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.

• Dil Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2581 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Daulat vs Mohabbat And 6 Other1992 PLD Lahore 167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-17
  criminal revisionacquittalwithdrawal of revisionright of complainantEnforcement of Shariah Actmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the complainant under the Criminal Procedure Code to challenge the acquittal of the respondents on the benefit of the doubt by an Additional Sessions Judge in a murder trial, while their co-accused Nasir was sentenced to death. When confronted with the implication that succeeding in the revision would entail a retrial of the convicted co-accused along with the respondents, the petitioner's counsel chose to withdraw the revision petition. However, the counsel requested permission to participate and present arguments on behalf of the complainant in the pending criminal appeal of the condemned co-accused before the Division Bench. The Lahore High Court held that the request was in consonance with the dictates of Shariah, which enjoys supremacy under section 3 of the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991, as Shariah recognizes and gives preference to individual rights over state authority. The court consequently dismissed the criminal revision as withdrawn while allowing the complainant's counsel the right to oppose the convict's appeal before the Division Bench.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal revision against acquittal be withdrawn by the complainant?
  • Does the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991 allow a complainant to participate and argue in a criminal appeal against conviction?
  • Does Shariah give preference to individual rights over the authority of the State according to the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991?
  Read full judgment →
• Dara vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Companies Zone, Lahore vs Naveed A.1992 PTD 25 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies Zone, Lahore vs Naveed A.K.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 22 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Comdr. Faiz Elahi and 3 others' vs Multan Improvement Trust, Multan1992 CLC 267 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06
  land acquisitioncompulsory acquisition chargeslocus standimarket valueeminent domainstatutory interpretationcompensatory interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves Regular First Appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Multan Improvement Trust. The core legal questions concerned the locus standi of the Trust to challenge a reference court’s award, the validity of excluding 15% compulsory acquisition charges under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, and the correct determination of market value for compensation. The Court held that the Trust lacked locus standi to file an appeal against the reference court’s award, rendering its appeal incompetent. Regarding compensation, the Court affirmed that provisions in the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, which denied compulsory acquisition charges, were ultra vires, thereby entitling owners to such charges and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Furthermore, the Court established that market value must be assessed based on evidence, including binding admissions made by parties under oath, rather than solely relying on historical sale mutations. The judgment reinforces the principle that expropriatory statutes must be strictly construed and that parties cannot claim rights beyond those expressly conferred by statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Improvement Trust have the locus standi to file an appeal against a reference court's award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Are the provisions of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, which deny 15% compulsory acquisition charges, ultra vires?
  • Is a party's admission made under oath regarding the market value of land binding on the court in compensation proceedings?
  • Does the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, require the court to consider inflationary trends and currency depreciation when assessing compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Chughta vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2516 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-14Read full judgment →
• Choudary Mazhar Ali Advocate vs Deputy Commissioner, IslamabadK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 66 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Chishtia Sugar Mills Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1992 CLC 1838 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator, Auqaf vs Syed Imam Ali Shah1992 CLC 1938 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Tajuddin and others vs Government of Punjab and others1992 CLC 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Siddique vs Zulfiqar Ahmad And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 457 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Zulfiqar A14mad And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Nawaz vs Ch. Rehmat Ali and others1992 CLC 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-18Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Javad vs ChairmanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 205 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Malik Siier and 2 others1992 CLC 196 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13
  amendment of plaintadverse possessionconstitutional petitionrevisional jurisdictionalternative pleacivil procedureIslamic injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged a District Judge's order allowing an amendment to a plaint to include an alternative plea of adverse possession. The core legal question was whether such an amendment was permissible or if it fundamentally altered the suit's complexion. The Lahore High Court held that the amendment was permissible, as it neither changed the suit's complexion nor displaced the cause of action, but merely added an alternative plea to support the claim of ownership. The Court affirmed that the power to allow amendments under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is wide and discretionary, intended to facilitate the determination of the real controversy. Furthermore, the Court declined to apply the Shariat Appellate Bench's ruling regarding the repugnancy of adverse possession to Islamic Injunctions retrospectively to an order passed before that ruling's effective date. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the revisional order was found to be lawful and not subject to interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff amend a plaint to include an alternative plea of adverse possession alongside a claim of ownership?
  • Does the rejection of an application for amendment of a plaint constitute a 'case decided' amenable to revision?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order passed by a District Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the plea of adverse possession constitute a change in the complexion of a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Lal Khan vs Sh. Mazhar Imam1992 CLC 857 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• CH. Iftikhar Ahmad Etc. vs Basharat Ali Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 125 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Rasul vs The State and 8 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2360 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Oadir vs President, Summary Military Court And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
• CH. Allah Rakha vs Province of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 369 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-05Read full judgment →
• C.S.C. and others vs Major (Retd.) Ch. Saeedurrehman and others1992 CLC 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
• Budha and others vs Border Area Allotment Committee and others1992 CLC 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Border Area Committee vs Sharif Ahmad Bhatti and others1992 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• Behram Khan And 4 Other vs Mehr Mumtaz Hussain Lali, Additional1992 PLD Lahore 524 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-29Read full judgment →
• Begum Akntar Mirza vs Zahida Parveen and 9 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2305 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
• Before Raja Afrasiab Khan, Rana M. Yamin vs Election Authority and others1992 CLC 954 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Before Irshad Hassan Khan, I Haji Khan Bhatti vs Dr. Munir Ahmad1992 PLC 632 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28
  trade union electionnatural justiceex parte orderwrit jurisdictionindustrial relationsdiscretionary reliefcollective bargaining agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order passed by the Registrar/Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission, which provisionally approved a change of office-bearers for a trade union and directed fresh elections. The petitioner, the ousted President, contended that the order was passed ex parte, violating natural justice, and that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to review his own orders. The Court examined whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appeal to the Full Bench of the Commission under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court held that while the impugned order was technically passed in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem and was thus a nullity, the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not automatic. Since the petitioner's term had expired and the impugned order facilitated the holding of necessary elections, the Court declined to interfere, reasoning that granting the writ would perpetuate the petitioner's unauthorized hold on office and frustrate the election process. The petition was dismissed, subject to undertakings that the new office-bearers would not act until elections were held.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission when an alternative remedy of appeal to the Full Bench exists?
  • Does a quasi-judicial authority, such as the Registrar of the National Industrial Relations Commission, have inherent power to set aside an ex parte order?
  • Can a High Court refuse to issue a writ of certiorari even if the impugned order is found to be without lawful authority?
  • Does the expiry of the statutory term of office-bearers of a trade union affect their standing to challenge an order regarding the change of office-bearers?
  Read full judgment →
• Before Gul Zarin Kiani.J Ilyas and 4 others vs Jan Muhammad1992 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20
  pre-emptionmisdescription of propertyamendment of plaintclerical errorcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners, challenging a registered sale-deed of agricultural land. The trial court decreed the pre-emption suit in favour of the plaintiff, and the lower appellate court dismissed the petitioners' appeal, affirming the judgment. In the civil revision before the Lahore High Court, the petitioners contended for the first time that the plaint contained a misdescription of one of the Khasra numbers, rendering the suit fatal. The core legal question was whether a clerical error regarding the Khasra number in the plaint could be allowed to be corrected by amendment at the revisional stage, and what its effect was on the suit. The High Court held that the misdescription was a pardonable, clerical, and accidental error committed inadvertently by the counsel, which did not mislead the defendants. The Court ruled that it possesses ample powers under the Code of Civil Procedure and inherent jurisdiction to permit amendments of pleadings to correct clerical mistakes and prevent injustice, thereby allowing the substitution of the correct Khasra number.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a misdescription of a Khasra number in the plaint of a pre-emption suit is fatal to the success of the suit?
  • Can a court permit the amendment of a plaint to correct a clerical error regarding property description at the revisional stage?
  • Whether a plaintiff should suffer for an inadvertent mistake committed by their counsel in describing property in the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Before Abdul Majid Tiwana, Muhammad Rafique Khan vs Mumtaz Ahmad1992 CLC 822 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1992 P, Cr. L J 795 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner1992 CLC 2468 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And Other vs BeggaK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 234 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-02Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State,1992 P Cr. L J 2526 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Basharat And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2549 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2627 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Aftab Ahmad1992 CLC 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 881 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
• Baqar vs The State.1992 PLD Lahore 503 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
• Badar-Ul-Islam vs District Judge, Rawalpindi And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 329 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07Read full judgment →
• Azmatullah vs CH. Abdul Haq And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 580 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
• Azhar Iqbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain And Others vs Government of Punjab And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10
  Special Court jurisdictionSuppression of Terrorist ActivitiesAutomatic weaponsF.I.R. allegationsConstitutional petitionRetrospective legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the cognizance and jurisdiction of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) to try the petitioners in a murder case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal questions concerned whether the Special Court had exclusive jurisdiction when offences under the Pakistan Penal Code were committed in combination with offences involving automatic weapons under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, and whether jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the First Information Report regardless of subsequent recovery of weapons or claims of mala fides. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the jurisdiction of the Special Court is to be determined on the basis of the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than the ultimate recovery of the weapon. The court laid down the principle that the truthfulness of allegations regarding the use of automatic weapons like a Kalashnikov cannot oust the Special Court's threshold jurisdiction and must be determined during the trial after recording evidence, and that the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) (Amendment) Act, 1990 validly applies retrospectively.

  Questions settled

  • How is the jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 to be determined?
  • Does the non-recovery of an alleged automatic weapon such as a Kalashnikov oust the jurisdiction of the Special Court?
  • Whether the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) (Amendment) Act, 1990 has retrospective effect?
  • Can the truthfulness of allegations regarding the use of automatic weapons be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage to determine court jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Awami Autos vs Syed Ward Ali and others1992 CLC 748 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17
  revision petitionex parte proceedingssubstituted serviceservice of summonsmaterial irregularitycorporate identity
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was directed against the trial court's order dismissing an application under Order IX, rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside ex parte proceedings in a declaration suit. The core legal question was whether substituted service by publication could legally be resorted to when prior service through usual modes, such as pasting, was not deemed effective or complete, and when mandatory statutory prerequisites for substituted service were unfulfilled. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted with material irregularity and without jurisdiction in ordering substituted service and proceeding ex parte, noting that proper addresses were not provided, postal service was not pursued, and pasting was rejected by the plaintiff's own counsel. The Court established that substituted service cannot be validly ordered unless the foundational requirements for ordinary service are properly attempted and exhausted, and that a trial court must evaluate all relevant documentary evidence before drawing conclusions regarding a party's corporate identity and locus standi.

  Questions settled

  • Can substituted service by publication be legally ordered when ordinary service through usual modes has not been properly exhausted or deemed effective?
  • Whether a trial court can dismiss an application to set aside ex parte proceedings without examining the documentary evidence annexed to establish corporate identity and locus standi?
  • Does the failure to provide a specific and complete address of a defendant in the plaint vitiate subsequent attempts at service of summons?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad and others vs Atta Muhammad Khan, and others1992 CLC 900 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Aslam Pervaiz And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ashraf And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1468 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs Superintendent, District Jail, Lahore1992 P Cr. L J 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-04Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Alias Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
• Ashio Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-14Read full judgment →
• Ash Raf Bibi and others vs Lahore Municipal Corporation and others1992 CLC 2350 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali And 4 Others vs The Stat E1992 P Cr. L J 472 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-01Read full judgment →
• Arshad Zubair vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood and 8 others vs Punjab Local Councils Election1992 CLC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-02Read full judgment →
• Arid Rashid vs S.H.O., Police Station City Pakpattan and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-07Read full judgment →
• Anwar Club And Another vs Muhammad Sarwar1992 PLD Lahore 63 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-30
  civil revisionland demarcationrevenue officernaib-kanungoremand of suitlocal commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a land dispute where concurrent judgments and decrees were passed by the lower courts against the petitioners. The core legal question is whether a Naib-Kanungo or subordinate revenue staff is competent to conduct land demarcation under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, and whether such a report constitutes legal evidence. The Lahore High Court held that only a designated Revenue Officer is empowered to define limits and carry out demarcation under personal supervision, and a Naib-Kanungo lacks such competence; consequently, reliance on an illegal demarcation report constitutes a material irregularity. The Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts, accepted the revision, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision after appointing a Tehsildar as a Local Commissioner to conduct proper demarcation in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Naib-Kanungo competent to undertake land demarcation under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Whether a demarcation report prepared by a subordinate official who is not a Revenue Officer constitutes legal evidence?
  • Does rule 67-A of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 require a Revenue Officer to conduct land measurements under personal supervision?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Bibi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 542 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
• Anjum Sohail vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Anis Fatima vs Anwar Hussain1992 CLC 2137 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-17
  General Power of AttorneyAgency coupled with interestIrrevocable power of attorneyConsent decreeArbitration awardSection 12(2) CPCContract Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a revision petition challenging the concurrent judgments of lower courts that set aside a consent decree based on an arbitration award. The central legal question was whether a principal could unilaterally revoke a general power of attorney after the agent had acquired an interest in the subject property through investment and construction. The Lahore High Court held that where an agent has acquired an interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agency, the agency becomes irrevocable under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872. Consequently, the principal’s attempt to revoke the power of attorney was legally ineffective, and the agent retained the authority to act on the principal's behalf. The Court ruled that the consent decree obtained by the agent was valid and not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation. The key principle laid down is that an agency coupled with an interest, especially when explicitly stated as irrevocable in the underlying agreement, cannot be terminated by the principal, thereby protecting the agent's rights and actions taken pursuant to that authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal revoke a general power of attorney when the agent has acquired an interest in the subject property?
  • Does an agency become irrevocable under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 when the agent has invested in the property?
  • Is a consent decree based on an arbitration award valid if the agent acting on behalf of the principal had an irrevocable power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Anees Ahmad vs Mst. Samina Ashraf1992 CLC 100 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
• Amr Khan Sepoy vs Border Area Committee1992 CLC 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• Amjad Parvaiz vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 447 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
• Amjad Mauk vs Muhammad Saleem and 5 others1992 MLD 31 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-16
  specific performanceextension of timedecretal amountfunctus officioconsent decreeself-operative decreerescission of contractcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed by the plaintiff/decree-holder challenging the trial court's rejection of his application for an extension of time to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 22,00,000. The suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale had been decreed via a consent decree, which directed the plaintiff to deposit the sale consideration by a specified date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed. The plaintiff failed to deposit the amount on time and sought an extension. The core legal question was whether a court retains the power under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to extend the time for payment when the decree itself contains a self-operative default clause directing that the suit shall stand dismissed upon non-payment. The Lahore High Court held that while courts generally retain control over specific performance decrees under Section 35, a self-operative decree containing an express default dismissal clause automatically terminates the suit and rescinds the contract upon non-compliance. Consequently, the court becomes functus officio and lacks the power to extend the time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court has the power under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to extend the time for depositing the purchase money if the decree contains a self-operative clause stating the suit shall stand dismissed in default of payment?
  • Does a court become functus officio after the expiration of the time specified in a specific performance decree that contains an express default dismissal clause?
  • Does a contract stand automatically rescinded upon non-compliance with a conditional specific performance decree that directs the dismissal of the suit in case of default?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Alias Gogi vs State1992 P Cr. L J 290 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Amir Shah vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 455 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-25Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan Sepoy vs Border Area CommitteeK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 5 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1992 CLC 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
• Amir Ashfaq Kureshi vs University of Engineering & Technology1992 CLC 2186 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Amir And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Amir And 4 Other vs Abdul Khaliq For The State1992 P Cr. L J 529 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Amir Abdullah Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1688 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Amir Abdullah Khan Rokhari vs Federal Land Commission1992 CLC 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Altaf Virk vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 798 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
• Altaf Virk vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 541 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Altaf Akbar Barlas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Altaf Akbar Barlas vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Altaf & Company vs Adam Sugar Mills TD. And Other1992 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-23Read full judgment →
• Allah Jiwaya vs Pir Bakhsh And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Bhatti, Etc. vs Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 131) · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and others vs Ghulam Rasool Shah1992 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Allah Dita vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Mehr Khan And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 437 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad and others vs Elmh Bakhsh1992 CLC 1723 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Baki Ish (deceased) through His Legal Heirs vs District Judge, Muzaffargarh and others1992 CLC 2111 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2515 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 711 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Zahida Parveen1992 CLC 2328 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-15
  civil revisiondowry articlesrecovery suitconcurrent findings of factrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of dowry articles or alternatively the payment of their price amounting to Rs. 24,000, filed by the respondent against her deceased husband's father, the petitioner. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The core legal question before the High Court was whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two lower courts regarding the existence and retention of dowry articles warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision in limine, holding that the lower courts had duly examined the evidence, found the petitioner's pleas to be self-contradictory, and rendered concurrent findings of fact that were neither perverse nor suffering from any misreading or non-reading of evidence. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in revisional jurisdiction unless a clear defect such as misreading or non-reading of evidence, or perversity, is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by two lower courts can be interfered with in civil revision when no misreading or non-reading of evidence is shown?
  • Does a revisional court interfere with judgments of lower courts that are based on evidence and are not perverse, fanciful, or arbitrary?
  • Whether self-contradictory pleas taken by a party in a suit for recovery of dowry deserve credence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Alias Ali And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 313 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Akhtar-UN-Nisa Begum vs Walayat Ali EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 90 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Saleem vs Registeration Officer.And Other1992 PLD LAHORE 34 · Lahore High Court
  electoral rollsregistration officerannual revisionright to votestatutory interpretationfranchisewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several writ petitions challenging the refusal of Registration Officers to process applications for the inclusion or transfer of names in electoral rolls. The respondents argued that the commencement of the annual revision process under Section 17 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, rendered the powers of Registration Officers under Sections 11 and 18 inoperative. The core legal question was whether the annual revision process suspends the statutory authority to correct or update electoral rolls. The Court held that the powers under Sections 11 and 18 are independent of the annual revision process and remain exercisable at all times until a specific statutory bar applies. The Court established that the heading of a section cannot restrict the plain, unambiguous language of the statute's body. Furthermore, it emphasized that franchise is a fundamental right, and statutory provisions regarding registration should be construed liberally to avoid disenfranchisement. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to entertain and decide the petitioners' applications on their merits, ruling that the administrative instructions suspending these powers lacked legal authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the annual revision of electoral rolls under Section 17 of the Electoral Rolls Act, 1974, render the powers of Registration Officers under Sections 11 and 18 inoperative?
  • Can the heading of a section in a statute be used to restrict or control the plain, unambiguous language contained in the body of that section?
  • Is there any statutory prohibition against correcting or updating electoral rolls while an annual revision process is underway, provided the constituency has not been called upon to elect?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Munir Khan and 4 others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and 2 others1992 CLC 1547 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Province of Punjab1992 PLD Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-11
  civil servantsuspensiondisciplinary proceedingsjurisdiction of High CourtService Tribunalconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of serviceefficiency and discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Grade-18 civil servant and former Deputy Commissioner challenging his suspension and ongoing disciplinary proceedings for corruption and misconduct, initiated under the direction of the Chief Minister. The core legal questions involved whether the Chief Minister was competent to order the suspension and initiate proceedings, and whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction was ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in view of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal over terms and conditions of service. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that matters relating to the suspension and disciplinary proceedings of a civil servant fall strictly within the terms and conditions of service and discipline. The Court laid down that Article 212 of the Constitution read with the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 completely ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in respect of service and disciplinary matters, and that the Chief Minister, being the appointing authority and the final authority for disciplinary action under the Punjab Government Rules of Business 1974, qualifies as a competent departmental authority whose orders are appealable exclusively before the Punjab Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters relating to the suspension and disciplinary proceedings of a civil servant?
  • Whether the Chief Minister is competent to order the suspension of a Grade-18 officer holding the post of Deputy Commissioner under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  • Does an order of suspension pending a departmental inquiry fall within the terms and conditions of service and matters of discipline?
  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a suspension order and pending departmental inquiry before a departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain Shah vs The State,1992 P Cr. L J 547 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Ali Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 708 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Din vs Muhammad Ishaq1992 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →