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.

• Wali Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1327 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs S.H.O., Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore and others1991 P Cr. L J 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Zafar Shah Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
• Vicechancellor vs Ziladar Khan and others1991 CLC 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Vice Chancellor vs Ziladar Khan EtcK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 68 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Usman vs (Mst) Gulai Etc.K.L.R. 1991 CivU Cases 153 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
• United Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Zafarullah Khan1991 CLC 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-03Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. through President and another vs Punjab Labour1991 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Qamar Hussain and 2 others1991 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Muhammad Slaeem Raza and others1991 PLC 413 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-06Read full judgment →
• Umer Farooq Syed vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Lahore, and 21991 PTD 872 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12
  Constitutional petitionalternative remedyinherent powerinterim reliefstay of recoverywealth taxappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition was filed challenging an order of the Wealth Tax Officer while an appeal against the same order was already pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals. The petitioner argued that the petition was maintainable because the appellate forum lacked the specific statutory jurisdiction to grant a stay against tax recovery, rendering the appellate remedy inadequate under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the petition was premature. The Court affirmed the principle that even in the absence of an express statutory provision, an appellate authority possesses the inherent power to grant interim relief, such as a stay of the impugned order. Consequently, the existence of an appellate remedy, which includes the inherent power to grant interim relief, precludes the invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. The petition was accordingly disposed of as premature.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Constitutional petition maintainable when an appeal against the impugned order is already pending before an appellate authority?
  • Does an appellate authority possess the inherent power to grant a stay of recovery in the absence of an express statutory provision?
  • Is the lack of an explicit statutory power to grant a stay sufficient to render an appellate remedy inadequate under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar vs The State1991 P Cr., L J 1466 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs Ghulam Muhammad1991 CLC 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner I, Lahore1991 CLC 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-19Read full judgment →
• TM Din and others vs Allah Ditta1991 CLC 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• The Superintending Engineer (E) WAPDA, Faisalabad and another vs Raja1991 PLC 838 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zafar Ahmad EtcK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 418 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore and others1991 PLD Lahore 224 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs The Principal, Bahawalpur Law College, Bahawalpur1991 MLD 914 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sardar Muhammad and others-1991 P Cr. L J 803 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rana Dilber HussainK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Navid Asif and others1991 PLD Lahore 268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26
  suo motu revisionacquittal under section 249-A Cr.P.C.anti-corruptionwithdrawal of prosecutioncriminal breach of trustindependent application of mindcivil dispute vs criminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from the suo motu notice taken by the Lahore High Court concerning the acquittal of Navid Asif and others under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, who were tried for offenses including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and corruption under sections 409, 420, 406, 218, 468, and 471 read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The trial court had recorded the acquittal solely based on parawise comments filed by the Director Anti-Corruption Establishment suggesting the matter was of a civil nature following an agreement to return the funds, bypassing the notified Special Public Prosecutor. The core legal question was whether an acquittal order passed mechanically without independent application of judicial mind to the evidence and based on executive compromise can be sustained in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the acquittal order was a nullity in the eye of the law, as the parties' stance or executive instructions cannot bind the court to bypass an evaluation of the evidence. The High Court set aside the acquittal order and remanded the matter for decision afresh in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 to examine an order of acquittal?
  • Can an acquittal under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be legally sustained if it is based solely on executive comments without independent application of mind to the evidence by the trial court?
  • Does an agreement between the parties to annul a transaction and reimburse funds convert a criminal offense into a purely civil matter binding upon the criminal court?
  • Can the prosecution be withdrawn or compromised through executive directives without complying with the statutory requirements and judicial oversight governing the withdrawal of prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ramzan And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Nazir and others1991 PLD Lahore 433 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15
  suo motu jurisdictionbail cancellationnarcotics traffickingprohibitory clausecharas recoveryjudicial discretionentrustment of cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous matter arose from a suo motu notice issued by the Lahore High Court regarding the recall of pre-arrest and post-arrest bails granted by a Sessions Court to four respondents accused of possessing, selling, and transporting 4,096 kilograms of charas under F.I.R. No. 258 dated 25-5-1990. The core legal questions involved whether a High Court judge can exercise suo motu jurisdiction and hear matters without formal administrative entrustment by the Chief Justice, and whether bail should be cancelled given the massive quantity of narcotics involved, notwithstanding that the offence fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that individual judges possess inherent constitutional and statutory powers to exercise High Court jurisdiction suo motu without prior administrative distribution, and that accused persons dealing in massive quantities of narcotics are not entitled to bail merely because the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The court consequently recalled the bails granted to the respondents, holding that judicial discretion in narcotics cases must reflect societal gravity and the principles of equity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judge of the High Court can validly exercise suo motu jurisdiction without formal administrative entrustment of the case by the Chief Justice?
  • Does the mere fact that an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail as of right?
  • Can statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered for the purpose of deciding bail matters?
  • Whether subordinate courts possess the inherent power to grant interim bail on grounds not covered under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Javed Arshad1991 MLD 1162 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs Haq NawazK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 408 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Rasool and others1991 MLD 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Bashir And Others1991 PCr.LJ 1871 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• The State vs Additional Chief Secretary Punjab, Lahore1991PCr.LJ 110 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-18Read full judgment →
• The Resident Manager, F.F.C. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1991 PLC 908 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02
  industrial disputegrievance petitionpermanent employeeindependent contractorconstitutional jurisdictionreinstatementmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition challenged the validity of orders passed by the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had accepted a grievance petition filed by a worker under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal question was whether the worker was a permanent employee of the petitioner company or an employee of an independent labour contractor. The Lahore High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two lower forums—establishing that the worker had been in the continuous employment of the company since before the execution of the labour supply contract and that his leave applications were sanctioned by company officials—were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that an employer cannot bypass statutory protections by fictitiously shifting an existing permanent employee onto the rolls of a labour contractor without consent, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding of fact recorded by a labour court regarding the existence of an employer-employee relationship can be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can an existing permanent employee's services be transferred to a labour contractor without the employee's consent?
  • Whether a worker employed prior to the execution of a labour supply contract remains the direct employee of the principal company?
  • Do concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal warrant interference when based on proper appraisal of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The Pakistan Motor Transport and others vs Secretary to Government of Punjab1991 MLD 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-08
  stage carriage permitmotor vehicles ordinancerenewal of permitfresh permitpenal provision strict constructiontransport authorityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a memorandum issued by the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Transport Department, directing Regional Transport Authorities to levy penalties for the renewal of permits under rule 85(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, even upon applications for fresh stage carriage permits if a permit had previously been granted for the vehicle. The core legal question was whether the grant of a fresh permit to a different applicant in respect of a different route could legally be considered a renewal of a previous permit so as to attract rule 85(2). The Lahore High Court held that the grant of a fresh permit and the renewal of an existing permit are distinct concepts under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969, and cannot be equated. The Court ruled that penal provisions must be construed strictly and that applying renewal penalties to fresh applications by different applicants for different routes is without lawful authority. The petition was accordingly accepted and the impugned memorandum declared void to that extent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the grant of a fresh transport permit can be treated as a renewal of a previous permit under the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969?
  • Can a penalty prescribed for the renewal of permits under rule 85(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 be levied on an application for a fresh permit made by a different applicant for a different route?
  • Do the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 and the rules framed thereunder maintain a distinction between the initial grant of a permit and the renewal of an existing permit?
  Read full judgment →
• The Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development Government1991 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court
  commercial contractstime is of the essencewaivermisjoinder of causes of actioncourt-feeunpaid price of goodsliquidated damagespre-institution interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of a first appeal and a civil revision arising from a single commercial suit involving multiple supply contracts between a registered firm and the Province of the Punjab for spare parts of agricultural machinery. The core legal questions pertained to the misjoinder of causes of action, affixation of court-fees, whether time and venue were of the essence of the contract, the effect of subsequent waiver by conduct, entitlement to unpaid prices, late delivery charges, securities, and pre-institution interest. The Court held that multiple causes of action could be joined under Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that Section 17 of the Court Fees Act 1870 is subject to the maximum ad valorem fee limit. On merits, the Court found that although time and venue were originally of the essence, strict compliance was waived by the defendant's subsequent conduct, making the deduction of late delivery charges and retention of securities illegal. The seller was entitled to the unpaid price of goods actually received and used, along with pendente lite and future interest at fourteen percent, though pre-institution interest was disallowed in the absence of a contractual or statutory provision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff unite several causes of action against the same defendant in a single suit arising from multiple commercial contracts?
  • Whether Section 17 of the Court Fees Act 1870 is subject to the maximum ad valorem fee limit prescribed in Schedule I Article 1 of the said Act?
  • Does the subsequent conduct of parties negotiating a change of delivery date and venue constitute a waiver of the stipulation that time is the essence of the contract?
  • Is a seller entitled to pre-institution interest on the unpaid price of goods in the absence of a specific contractual term, statutory provision, or mercantile usage?
  • To what extent can an appellate court exercise powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of a cross-objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Town Committee, Darya Khan, District Bhakkar vs Chairman, Town1991 PLC (C.S.) 571 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Thatta Jahad Ameer vs Distt. Ushar Zakat Committee, GujranawalaK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Thaikadar Hassan Din vs Zahid Iqbal and others1991 CLC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Tauseef Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1898 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Taus Khan and others vs Mst. Zarina1991 CLC 662 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• Tariq Sarwar vs The State1991 MLD 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs Collector, District Gujranwala and 2 others1991 CLC 793 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17
  maintenanceArbitration Councilpaying capacityconstitutional petitionremandprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Collector and the Arbitration Council regarding the grant of maintenance to the respondent wife. The core legal questions were whether the maintenance amount was determined based on sufficient evidence of the husband's paying capacity and whether the Arbitration Council was properly constituted and its proceedings valid. The Court held that the orders were legally flawed. Firstly, the maintenance was fixed without any evidence regarding the petitioner's financial status or paying capacity, rendering the assessment arbitrary. Secondly, the proceedings were procedurally defective because the order was signed only by the Chairman, failing to demonstrate that it was a unanimous decision of the Arbitration Council as required. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that maintenance awards must be supported by evidence of the husband's paying capacity, and decisions by an Arbitration Council must clearly reflect the participation and consensus of its members, evidenced by their signatures, to be legally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Is a maintenance order valid if it is passed without evidence regarding the husband's paying capacity?
  • Does an order signed only by the Chairman of an Arbitration Council satisfy the legal requirements for a valid decision?
  • Can a court set aside maintenance orders if the underlying proceedings lack evidence and proper constitution of the adjudicating body?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Tariq Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1934 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Brother Oil Dealers. vs The Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1991 CL. 1 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Tamas Masih vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2033 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Talib vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1991 MLD 2350 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner and another1991 CLC 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Taj Mahmood vs Member (R) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 3) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Taj Khan vs The. State-1991 P Cr. L J 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Taj Etc . vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 282 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Taj Din Etc. vs Muhammad Sadiq Etc.(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 27) · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-25Read full judgment →
• Taj Begum vs Ghulam Abbas Etc.(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 5) · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
• Taj And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 177 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
• Tahir Umar vs Messrs Bata Shoe (Pakistan) Limited through Managing1991 MLD 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Tahir and 2 others vs Ahmad Bakhsh1991 MLD 506 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Wasaf Ali Shah vs Secretary Interiors, Govt of PakistanK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 492 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Wasaf Ali Shah vs Secretary Interior, Government of Pakistan1991PCr.LJ 32 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Tofazal Hussain Shah And 2 Others vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10
  quashment of proceedingsMuslim Family Lawsterritorial jurisdictionabetmentspecial lawsecond marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for quashment challenged proceedings initiated under section 6(5) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, against the petitioners. The complainant alleged that her husband had contracted a second marriage without her permission. The petitioners, who were not parties to the marriage, argued that the Magistrate at Sheikhupura lacked territorial jurisdiction as the marriage occurred in Lahore, and further contended that the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code regarding abetment were inapplicable to the special law under which the complaint was filed. The Court held that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction because the marriage took place in Lahore. Furthermore, the Court determined that the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, specifically regarding abetment, cannot be invoked in proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, as it is a special law. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and set aside the impugned order, noting the absence of any alleged overt act or evidence of abetment by the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, if the marriage occurred outside their jurisdiction?
  • Can the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code regarding abetment be applied to offences under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Are third parties who are not involved in the marriage liable for abetment under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahzad Hussain Etc vs (Mst) Hajran BibiK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Shafqat Ahmad vs Mohammad Tariq Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabir Abbas Zaidi vs Member Board of RevenueK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 387 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Ali Shah vs Mst. Kausar Bibi and others1991 CLC 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Qaiser Sajjad Sherazi vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1991 CLC 726 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Najmul Hassan vs Javed Mahmood, District Collector., Lahore1991 CLC 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Munawar Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Sadiq Shah vs Naseem Akhtar and others1991 CLC 1329 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ramzan vs Secretary, Health1991 PLC (C.S.) 765 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal Hussain Shah vs Mst.Farhat Jehan and 2 others1991 CLC 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25
  jactitation of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightsfamily court jurisdictioncoercionNikahnamavalidity of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Farhat Jehan instituted a suit for jactitation of marriage, alleging she was abducted and coerced into affixing her thumb-impression on a Nikahnama. The petitioner, Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah, contested the suit and filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court decreed the jactitation suit and dismissed the restitution suit, finding the marriage was executed under duress. The Additional District Judge dismissed the subsequent appeal. In the constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court, the petitioner contended that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 5 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and Section 23 of the same Act to question a Nikahnama registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a suit for jactitation of marriage includes determining whether a disputed marriage exists or was executed under coercion, falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court is competent to decide a suit seeking a declaration that a Nikahnama was executed under duress and coercion?
  • Does a suit for jactitation of marriage include the power to examine the validity and existence of a marriage?
  • Whether Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 bars a Family Court from adjudicating upon the validity of a marriage registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Asghar Ali vs Ch. Muhammad Nazir and others1991 CLC 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqsood Abbas Naqvi vs Province of Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 141 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqbool Ahmad vs Board of Revenue Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 301 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Hamid Ali Shah vs Mst. Razia Sultana1991 CLC 766 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10
  past maintenanceHanafi Lawminor childIslamic Lawfamily court decreecustody of minorfuture maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the Family Court and the Appellate Court, which awarded past maintenance to a minor child from December 1981 to March 1986, alongside future maintenance. The core legal question is whether, under Islamic Personal Law (Hanafi Law), a minor child is entitled to claim past maintenance from a father in the absence of a prior court decree or agreement. The Lahore High Court held that under Hanafi Law, past maintenance cannot be claimed by a child from a father unless it was previously fixed by a court decree or agreed upon by the father. Consequently, the Court set aside the decree for past maintenance covering the period prior to the filing of the suit. However, the Court upheld the award of future maintenance, noting that the father remains legally obligated to maintain the child until custody is determined. The Court further directed the Guardian Judge to expedite the pending custody application. The key principle established is that past maintenance is not recoverable under Islamic Law unless specifically decreed or agreed upon previously.

  Questions settled

  • Is a minor child entitled to claim past maintenance from a father under Hanafi Law in the absence of a prior court decree or agreement?
  • Does the pendency of a custody application before a Guardian Judge absolve a father of the obligation to provide future maintenance to a minor child?
  • Can a court grant past maintenance to a minor child under Islamic Law?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hamid Ali Shah vs (Mst) Razia SultanaK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ullah vs Muhammad AshrafK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 466 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah vs Gharib AlamK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 72 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Feroze Bakhat vs Abid Hussain Shah1991 CLC 615 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Fazal Abbas vs Additional District Judge etc1991 CLC 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Bahadar Ali Shah vs Syed Maryam Gillani and others1991 CLC 775 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjad Hussain vs Qaiser Siddique and 11 others1991 CLC 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza Asad Abidi vs Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan and 2 others1991 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad vs Muhammad Ashraf and 4 others1991 CLC 269 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-31
  revision petitionlimitationlachesrefiling of petitionoffice objectionspre-emption suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a revision petition against an appellate court judgment that had dismissed his pre-emption suit. The revision petition was initially filed within the conventional three-month period but was returned by the Deputy Registrar for the removal of objections within three days. The petitioner's counsel failed to comply with this deadline, refiling the petition only after an eight-month delay without a plausible explanation. The Court addressed whether such a delay in refiling, despite the absence of a specific statutory limitation period for revision petitions, rendered the petition time-barred. The Court held that while no strict statutory limitation period exists for filing a revision, the conventional period of three months is considered reasonable. By failing to refile within the specified time and delaying for eight months, the petitioner demonstrated extreme negligence. Applying the principle of laches and the precedent that failure to refile within the Deputy Registrar's specified time renders a petition time-barred, the Court dismissed the revision petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a prescribed statutory period of limitation for filing a revision petition in the High Court?
  • What is the consequence of failing to refile a revision petition within the time specified by the Deputy Registrar for the removal of office objections?
  • Can a revision petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if the counsel delays refiling it for an unreasonable period?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan vs Shahbaz Khan Etc.(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 31) · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 920 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sufi Chiragh Ali Etc. vs Town Committee Etc.K.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Subedar (Retd.) Fateh Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• State vs S.S.P LahoreK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 380 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Khalid Rashid, Chairman Miraj Sons Ltd.1991 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-15Read full judgment →
• Siraj Muhammad Bhatti and others vs Iqbal Begum and others1991 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din through his Legal Representativess vs Hamida Begum1991 MLD 2340 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din and anothers vs Additional District Judge, Faisalabad and others1991 MLD 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Beg Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 125 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
• Shujaat Ali Alias Chan Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2277 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17
  dacoitypreparation to commit dacoitybenefit of doubtpolice evidenceindependent corroborationcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly making preparations to commit dacoity. The prosecution's case rested solely on the testimony of police officials who conducted a raid at a graveyard, claiming they apprehended the appellant and his co-accused while they were armed and planning a robbery. No independent public witnesses were associated with the raid or the subsequent recovery of weapons, despite the raid being pre-arranged. On appeal, the Lahore High Court scrutinized the evidence, emphasizing that Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitutes an exception to the general rule that mere preparation to commit a crime is not an offence. Consequently, the Court held that such charges require strong, exceptional evidence to substantiate. Finding the prosecution's evidence insufficient and noting the lack of independent corroboration, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was accepted, and the appellant was acquitted, receiving the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Is the preparation to commit dacoity an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the failure to associate independent public witnesses in a pre-arranged police raid affect the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • What standard of evidence is required to prove an offence under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Shughran Bibi vs The State1991 KLR Criminal Cases 117 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sheroo and 4 others vs Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari1991 MLD 799 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
• Shera vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 365 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30
  plea of guiltyadmission of truth of accusationshow cause opportunitySection 243 CrPCSection 411 PPCstolen propertyforthwith convictioncriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which maintained the conviction of the petitioner under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 while reducing his sentence to one year's R.I. The core legal question was whether an accused who pleads guilty to a charge can be convicted forthwith without being afforded an opportunity to show cause why he should not be convicted. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an admission of guilt alone is insufficient for immediate conviction; the trial magistrate must inform the accused of his right to show cause against conviction and provide a fair opportunity to do so, explicitly recording and evaluating any cause shown. Because the trial court failed to grant this mandatory opportunity and convicted the petitioner immediately upon his confession, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, declining retrial as the petitioner had already served his full term.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused person be convicted forthwith upon pleading guilty without being given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be convicted under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court required under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to inform an accused that he can show cause against conviction despite admitting the truth of the accusation?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to record and determine the cause shown by an accused after a confession render the conviction unsustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Shera And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Shera and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 423 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 210 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and anothers vs Amanat Khan and 16 others1991 MLD 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27
  equity of redemptionmortgagelimitation periodacknowledgment of liabilityoccupancy rightscivil revisionremand for retrial
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition addresses whether the equity of redemption in respect of a land mortgage executed on September 21, 1924, was extinguished upon the expiry of the limitation period under Article 148 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the redemption period had expired and ownership rights had transferred to the mortgagees. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the sale of mortgagee rights constituted an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thus extending the limitation period. Upon revision, the Lahore High Court noted that while mutation per se without a signed writing does not constitute an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19, important aspects regarding the fixed period of the original mortgage and the specific writing concerning the sale of mortgagee rights were omitted from the pleadings and evidence. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and remanded the case for a fresh trial, permitting the parties to amend their pleadings and adduce evidence on these unresolved questions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mutation of names per se, in the absence of a signed writing by the party or its authorized agent, constitutes an acknowledgment of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does the right to redeem a mortgage for a fixed period arise only upon the expiration of the specified period?
  • Whether an appellate or revisional court can remand a matter for retrial when essential questions regarding the period of mortgage and written acknowledgment were omitted from the pleadings and evidence?
  Read full judgment →