was later produced in a civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 195, subsection (1), clause (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 apply to a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court but which had been forged before the institution of the suit or proceeding?
  • Does section 195(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bar the police from registering a case and investigating offences relating to documents forged prior to the commencement of judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi And Others vs The State1992 PCr. LJ 2603 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 825 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and others vs Additional District Judge and others1992 CLC 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1742 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Hamid Baig and others1992 CLC 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Administrator, Market Committee, Jampur1992 P Cr. L J 2254 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 706 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Waseer vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2533 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 11 others vs Municipal. Corporation, Bahawalpur1992 CLC 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Mian Ehsan-Ul-Haq CH.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 471 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Faqir Muhammad1992 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and anothers vs Muhammad Nawaz and 5 others1992 CLC 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2532 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 334 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Alias Billoo vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2258 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 342 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rauf Anwar vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 729 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02
  summoning of witnessesadditional evidencefilling lacunajust decision of the casefair trialcriminal revisiondischarge orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which dismissed an application filed under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during a murder trial. The application sought to bring on record attested copies of two First Information Reports and related discharge orders concerning a conspiracy allegation against certain accused persons. The trial judge had dismissed the application on the ground that it would fill a lacuna in the prosecution's case. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon or admit documents essential for a just decision under Section 540, Cr.P.C., on the pretext of filling a lacuna. The Lahore High Court held that Section 540 consists of a discretionary first part and a mandatory second part requiring the court to summon evidence if it appears essential for a just decision of the case. The High Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the primary duty of a court is to discover the truth, technicalities should not hinder justice, and the admission of such documents did not prejudice the defence since the facts were already part of the police report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 impose a mandatory duty on the court to summon evidence if it appears essential for a just decision of the case?
  • Whether the production of documents mentioned in a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prejudices the defence of the accused?
  • Can a trial court refuse to invoke its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 solely on the ground that it would fill a lacuna in the prosecution case?
  • Is the primary duty of a criminal court to seek the truth and arrive at a just decision notwithstanding technicalities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Haji Abdur Rahim and 2 others1992 CLC 568 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid BUTTPetttioner vs Government of Pakistan1992 CLC 2219 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 141 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs M. Ashraf Bhatti And Others1992 P Cr. L J 276 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Deputy Commissioner, Attock And Another1992 PLD Lahore 322 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25
  quo warrantopublic officeprivate compromisepeasant seatUnion Councildisqualificationjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was instituted as a writ of quo warranto challenging the election and entitlement of respondent No. 2 to a peasant seat of Union Council Qatbal, Fateh Jang, on the ground of disqualification. During proceedings, a compromise between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was reported. The core legal questions were whether a writ of quo warranto concerning usurpation of a public office can be disposed of or compromised by private settlement, and how judicial discretion must be exercised upon proof of disqualification. The Lahore High Court held that a public office cannot be the subject matter of barter or private compromise. As it was conceded that respondent No. 2 held land disqualifying him from being a peasant member, the Court retained a duty to prevent an unqualified person from holding public office. Declaring the election illegal, the Court laid down that judicial discretion must be exercised reasonably and not to perpetuate an unlawful usurpation of public office.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ petition in the nature of quo warranto be dismissed or settled on the basis of a private compromise between the parties?
  • Whether the High Court has a duty to proceed with an inquiry in quo warranto proceedings once an unqualified person is shown to hold a public office, irrespective of a private settlement?
  • Can the judicial discretion of the High Court in a writ of quo warranto be exercised to decline interference where usurpation of a public office is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1992 CLC 543 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif1992 CLC 557 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raft vs Municipal Committee, Wazirabad and others1992 CLC 945 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Khan vs Province of Punjab through Collector1992 CLC 1775 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-30
  land acquisitionmarket valuelocus standi of beneficiarycompensation awardreference court jurisdictionpotential valueappellate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves regular first appeals arising from an award rendered by the Senior Civil Judge/Reference Court concerning the determination of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the construction of a building for Radio Pakistan, Bahawalpur. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of appeals by the beneficiary corporation, the proper assessment of market value for large tracts of urban agricultural land with potential for building purposes, and the powers of the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant relief to non-appealing claimants. The Lahore High Court held that the beneficiary corporation has no locus standi to file an appeal against the compensation award, that the market value must be assessed based on comparable genuine sales with appropriate deductions for large tracts, and that appellate courts possess ample power under Order XLI Rule 33 to grant relief to co-claimants. The court enhanced the compensation rate and allowed statutory benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the beneficiary of land acquisition has the locus standi to file an appeal against the award of the Reference Court under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does the Reference Court possess the jurisdiction to determine the question of limitation regarding a reference application sent by the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • How should the market value of a large tract of urban agricultural land be assessed when relying on sale instances of smaller plots?
  • Whether an appellate court can grant relief under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to a party who has neither filed an appeal nor a cross-objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Khan vs Mumtaz Ahmad Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 269 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique And 5 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 935 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Butt And 6 Others vs Mukhtar Ahmad And Another1992 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15
  post-arrest bailmurderconflicting versionsfurther inquiryconfessional statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to bail in a case presenting conflicting versions of the occurrence, specifically where the initial FIR named a different absconding accused and a subsequent statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure implicated the petitioner through the testimony of the deceased's wife. The Lahore High Court held that where a case involves multiple and irreconcilable versions of events, it squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that contradictory versions and delayed supplementary statements creating reasonable doubt regarding the involvement of an accused warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a case of conflicting versions fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary evidence against him consists of a tainted statement requiring further corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in implicating an accused through a supplementary statement create reasonable grounds for granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qayyum And 19 Others vs Rana Warris Ali Khan1992 P Cr. L J 2641 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parvez vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The Superintendent of Police and 3 others-1992 P Cr. L J 227 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Government of Pakistan and others1992 CLC 545 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Alias Pappu vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Alias Pappu vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 523 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Additional District Judge1992 CLC 1487 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-07
  minor custodyguardians and wardswelfare of minorhizanatmother remarriageconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a guardianship dispute over the custody of a ten-year-old girl, Tahira Yasmin, between her mother, Mst. Naziran, and her paternal-grandfather, Muhammad Nawaz. The Trial Court initially granted custody to the grandfather under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, holding that the mother had forfeited her right of hizanat by contracting a remarriage. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision and allowed the minor to remain with her mother. The petitioner challenged this appellate order in the Lahore High Court under constitutional jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the mother's remarriage to a stranger entails an absolute forfeiture of her right to custody, and whether the welfare of the minor warranted transferring custody to the paternal-grandfather. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration to which personal law is subordinated, and that remarriage with a person out of the prohibited degrees does not entail an absolute disqualification of the mother's preferential right to hizanat. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of the minor is a question of fact determined by material circumstances—such as financial stability, proper care, and the emotional well-being of the child—rather than rigid presumptions.

  Questions settled

  • Does remarriage of a mother with a person out of prohibited degrees entail an absolute forfeiture of her right of Hizanat?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining child custody under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • Can the personal law regarding custody be subordinated to the welfare of the minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs Muhammad Alam1992 CLC 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28
  civil revisionpromissory noteleave to appear and defendconditional leavenegotiable instrumentsrecovery of money
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of four civil revision petitions arising from suits for recovery of money filed on the basis of promissory notes under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in granting conditional leave to appear and defend the suits upon the deposit of half the suit amount or furnishing a bank guarantee, given that the petitioner admitted signing the promissory notes but alleged coercion. The Lahore High Court held that since execution of the promissory notes was admitted, a statutory presumption of consideration arose under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, thereby justifying conditional leave to defend; however, the specific condition of depositing cash or a bank guarantee was excessively harsh. The court modified the impugned orders by replacing the cash deposit and bank guarantee requirement with a direction to furnish property security to the satisfaction of the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted, conditional leave to defend is justified, but onerous financial conditions should be mitigated to serve the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conditional leave to appear and defend a suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be granted when the execution of a promissory note is admitted?
  • Does a presumption of consideration arise under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 when the signature and execution of a promissory note are admitted?
  • Is a condition requiring the deposit of half the suit amount or a bank guarantee for granting leave to defend always justifiable, or can it be modified to personal or property security in the interest of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer Alias Billa And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2244 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzaffar Rabbani vs Board of Intermediate & SecondaryK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 259 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 43 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mazhar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 443 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13
  murdercompromiseQisas and Diyatacquittalcompoundable offencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Mazhar against his conviction and sentence for the murder of Ghulam Rasul, alongside a State appeal against the acquittal of his brother, Naseer Ahmad. The trial court had convicted Muhammad Mazhar under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting Naseer Ahmad. During the appellate proceedings, the parties submitted a compromise, asserting that the legal heirs of the deceased had forgiven the accused in the name of Allah. The court examined the legal heirs, including the widow, mother, father, brother, and the complainant, who confirmed the compromise and the forgiveness of the accused. The court observed that the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance had rendered offences under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 compoundable, with corresponding amendments to section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the compromise, acquitted the appellant, and maintained the acquittal of the respondent, establishing that a murder conviction may be set aside upon a valid compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 compoundable?
  • Can a conviction for murder be set aside based on a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased?
  • Can natural guardians of minor heirs validly compound an offence of murder on behalf of the minors?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Maroof vs Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others1992 CLC 249 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1651 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Butt vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2535 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1725 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2249 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir and 6 others vs Rashid alias Sheeda and 2 others1992 MLD 58 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and others vs Malik Muhammad Shafi and others1992 CLC 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01
  easement of necessitysite inspectionrevisional jurisdictionpermanent injunctionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 called in question concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1 for a right of way as an easement of necessity was decreed. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court illegally rejected an application for site inspection and whether the concurrent findings regarding the easement of necessity were sustainable. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that site inspection is a discretionary power and not a substitute for evidence, and that concurrent findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless suffering from misreading or non-consideration. The key principle laid down is that an easement of necessity arises when it is demonstrated that a property cannot be accessed or used without it, and concurrent factual findings on such matters will not be upset in revision merely because an alternative view is possible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether site inspection under Order 18 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be treated as a substitute for substantive evidence?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding an easement of necessity be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • When does an easement of necessity legally arise in respect of an immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 552 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishtiaq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 499 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →