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.

• Ilyas Masih vs Raja Zafar Iqbal, S.H.O., Police Station Satrah, District1992 PLD Lahore 220 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10
  illegal detentionhabeas corpuspolice excesscivil disputewrongful confinementcompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed regarding the illegal detention of a citizen by the police. The core legal question was whether the police acted within their lawful authority by detaining an individual in connection with a purely civil dispute involving a monetary claim, absent any cognizable offence or judicial order. The Court found that the police action was entirely illegal and unwarranted, as the underlying dispute was civil in nature and no cognizable offence had been committed. Furthermore, there was no order from any Magistrate or court of law authorizing the police to inquire into the matter. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the detenu. Additionally, the Court held that the S.H.O. was liable for the illegal act, which caused the citizen unnecessary loss and expense, and ordered the S.H.O. to pay compensation of Rs. 500 to the detenu. The judgment reaffirms that police powers cannot be invoked to coerce parties in civil disputes without legal justification.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police detain a person in connection with a purely civil dispute involving a monetary claim?
  • Does the police have the authority to investigate a matter without a cognizable offence or a judicial order?
  • Is a police officer liable to pay compensation for illegal detention of a citizen?
  Read full judgment →
• Ilyas Masih vs Raja Zafar Iqbal SHO, Satrah, SialkotK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 488 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ilyas Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 271 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din vs The Government of Pakistan Ministry of Home & KashmirK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 98 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ikram Ullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 563 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ul Haq And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 540 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ikhlaq Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2453 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ijaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 562 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad vs Home Secretary, Government of Punjab And 5 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1662 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad Alias Jajji vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ullah Lambardar vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 280 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar-Ul-Hassan vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab,Lahore And 3 Other1992 PLD Lahore 265 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed vs The State1992 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
• Iffat Mir vs Mobin Qasim MirK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 463 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-01Read full judgment →
• I.C.1. vs Municipal Committee, Sheikhupura1992 CLC 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation vs Muhammad Tahir and others1992 PLC 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-09Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh and 3 others vs Additional District and Sessions1992 CLC 61 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
• Hassan Din And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 538 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• Hassan Din and others vs Sher Muhammad and others1992 CLC 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 556 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ali And Others vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 852 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-08Read full judgment →
• Hameedud-Din vs Inspector General of Police Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-18Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan vs The State ,1992 PLD Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Sadar Din vs Mst. Shakeela Begum1992 CLC 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Muhammad vs Member Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Saleem vs Sultan Khan1992 CLC 1952 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Hanif vs The State Respondcnt1992 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20
  investigating officeradmissibility of evidenceopinion evidenceexpert evidencejudicial functioncriminal trialpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order of the trial court declaring admissible a portion of the statement of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) testifying as a court witness, wherein he stated that certain accused persons were innocent based on his investigation. The core legal question was whether an Investigating Officer's statement regarding the innocence or guilt of an accused constitutes a statement of fact or an opinion, and whether such an opinion is admissible in evidence under Articles 59 to 65 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Lahore High Court held that an Investigating Officer is not an expert as envisaged by law, and an investigation is merely a collection of evidence rather than a science or art. Consequently, an Investigating Officer's conclusion regarding innocence or guilt is an inadmissible opinion, and drawing such inferences is exclusively a judicial function. The petition was accepted, the trial court's order was set aside, and the offending portion of the witness's statement was declared inadmissible and ordered to be removed from the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statement by an Investigating Officer that an accused is innocent or guilty constitutes a statement of fact or an opinion?
  • Is the opinion of an Investigating Officer regarding the guilt or innocence of an accused admissible in evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Does an Investigating Officer qualify as an expert whose opinion is relevant under the law of evidence?
  • Can a court permit an Investigating Officer to usurp the judicial function of drawing inferences from facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ashraf vs S.H.O. and others-1992PCr.LJ 2161 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Liaquat Hussain vs Mst. Robina Yasmin1992 P Cr. L J 1446 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Haji Khursheed Ahmad vs Mehr Salabat Khan, Additional District1992 CLC 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-21
  constitutional petitioncourt-feemaintenance of minorsfamily court appealcustody of childrenfather's liabilityrejection of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the Additional District Judge rejecting a maintenance appeal for failing to pay the requisite court-fee. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was exempt from paying court-fee on the memorandum of appeal regarding a maintenance decree, and whether a father's liability to maintain his children subsists while their custody remains with the mother. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was legally bound to pay court-fee under the Court Fees Act, 1870, and that the Federal Shariat Court's judgment invalidating court-fees had not yet taken effect to excuse non-payment. The Court laid down the principle that a father's liability to provide adequate maintenance to his minor children is unquestionable and subsists until the actual transfer of their custody to him, and he cannot withhold maintenance on the condition that they reside with him. Furthermore, equitable jurisdiction will not be exercised to interfere with an order when doing so would cause minor children to suffer neglect and starvation due to the father's obstinacy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a memorandum of appeal against a maintenance decree is exempt from the payment of court-fee?
  • Does a father's liability to provide maintenance to his minor children subsist while their custody remains with the mother?
  • Can a father withhold maintenance for his children on the condition that they reside with him?
  • Whether the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court declaring court-fees un-Islamic immediately exempts litigants from paying court-fees before taking legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Bhatti vs N.I.R.C. and others1992 PLC 594 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-25
  trade union registrationpower of reviewindustrial relationsvested rightsadministrative lawnatural justicelabour court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition concerns a dispute over the registration of trade union office-bearers. The petitioner, claiming to be the elected President of the Pakistan Telecommunication Lines Staff Union, challenged an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions (Respondent No. 2), which recalled a previous order registering the petitioner's election results. The core legal question was whether the Registrar possessed the statutory power to review or recall a registration order once it had been given effect. The Court held that the Registrar lacks the power of review, as such power is substantive and must be expressly conferred by statute. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Registrar could not invoke Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to rescind the order because the registration had already been implemented, creating vested rights. The Court established that once a registration order is passed, the exclusive remedy for an aggrieved party is to appeal to the Labour Court under Section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the Registrar's recall order was declared void ab initio.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Registrar of Trade Unions possess the inherent power to review or recall an order passed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Can the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897 be invoked to rescind an administrative order after it has been given effect and created vested rights?
  • What is the appropriate legal forum for an aggrieved party to challenge an order of the Registrar of Trade Unions regarding the registration of union office-bearers?
  • Is a power of review a substantive right that requires express statutory conferment?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Bhatti vs (Dr.) Munir Ahmad Mughal, Registrar And Other(K.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 261) · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Irfan Dar and another vs Ghulam Sabir and others1992 CLC 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Bashir vs Habib Bank Ltd.1992 CLC 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs Zahid and others-1992 P Cr. L J 588 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
• Gulzar vs Additional District Judge1992 CLC 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Hussain Noon vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 628 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-07Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1616 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
• Gulzada vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 631 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-05Read full judgment →
• Gulzada vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-05Read full judgment →
• Guljehan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 47 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Gulab vs Mst. Malkani1992 CLC 2123 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-14
  review petitionregular second appealpre-emption suitcondonation of delayrestoration of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed seeking review of a judgment dated 10-9-1988 dismissing a Regular Second Appeal based on the precedent in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287). The core legal question was whether the ratio of Sardar Ali's case applied to a matter where a decree had already been passed prior to the crucial date. The Lahore High Court held that since the pre-emption suit was decreed on 22-12-1965, prior to the crucial date of 31-7-1986, it was not a 'no decree' case and the appeal must be disposed of on merits. The Court also accepted the explanation for the delay in filing the review application as the factual position regarding lack of knowledge was uncontroverted, condoned the delay, accepted the review application, and restored the Regular Second Appeal to its original number for disposal according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule in Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1988 SC 287 apply to pre-emption suits where a decree was passed prior to the crucial date?
  • Can delay in filing a review application be condoned when the applicant lacks knowledge of the dismissal and the opposing party files no counter-affidavit?
  • What is the legal effect on an appeal when it is incorrectly dismissed on the premise of being a 'no decree' case?
  Read full judgment →
• L. D.A. vs Karim Bakhsh NasirK.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 227 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others vs Zafar Iqbal and 3 others1992 CLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01
  evacuee trust propertyequal protection of lawfundamental rightsadministrative discretiondiscriminatory treatmentjudicial reviewconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves Intra-Court Appeals filed by the Government of Pakistan challenging a High Court judgment that directed the transfer of Evacuee Trust Property to the respondents on the same terms as a previously transferred portion. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government's decision to sell one portion of the property to a specific individual at a fixed rate based on 100 years' rent, while mandating a public auction for the respondents' portions, violated the constitutional guarantee of equality. The Court held that the respondents and the other occupant were similarly situated, and the disparate treatment lacked a reasonable classification. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the administrative action was discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights. The key principle laid down is that the doctrine of equality before the law and equal protection, enshrined in Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution, prohibits the State from exercising discretionary authority in an arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory manner against similarly situated citizens, even when acting under statutory schemes that grant administrative discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the disparate treatment of similarly situated citizens in the disposal of government property violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the exercise of administrative discretion under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 subject to judicial review if it is exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner?
  • Can the State justify discriminatory treatment of citizens by citing the personal influence or status of one of the parties involved?
  • Does Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with the Objectives Resolution, impose a limitation on the exercise of discretionary power by State functionaries?
  Read full judgment →
• Gohar Hayat Nas1r vs A.C. Samundri/Registration Officer, Samundri1992 CLC 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 296 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin vs Muhammad LukmanK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 21 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shahbaz vs S.H.O. P/S Saddar Kehror Pacca, Multan AndK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 494 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir And 37 Others vs Punjab Special Court (Suppression1992 P Cr. L J 1932 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionSpecial Court jurisdictionscheduled offencesnon-scheduled offencesstatutory interpretationquashing of orderordinary criminal court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order dated 13 June 1990 passed by Special Court No. 5, Faisalabad, constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975. The Special Court had dismissed the petitioners' application objecting to its jurisdiction to try non-scheduled offences arising from the same transaction as scheduled offences. The core legal question was whether a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 possesses jurisdiction to try non-scheduled offences alongside scheduled offences. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, declaring the impugned order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and directed that the non-scheduled offences be tried by an ordinary criminal court. The Court laid down that a Special Court is a creature of statute and cannot extend its jurisdiction beyond the statutory mandate; under Section 4(2) of the Act, it possesses jurisdiction exclusively to try scheduled offences and cannot try non-scheduled offences.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 have jurisdiction to try non-scheduled offences committed in the course of the same transaction as scheduled offences?
  • What course of action must a Special Court take under Section 4(2) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 upon forming the opinion that an alleged offence is not a scheduled offence?
  • Can a statutory Special Court expand its jurisdiction beyond the express terms and offences listed in the schedule of the statute creating it?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sadiq And Another vs The StateK.L.R.1992 Criminal Cases 258 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Mst. Hamioa Begum And Other1992 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases .35 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Oadir And Others vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others1992 CLC 278 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Alias Modia vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 459 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad And Other vs Syed Nasir Hussain And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 7 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Saghir Hussain1992 CLC 1848 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs District Magistrate, Muzaffargarh And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26
  criminal revisionexhumationpost-mortem examinationjudicial orderinquestnatural justicerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order of the District Magistrate permitting the exhumation of a deceased person and a fresh post-mortem examination upon an application by the accused party. The core legal questions were whether an inquiry and order passed under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are judicial in nature and amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, and whether such an order is vitiated if passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the complainant or the State in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Lahore High Court held that proceedings and orders of a Magistrate holding an inquest and ordering exhumation under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are judicial in character and consequently open to revision under section 439 of the Code. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that passing a mechanical order for exhumation without notice to the opposing parties violates the fundamental principle of natural justice that no person shall be condemned unheard.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a Magistrate under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a judicial order?
  • Is an inquiry and order for exhumation under section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 439 of the Code?
  • Does an order for the exhumation of a dead body passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the complainant or the State violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Muhammad Qasam1992 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib vs Mst. Zubaida Khatoon1992 CLC 1926 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-28
  past maintenancelimitation periodArbitration CouncilMuslim Family Laws Ordinanceconstitutional petitionright to sue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged orders passed by the Collector and the Chairman, Arbitration Council, which awarded the respondent maintenance for a period of ten years and six months, alongside a payment for dowry articles. The core legal question was whether the Arbitration Council possesses the authority to award past maintenance for a period exceeding the limitation period prescribed by law. The Court held that awarding maintenance for ten years and six months was legally unsustainable. Relying on the principle established in Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (PLD 1972 SC 302), the Court affirmed that Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to claims for past maintenance, which limits the claim to a period of six years from the date the right to sue accrues. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and the matter was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • What is the applicable limitation period for a claim of past maintenance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • Does Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to claims for past maintenance?
  • Can an Arbitration Council award maintenance for a period exceeding six years prior to the institution of the application?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib Rana vs District Judge, Rawalpindi/Election Tribunal1992 CLC 1824 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1213 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 486 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 1956 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 571 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam And Others vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and others vs Haji Allah Bakhsh and others1992 CLC 498 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar Alias Abari vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 487 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The State1992-P-Cr. L J 842 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-20Read full judgment →
• Ghuiam Abbas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 337 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
• Gall vs Muhammad Iqbal And Another1992 P Cr. L J 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Fiaz Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1715 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
• Feroze Din Etc. vs StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 198 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Feroze Din and 12 others vs Administrator, R.P.1992 CLC 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
• Fazlur Rahman vs Registration Officer1992 CLC 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs Mst. Musharraf Sultana1992 PLD Lahore 250 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07
  civil revisionrestoration of petitioninherent powersdismissal for defaultnon-prosecutionpre-emptionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the restoration of a civil revision petition that was previously dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the inherent jurisdiction to restore a civil revision petition dismissed in default, despite the absence of an express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 analogous to those governing suits or appeals. The Court held that while the Code does not contain a specific provision for restoring a civil revision, it does not prohibit such action. Relying on the principle that tribunals possess inherent power to correct errors and prevent the abuse of process to ensure justice, the Court affirmed that it has the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall an order of dismissal in default and restore the petition. The key principle laid down is that the inherent power of the Court is designed to meet situations not covered by express provisions, and it may be invoked to promote justice and rectify procedural omissions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the inherent power to restore a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Are the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 or Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to civil revision petitions?
  • Can a court invoke Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall an order of dismissal in default in the absence of an express statutory provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
• Fateh Mohammad vs Muhammad Ali HassanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 507 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan and others vs Mst. Begum Jan and others1992 CLC 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
• Farooz vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 284 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-23Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Ch. Muhammad Hussain And Mian Bashir1992 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-07
  habeas corpusillegal detentionpolice lock-upbailiff raidunrecorded arrestcosts
  Summary & questions settled

  This habeas corpus petition was filed for the recovery of three alleged detenus from the illegal custody of police officials. A court-deputed bailiff raided the police station and successfully recovered the detenus from the police lock-up, where they were detained without any formal entry of arrest in the daily diary or production before a magistrate. The core legal question concerned the legality of the detention and whether the responsible police officer committed an offence by keeping persons in confinement without recording their arrest. The Lahore High Court held that the offence under section 343 of the Pakistan Penal Code was clearly made out against the delinquent Assistant Sub-Inspector based on the bailiff's report and evidence. The Court accepted the petition with costs, directed the registration of a case against the police official, ordered his suspension pending investigation, and mandated that the detenus be released on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the detention of persons in a police lock-up without recording their arrest in the daily diary constitutes illegal confinement?
  • Can a criminal case be ordered to be registered against a police officer for wrongful confinement upon a habeas corpus petition?
  • Whether costs can be imposed upon a police officer found responsible for illegal detention during habeas corpus proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad And Others vs Ch. Ali Muhammad And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08
  quashment of FIRcivil disputestay of criminal proceedingsproperty ownership disputeinherent jurisdictioncriminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court seeking the quashment of F.I.R. No. 56, dated 14-3-1988, registered at Police Station City Bhakkar. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should continue when a bona fide civil dispute regarding the ownership of the property in question is simultaneously pending adjudication before a competent Civil Court. The petitioners and respondent No. 3 were engaged in active civil litigation regarding the title of House No. A/73, with cross-suits filed by both parties. The Court held that where the gravamen of a criminal case is essentially a civil dispute over property ownership, it is inappropriate for criminal proceedings to proceed concurrently. Consequently, the Court ordered that the criminal proceedings be stayed pending the final adjudication of the civil suits by the Civil Judge at Bhakkar. The Court further directed that upon the conclusion of the civil litigation, the Civil Judge shall forward the judgment to the Criminal Court to determine the future course of the criminal proceedings, mandating the civil suits be decided within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be stayed when a civil suit regarding the same property dispute is pending?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding property ownership necessitate the suspension of criminal proceedings initiated over the same subject matter?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for a Criminal Court when a civil dispute regarding the property in question is pending before a Civil Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 243 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Fakhar vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 393 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Fajja through his Legal Heirs vs Muhammad and others1992 CLC 1711 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-15Read full judgment →
• Fajar Khan vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 513 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Faiz Rasul vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 942 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ilahi vs Shamir And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 715 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Ferro Alloys Pakistan Ltd. Co. through Chairman vs Toyo Menka Kaisha1992 CLC 712 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• Employees Old Age Benefits Institution, Government of Pakistan, Karachi vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1992 PLC 742 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ehsanul Haq Piracha And Another vs Tajammal HussainK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Arshad Ali And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Divisional Canal OfficerK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 203 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →