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.

• Mst. Zenab. Bibi vs Haji Allah Din and 2 others1992 CLC 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zatun and 3 others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) Punjab and 2 others1992 CLC 1510 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Walayat Jan And Other vs Habib Ullah Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tasleem Akhtar alias Pap vs Abdul Aziz1992 CLC 1836 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shazia Kausar vs Mansab Khan1992 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Abdur Rauf Khan and others1992 CLC 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22
  rejection of plaintlimitationquestion of factremandregular second appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a suit challenging the validity of certain documents, which was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kasur, through the rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation. The appellant contended that she only discovered the documents shortly before filing the suit and alleged that her mother, who purportedly executed the documents, was unaware of them because an imposter had been presented in her place. The District Judge upheld the rejection. The High Court held that the issue of limitation, involving disputed questions of fact regarding the knowledge of the documents and the identity of the executant, could not be summarily decided by rejecting the plaint without recording evidence. The Court emphasized that valuable rights were at stake, necessitating a full trial. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and remanded the suit to the trial court with directions to frame all necessary issues, record evidence on the merits, and decide the entire suit afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation when the facts regarding the date of knowledge of the cause of action are disputed?
  • Is it permissible for a court to decide a complex issue of limitation without recording evidence when the parties' contentions involve disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Abdur Rauf Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 248 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Bibi alias Sheema vs Rashid Ahmad1992 CLC 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Addl. Distt. Judge Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 115 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar Qureshi vs Mst. Najma Lakhwera And Other1992 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakila vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1609 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samia Abbasi vs Muhammad BatalviK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs The Station House Officer of Police Station1992 P Cr. L J 81 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs Federation of Pakistan1992 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14
  Presidential pardonQisas and DiyatObjectives ResolutionArticle 2-AIslamic InjunctionsCommutation of sentenceConstitutional interpretationTa'zir
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a Presidential order dated 8-12-1988 issued under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which commuted death sentences and granted remissions to various categories of prisoners. The core legal question was whether the President’s power to grant pardon or commute sentences extends to cases involving Hudood, Qisas, and Diyat, in light of Article 2-A of the Constitution, which incorporates the Objectives Resolution as a substantive, enforceable part of the Constitution. The Court held that the President possesses no authority to commute, remit, or pardon death sentences awarded in Qisas and Diyat cases, as the right to waive Qisas or accept Diyat vests exclusively in the heirs of the victim under Islamic law. However, the Court affirmed that the President retains the power to pardon or remit sentences for Ta'zir offences in the public interest. The judgment establishes that Article 2-A serves as a touchstone for constitutional interpretation, requiring that state actions and laws conform to the Injunctions of Islam as derived from the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

  Questions settled

  • Does the President of Pakistan have the authority to commute death sentences awarded in cases of Qisas and Diyat?
  • Is Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 a substantive and enforceable part of the Constitution?
  • Can the President of Pakistan exercise the power of pardon or remission in cases of Ta'zir offences?
  • Does the right to waive Qisas vest in the Head of State or the heirs of the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 83 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahib Bibi and others vs Lal1992 CLC 807 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-18
  civil revisiongift deedregistered documentforgeryimpersonationburden of proofpresumption of correctnessconcurrent findings of factfictitious mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit filed by the respondent challenging a registered gift-deed and subsequent mutation of land left by his deceased father, Alawal. The respondent alleged that the gift-deed and its registration were fraudulent, collusive, and forged, executed after Alawal had already died by producing an impersonator before the Sub-Registrar. Both the trial court and lower appellate court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, holding the gift-deed and mutation void and ineffective. The Lahore High Court reviewed the documentary and oral evidence, including the death register showing fraudulent overwriting of Alawal's date of death. The High Court affirmed the lower courts' concurrent findings of fact, holding that no presumption of correctness attaches to a registered document when challenged as forged, and the burden of proving genuine execution remains on the beneficiary. Finding no misreading, non-reading, or material irregularity in the lower courts' rulings, the High Court dismissed the revision petition with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a presumption of correctness attach to a registered document when its execution is challenged as forged or fictitious?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie when a registered gift-deed is challenged as forged and executed by an impersonator after the alleged donor's death?
  • Can a party claiming under a challenged gift-deed rely on the document without examining its scribe or marginal witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safeena vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 554 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Pervez And Another vs The Senior Superintendent of Police, .1992 P Cr. L J 131 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-19
  writ petitionillegal detentionphysical remandpolice custodysuccessive arrestsmisuse of powermagistrate's powersaccused rightscustodial abuse
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the continuous physical detention of an accused person, Haji Anwarul Hassan, for more than fifteen days by the S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Multan, who repeatedly arrested him in different cases registered at the same police station after the expiry of remand in one case. The petitioners contended that this practice constituted a misuse of legal provisions. The S.H.O. and the Magistrate involved initially tried to justify their actions but ultimately tendered an unqualified apology. The Additional Advocate-General assured the court that no further physical remand would be sought in existing cases and the detenu would be sent to judicial lock-up. The Court disposed of the petition, observing that Sections 54 and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were being misused. It was held that an accused required in multiple cases should be deemed arrested in all cases simultaneously, and the maximum physical detention period of fifteen days applies collectively, prohibiting successive arrests or remands in different cases to prolong police custody.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person required in multiple cases be successively arrested in each case to prolong physical detention?
  • Does the fifteen-day limit for physical detention under Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, apply to each case individually or to the total period of continuous custody?
  • When an accused is arrested in one of several cases registered against them, are they deemed to have been arrested in all such cases simultaneously?
  • Is it permissible for police to re-arrest an accused in another case after their release on bail or expiry of remand in a previous case, if all cases were registered at the same police station?
  • What is the scope of a police officer's power to arrest without warrant under Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly when an accused is involved in multiple cognizable offenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs Abdul Ghafoor1992 CLC 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Ball. vs District Judge, Bahawalnagar and 3 others1992 CLC 1981 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Bibi vs Liaqat Ali And Others1992 P, Cr. L J 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzan Bibi vs Muhammad Boota1992 CLC 2318 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raheela Sattar vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, Home1992 P Cr. L J 1703 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Khalid vs Tahir Butt, S.I. and 6 others-1992 P Cr. L J 512 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nisar Fatima vs Member (Consolidation) Board of Revenue, Punjab and others1992 CLC 537 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen vs S.H.O.1992 P Cr. L J 948 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Begum Alias Sakina And Another vs S.H.O., Police Station1992 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18
  quashment of FIRconstitutional petitionOffence of Zinavalid marriagemala fideabuse of processabduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 353/91, registered under Sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, at the instance of the father of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners contended that they had entered into a valid marriage of their own free will, and that the F.I.R. was a mala fide attempt by the father to harass them for marrying against his wishes. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings for abduction and Zina could be sustained when the alleged abductee, a sui juris adult, denied the abduction and affirmed the marriage. The Court held that the F.I.R. was registered with mala fide intent and constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court quashed the F.I.R., establishing that where a valid marriage is contracted under Muhammadan Law, and the alleged victim denies abduction, criminal proceedings initiated solely to harass the couple are unsustainable and liable to be quashed to prevent the abuse of legal process.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings for Zina and abduction be quashed when the alleged victim denies the offense and affirms a valid marriage?
  • Does a marriage contracted by a girl who has attained the age of puberty constitute a valid marriage under Muhammadan Law?
  • Is an F.I.R. liable to be quashed if it is found to be registered with mala fide intent to harass a couple?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Bibi vs S.H.O., Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad and another-1992 P Cr. L J 1699 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Bibi And Others vs S.H.O. and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehran vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 518 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manzoor Mai vs Abdul Aziz1992 CLC 235 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29
  Muslim Law of giftdelivery of possessiondeclaratory suitspecific reliefunclean handsmutationattornmentsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a suit for declaration challenging the validity of a gift of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the gift was perfected under Muslim Law through the essential requirements of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession, and whether the respondent-donor was entitled to discretionary relief despite claiming the gift was a fictitious scheme to deceive consolidation authorities. The High Court held that the gift was valid, finding that the donor’s admissions in mutation proceedings and the attornment of tenants constituted sufficient delivery of possession. The Court emphasized that under Muslim Law, where land is occupied by tenants, a request to them to attorn to the donee is sufficient to complete the gift. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the respondent was not entitled to discretionary relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, as he approached the court with "unclean hands" by admitting to a fraudulent scheme. Consequently, the Court set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a request to tenants to attorn to the donee constitute sufficient delivery of possession for a valid gift under Muslim Law?
  • Can a party seeking discretionary relief under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 succeed if they admit to a fraudulent scheme to deceive authorities?
  • Are findings of fact by lower courts open to interference in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they are contrary to the evidence and law?
  • What is the evidential value of admissions made by a donor in mutation proceedings regarding the completion of a gift?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khanoo alias Khanum vs Mamoon and others1992 CLC 2315 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Karim Bib! and others vs Khalifa Ali Muhammad and others1992 CLC 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jewni And Other vs Karim Bakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 376 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T Bibi vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1673 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum through her Legal Heirss vs Muhammad Akbar and 51992 CLC 232 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-01
  case decidedrevisional jurisdictionadditional evidenceconstitutional petitioncivil procedureinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Iqbal Begum (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) filed a civil suit challenging a land mutation as fraudulent. During the trial, the defendants closed their evidence but later applied to examine additional revenue witnesses (Halqa Patwari and Halqa Girdawar). The trial court dismissed the application, but the District Judge accepted the defendants' revision petition and allowed the additional evidence. The petitioners challenged this revisional order through a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court, primarily contending that an order disallowing or allowing additional evidence does not amount to a 'case decided' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory order regarding additional evidence constitutes a 'case decided' for the purpose of revision. The High Court held, relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Abdul Aziz Shah's case, that an order deciding a matter after judicial consideration amounts to a 'case decided' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, making the revisional order competent. The court laid down that leave-refusing orders do not constitute binding declared law, and orders on additional evidence are revisable.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order regarding the summoning of additional evidence amount to a 'case decided' within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether a decision given by the Supreme Court while refusing leave to appeal can be regarded as a considered judgment setting binding law?
  • Is a revisional order passed by a District Judge open to further scrutiny by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a trial court's order disallowing additional evidence be revised under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Begum vs Mst. Hussain Akhtar1992 CLC 2515 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Bibi and 3 others vs Member, Board of Revenue and another1992 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Bibi And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 796 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haideri Begum and others vs Muhammad Aslam Sultan1992 CLC 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulan and others vs Punjab Province1992 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11
  revision petitionappellate proceduredismissal in liminerejection of appealcondonation of delayLivestock Breeding Schemeland resumption
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the resumption of land granted under the Livestock Breeding Scheme by the Collector, Sargodha. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the District Judge subsequently dismissed the petitioners' appeal in limine. The core legal question was whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal on merits rather than rejecting it as improperly constituted due to the absence of the impugned decree. The High Court held that the appellate court should have rejected the appeal as improperly constituted under Order XLI, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rather than dismissing it on merits. This approach would have preserved the petitioners' right to file a fresh appeal within the remaining period of limitation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, treating it as a rejection of the appeal, and granted the petitioners liberty to file a fresh appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, to be decided by the appellate court in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can dismiss an appeal on merits when it is improperly constituted due to the absence of the impugned decree?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to reject an appeal as improperly constituted instead of dismissing it on merits?
  • Is a party entitled to file a fresh appeal if the initial appeal was rejected as improperly constituted?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Sakina and 4 others vs Nishan and 2 others1992 CLC 87 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22
  civil revisionpartition suitcourt-feememorandum of appealdeficiency in court-feeremand of caseres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arises out of a partition suit and subsequent appellate proceedings. The core legal question involved whether a memorandum of appeal could be dismissed for a deficiency in court-fee without first determining the exact amount due and affording the appellant an opportunity to make up the deficiency. The Lahore High Court held that a plaint or memorandum of appeal cannot be dismissed or rejected for being insufficiently stamped unless the correct court-fee is determined with exactitude and a reasonable opportunity is given to the party to pay the deficit. The High Court set aside the lower appellate court's judgment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after proper determination of the court-fee and affording time for its payment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a memorandum of appeal be dismissed for insufficient court-fee without first determining the exact amount payable and affording an opportunity to pay the deficit?
  • Does the bar of res judicata and Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a fresh suit for partition?
  • Is the cause of action for a partition suit a recurring one?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Bibi and others vs Bhikan1992 CLC 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi vs Muhammad Sadiq and others1992 CLC 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Begum vs S.H.O. -1992 P Cr. L J 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azra Parveen vs Rana Saeed AhmadPLD1992 Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amiran vs Akbar Ali And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 2592 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha and 2 others vs Bahawal1992 CLC 861 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Naseem Khan , vs Province of Punjab Through Chief Secretary And 3PLD 1992. Lahore 359 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mrs. Farzana Kamran vs District Magistrate, Gujrat And 2 Others1992 P Cr. L J 2336 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public ordermala fidesvague groundscriminal chargejurisdiction of district magistrate
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the preventive detention of the petitioner's husband, ordered by the District Magistrate of Gujrat under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The core legal questions involved whether grounds of detention amounting to criminal charges bar preventive detention, whether the detention order was vague, malicious, or passed under dictation, and whether confinement outside the detenu's district violated Section 26 of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that preventive detention can legally be based on conduct that may also constitute a criminal offence, provided the statutory requirements are met. The Court found the grounds specific and unrebutted, the allegations of mala fides unsubstantiated, and noted that a subsequent corrigendum rectifying the place of confinement cured any initial jurisdictional defect under Section 26. The key principle laid down is that the availability of punitive criminal proceedings does not bar preventive detention where information indicates activities prejudicial to public order, and the burden of proving mala fides rests heavily on the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can preventive detention be ordered on grounds that also constitute a criminal charge?
  • Whether an initial defect regarding the place of confinement in a detention order can be cured by a subsequent corrigendum?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish mala fides in a preventive detention order?
  • Are the grounds of detention considered vague if they specify names, particulars, and incidents relied upon by the detaining authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Monno O Industries Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1992 CLC 159 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
• Monno O Industries Limited vs Federation of Pakikstan throughK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 25 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Yousaf And Another vs Additional District Judge AttockK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 349 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Riaz Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ismail vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 428 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Boota vs Murad AliK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 44 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Asif vs Arif HussainK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Altaf vs Mohammad NawazK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 404 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Akmal Beg vs Tahawar Ali Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mohamad Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 458 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Miss Wafa Rashed Saleemi vs Chairman of the Admission BoardK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 211 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• Miss Siiazia Mukhtar vs Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and another1992 CLC 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
• Miss Naveeda Farooq vs Principal, Federal Govt. College for Women, Rawalpindi And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 378 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mirza Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• Mirza Khurshid Ahmad M.a And Another vs Purjab Province, through Secretary Home Department, Government Secretariate, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 344 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mirza Arif Baig vs Mubarikali1992 PLD Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-21
  promissory notesummary suituncancelled adhesive stampsinadmissible documentproof of considerationdisputed signaturescomparison of signatures
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the dismissal of a summary suit for the recovery of Rs.25,000 instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of a promissory note. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that the consideration was not proved, the defendant's signatures were not genuine, and the plaintiff's evidence was contradictory and unreliable. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court involved the admissibility of a promissory note with uncancelled adhesive stamps, the proof of consideration, and the comparison of disputed signatures by the court. The High Court held that where adhesive stamps affixed on a promissory note are not duly cancelled, the document is rendered inadmissible in evidence and no decree can be passed upon it. Furthermore, the court upheld the findings that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant was unreliable and that the disputed signatures did not match the admitted signatures. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs. The key principle laid down is that failure to cancel adhesive stamps on a promissory note renders it inadmissible in evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to cancel adhesive stamps on a promissory note render the document inadmissible in evidence?
  • Is a court competent to form its own opinion by comparing disputed signatures with admitted signatures without the assistance of a handwriting expert?
  • Whether the non-proving of an accompanying receipt of consideration leads to the conclusion that payment of consideration has not been proved in a suit based on a promissory note?
  Read full judgment →
• Millat Tractors Employees TRUSTAnd 2 Other vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary,1992 PLD Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court
  privatisationbiddingconstitutional petitionaggrieved personcontractual obligationsdisputed questions of factemployees buy-out
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by Millat Tractors Employees Trust seeking a direction against the Federal Government to refrain from transferring managing shares of Millat Tractors Ltd to respondent No. 4, and to mandate negotiations with the petitioner as the highest bidder under a Memorandum of Agreement. The Federal Government had invited public bids for privatisation under Article 4 of the Transfer of Managed Establishments Order 1978 (P.O. No. 12 of 1978). Respondent No. 4, representing another group of employees, submitted the highest bid, which was accepted. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that petitioner No. 1 was an unsuccessful bidder and not an 'aggrieved person' entitled to relief. The Court held that contractual obligations cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction, and disputed questions of fact regarding employee representation cannot be determined under Article 199. Furthermore, the Memorandum of Agreement did not bind third-party bidders, and the statutory process of public auction under P.O. No. 12 of 1978 was fully complied with.

  Questions settled

  • Can contractual obligations arising out of a Memorandum of Agreement be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is an unsuccessful bidder in a public auction an 'aggrieved person' within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the acceptance of a higher bid?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding representation of employee groups be determined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Naseer A. Sheikh vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore1992 PTD 512 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Altaf vs The Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore And Another1992 PLD Lahore 199 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08
  civil revisiontemporary injunctiondiscretionary reliefprima facie caselicence cancellationconcurrent findingspublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from the cancellation of a medical store licence held by the petitioner, Mian Muhammad Altaf, which led him to file a civil suit against the Secretary, Health Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking a temporary injunction against the cancellation order. Both the trial court and the appellate court refused to grant the temporary injunction, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case. The Lahore High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court reasoned that granting a temporary injunction would effectively grant the final relief sought in the suit before trial, potentially allowing the petitioner to continue alleged irregularities in drug sales, which could endanger public health. Emphasizing that the grant of a temporary injunction is a discretionary power, the Court held that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts absent any demonstrated illegality or material irregularity. Consequently, the civil revision was dismissed in limine, affirming that the petitioner's innocence must be established before such relief is granted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of a temporary injunction a matter of right or a discretionary power of the court?
  • Should a court grant a temporary injunction if doing so would effectively grant the final relief sought in the suit before trial?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction if no illegality or material irregularity is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Manzoor Ahmad1992 CLC 961 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-02Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Nabi vs Assistant Commissioner/Registration Officer1992 MLD 212 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mian Ejaz Siddique Etc vs (Mst.) Kaneez Begum EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 574 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mian Ejaz Siddique and others vs Mst. Kaneez Begum and 2 others1992 CLC 1658 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-13
  temporary injunctioncivil court jurisdictioncompanies judgewinding uppostal receiptbank guaranteecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision before the Lahore High Court arose from a dispute between a mother (the plaintiff-respondent) and her son (the defendant-petitioner) regarding the operation of bank accounts of a private limited company. The plaintiff alleged that her son fraudulently obtained her signatures to pass a resolution authorizing him and another individual to operate the company's accounts without her joint signatures. The trial court dismissed her temporary injunction application, but the appellate court reversed it, restraining the defendants from operating the accounts. On revision, the High Court addressed whether ordinary Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over company affairs when winding-up proceedings are pending before a Companies Judge, and the effect of non-compliance with the notice requirements of Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Civil Courts retain plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent injustice where the Companies Judge has not passed any interim order. It further held that attaching a postal receipt of dispatch constitutes sufficient compliance with Order XLIII Rule 3. The Court modified the injunction, directing the plaintiff to retransfer unilaterally withdrawn funds to the company and ordering the defendants to furnish a bank guarantee to secure the plaintiff's investment.

  Questions settled

  • Do ordinary Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over company matters under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when winding-up proceedings are pending but no interim order has been passed by the Companies Judge?
  • Does the failure to serve actual notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require the dismissal of an appeal if a postal receipt of dispatch is attached?
  • Can a Civil Court modify a temporary injunction by directing a party to return unilaterally withdrawn funds to a company's account while requiring the opposing party to furnish a bank guarantee?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Rahim vs Habib Bank Ltd.1992 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Singer Pakistan Limited and aNo ther vs Shaikh Ainulhaq1992 CLC 192 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rajput Builders and others vs National Security Insurance Co1992 CLC 818 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation vs Soofi1992 CLC 1468 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Construction Ltd. vs Aiwan 1 10Bal Authority, Lahore1992 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-01
  temporary injunctionarbitration proceedingsencashment of bondirreparable injurybalance of convenienceprima facie casemoney claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the appellants against the respondent, Aiwan-i-Iqbal Authority, Lahore, concerning the construction of a building complex and the encashment of a performance and mobilization bond. Along with the main application, the appellants filed a petition under section 41 of the Arbitration Act for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from encashing the bond. The trial court dismissed the injunction petition on the ground that no irreparable injury would be caused to the appellants. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, require the satisfaction of three conditions: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The Court laid down the principle that in monetary disputes where the amount is easily ascertainable and recoverable upon ultimate success, the element of irreparable injury is absent, thereby disentitling the party to interim injunctive relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction can be granted under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the absence of irreparable injury?
  • Does the refusal to grant a temporary injunction in a monetary dispute cause irreparable injury when the claimed amount is easily ascertainable and recoverable?
  • What are the essential conditions required for the grant of a temporary injunction in proceedings governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lahore Bricks (Pvt.) Ltd. vs S.H.O. and others-1992 P Cr. L J 344 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Iobal Ghafoor Engineering Works vs Mst. Ghafoor Begum1992 CLC 820 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dawn Sports vs Income Tax Officer1992 PTD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din anothers vs Kh. Mahboob Elahi and 4 others1992 CLC 2457 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-01
  constitutional petitionlandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantejectmentrent-notesub-tenantwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment matter where the tenant and alleged sub-tenant challenged an appellate order directing their eviction from a rented Khokha. The core legal questions involve the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the validity of findings of fact recorded by the appellate court regarding the execution of a rent-note. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the execution of the rent-note was duly proved by the landlords through attesting witnesses and the scribe, and that the tenant's failure to produce expert evidence to rebut his signatures raised an adverse inference against him. The court further held that a tenant who sets up a false and mala fide plea denying the landlord-tenant relationship is liable to be ejected straightaway, and findings of fact by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction absent misreading or non-reading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant have locus standi to challenge the tenancy on the ground that the person who inducted him was not the real owner?
  • Whether the failure of a tenant to produce expert evidence to rebut his signatures on a rent-note raises an adverse inference against him?
  • Is a tenant who takes a mala fide plea denying the relationship of landlord and tenant liable to be ejected straightaway?
  • Can findings of fact recorded by a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction when no misreading or non-reading of evidence is pointed out?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mehr Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 899 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ayyaz- vs Additional District Judge, Chakwal And Other1992 PLD Lahore 441 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Armed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 846 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
• Master Muhammad Sabir vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad Sohail vs Mst. Abida Hanif and 2 others1992 MLD 219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 822 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-07Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain Tahir vs S.H.O., P.S. Nila, Tehsil and District Chakwal1992 CLC 1303 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-15Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Akhtar Alias Kaku vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Nasim Butt vs Mahmoodul Hassan1992 CLC 767 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs L.D.A. and 15 others1992 CLC 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad Alias Kooli And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2256 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07
  post-arrest bailQatl-bis-Sababprohibitory clausefurther inquirybail applicationcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatl-bis-Sabab following the death of a person by electrocution from a water tank. The core legal question was whether the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the prosecution's argument that the act might actually constitute an offence under Section 301 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a heavier penalty. The Court held that since the police challan was submitted under Section 322, it could not presume the offence fell under Section 301 at the bail stage. The Court determined that the offence under Section 322 does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and even if the prosecution's alternative theory were considered, it would constitute a matter for further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail. The key principle established is that the court should not stretch the law in favour of the prosecution at the bail stage, especially when the prosecution's own challan classifies the offence as non-prohibitory.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence punishable by Diyat under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court, at the bail stage, reclassify an offence from the section cited in the police challan to a more serious section based on the prosecution's arguments?
  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception where an offence is non-bailable but does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 460 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs District Collector Sahiwal and 3 others1992 CLC 246 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed vs S.H.O. and others-1992 P Cr. L J 2236 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-29Read full judgment →