Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Akram vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs National Bank of Pakistan and others1991 PLC 40 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State1991 MLD 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Alias Akoo vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 29 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtial vs Province of Punjab through District Collector, Multan1991 MLD 456 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs D.I.G. Police EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs D.1.-G. Police and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 490 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs Sher Muhammad (deceased) through L. Hrs. and another1991 MLD 566 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal And Another vs The State1991PCr.LJ 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1991 MLD 2090 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2075 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhamad Arshad alias Achha and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 179 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhabbat Ali vs Abdul Jabbar and 4 others1991 CLC 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Parveen vs Deputy District Education Officer1991 PLC (C.S.) 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Begum and anothers vs Muhammad Sharif1991 MLD 676 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina vs The State1991 MLD 518 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Farooq vs Chairman, Union Council,and another1991 CLC 1720 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriageArbitration CouncilSection 7 Muslim Family Laws Ordinancecertificate of divorceeffectiveness of Talaqreconciliation proceedingsdeath of husbandinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order dated 22nd October 1989 and a subsequent divorce certificate dated 15th November 1989 issued by the Chairman, Arbitration Council, declaring that the petitioner's marriage stood dissolved. The petitioner asserted she remained the wife of her deceased husband until his death on 15th July 1989, and that proceedings were unlawfully initiated posthumously by her in-laws to deprive her of her inheritance. The core legal questions were whether the Chairman had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality or validity of a Talaq, issue an effective divorce certificate, and initiate or continue reconciliation proceedings under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 after the husband's death. The High Court held that the primary objective of Section 7 is reconciliation, which becomes frustrated upon the husband's death, rendering post-mortem proceedings impermissible without proof of service during the husband's lifetime. Furthermore, the Chairman lacked legal authority to decide the validity of Talaq or issue divorce certificates. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the impugned order and certificate were declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chairman of an Arbitration Council have the jurisdiction or legal authority to adjudicate upon the validity or legality of a Talaq and issue a certificate making the divorce effective?
  • Can proceedings under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 be initiated or continued by an Arbitration Council after the death of the husband?
  • Whether the primary objective of reconciliation under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 stands frustrated upon the death of one of the spouses?
  • Can a divorce certificate be lawfully issued upon an application filed posthumously by a relative of the deceased husband without proof of service of the notice of Talaq during the husband's lifetime?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wazir Beg Um vs Zafar Iqbal and others1991 CLC 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Talia Bibi and others vs Settlement Department and others1991 CLC 2084 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Begum and 4 others vs Abdul Haq and 6 others1991 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Shaukat vs The State1991 MLD 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Siddiqan Bibi and anothers vs Additional District Judge III, Muzaffargarh and another1991 CLC 692 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi and others vs Asghar Ali and others1991 CLC 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs The State and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLD Lahore 389 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09
  writ petitiontransfer and postingcivil servantpolitical pressureadministrative ordermala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional writ petition filed by a school teacher challenging the administrative cancellation of her transfer order, which was recalled by the Deputy Education Officer upon the desire of a Member of the National Assembly and a Member of the Provincial Assembly. The core legal question is whether an administrative transfer or cancellation order passed by a competent authority under political influence or pressure warrants interference by the High Court under writ jurisdiction in the absence of established mala fides. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that transfer and posting orders are purely administrative in nature and courts ought not to interfere with them without cogent reasons or clear proof of malice, as doing so would hamper the smooth functioning of government machinery. The key principle laid down is that while political pressures on civil servant postings are common, administrative orders issued by competent authorities will not be struck down unless specific mala fides or injustice is properly pleaded and established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with administrative transfer and posting orders of civil servants without cogent reasons?
  • Does the cancellation of a transfer order at the instance of public representatives vitiate the order in the absence of proven mala fides?
  • Is an administrative order passed under political pressure automatically illegal if particulars of malice are not furnished?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Ahmad Khan and another1991 MLD 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge, Sialkot and another1991 CLC 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09
  maintenanceNikahnamaRukhsatiFamily Court jurisdictionMuslim Family Laws Ordinanceconjugal rightsconcurrent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, which dismissed a wife's suit for maintenance on the grounds that Rukhsati had not occurred and that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal questions were whether maintenance is payable under a Nikahnama despite the absence of Rukhsati, and whether the Family Court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant maintenance alongside the Arbitration Council under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The High Court held that in the absence of a plea that the wife refused conjugal society without reasonable cause, the lack of Rukhsati does not disentitle her to maintenance stipulated in the Nikahnama. Furthermore, the Court held that the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, does not exclude the Family Court's jurisdiction to grant maintenance. The principle laid down is that Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is an enabling provision and does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Arbitration Council; thus, a wife may choose to seek maintenance either through the Arbitration Council or by filing a suit before the Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of Rukhsati automatically disentitle a wife to maintenance stipulated in the Nikahnama?
  • Does the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Arbitration Council to grant maintenance?
  • Can a wife file a suit for maintenance before a Family Court despite the existence of the Arbitration Council mechanism under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Additional District Judge and 2 others1991 CLC 1537 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Begum and others vs Home Department and others1991 CLC 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04
  constitutional petitionrequisition of immovable propertyeducational institutionprivate educational institutionswithout lawful authoritystatutory protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges a notification issued by the Home Department under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, whereby a property used for an educational institution was requisitioned. The core legal question was whether a building used for imparting education through private educational institutions could be lawfully requisitioned under the Act. The Lahore High Court held that, in light of the second proviso to section 3 of the Act and the fact that the property had been continuously in use as an educational institution prior to the nationalization of schools under Martial Law Regulation 118, the requisition order was uncalled for and illegal. Consequently, the court declared the impugned notification to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, accepting the writ petition. The key principle laid down is that buildings used for imparting education through private educational institutions are protected from requisition under the relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a building used for imparting education through private educational institutions be lawfully requisitioned under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
  • Whether a requisition notification issued in violation of the second proviso to section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabnam Bano vs Sh. Muhammad Salim and 2 others1991 CLC 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Satbharai vs Mst. Mahmood Khatoon and 3 others1991 CLC 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salima Bibi vs Sardar Khan and 4 others1991 MLD 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26
  pre-emptioncompromise decreeburden of proofuneducated litigantcivil appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a decision of the District Judge recording a compromise and dismissing a pre-emption suit. The original pre-emptor had secured a pre-emption decree, which the vendees appealed. During the appeal, the vendees filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 alleging a compromise, which the pre-emptor denied, claiming her thumb-impressions were taken on a blank paper due to a prior quarrel. The lower appellate court upheld the compromise. Upon appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(m) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Lahore High Court examined the evidence and held that the vendees failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving a lawful and voluntary compromise by an uneducated pardanashin lady, noting numerous suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the composition deed. The High Court set aside the impugned decision and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court to decide the appeal on merits. The key legal principle laid down is that the party relying on a compromise in a judicial proceeding bears the strict burden of proving its voluntary and lawful execution, particularly when involving vulnerable or uneducated litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the onus of establishing that an appeal was adjusted in a lawful manner through a compromise?
  • Can a compromise deed executed by an uneducated village lady without independent advice and under suspicious circumstances be sustained?
  • What is the appellate court's recourse when the lower appellate court erroneously upholds an unverified compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salamat Bibi vs Mst. Sardaran Bibi1991 MLD 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Younas vs Administrator, Women's Christian Hospital, Multan and 2 others1991 PLC 798 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-20
  writ petitionindustrial relationscharitable organizationworkmanlabour court jurisdictionhospital
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an Aid-Nurse challenging the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside her reinstatement and held that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a charitable hospital operated on a non-profit basis qualifies as a commercial or industrial establishment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, so as to bring its employees within the definition of a workman. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Women's Christian Hospital, Multan, being a charitable organization registered under the Societies Act, 1860 and run on a non-profit basis, is neither a commercial nor an industrial establishment. Consequently, the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 do not apply to its employees. The key principle laid down is that charitable hospitals functioning without profit motives do not fall within the ambit of labor laws governing commercial or industrial establishments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a charitable hospital operated on a non-profit basis qualifies as a commercial or industrial establishment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to entertain grievances of employees of a charitable organization?
  • Are employees of a charitable hospital covered under the definition of a workman for the purposes of labor legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs Collector, Lahore and 4 others1991 MLD 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi and others vs Raja Khushi Muhammad and others1991 CLC 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Parveen vs The Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 21991 MLD 745 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-09
  child custodyguardianshipFamily Courts Actjurisdiction of Civil Judgewelfare of minorappellate jurisdictionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Appellate Court regarding the custody of a minor child. The petitioner contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate guardianship matters and that the Additional District Judge was incompetent to hear the appeal. The Court held that, pursuant to the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, a Civil Judge, 1st Class, possesses the requisite jurisdiction to try guardianship and custody applications. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that, under the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, a District Judge may validly assign appeals to an Additional District Judge, who then exercises the same powers as the District Judge. On merits, the Court reiterated that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and under Muslim Law, a father is generally entitled to the custody of a boy over seven years of age. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no jurisdictional defect in the lower courts' proceedings or their determination regarding the minor's welfare.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Judge, 1st Class have the jurisdiction to try guardianship and custody matters under the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965?
  • Can an Additional District Judge hear and decide an appeal assigned by a District Judge under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining the custody of a child under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida And Another vs S.H.O. and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Akhtar vs Province of Punjab and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeedan and 4 others vs Mst. Hajran and others1991 MLD 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Parveen vs Mst. Saeeda Sheikh1991 MLD 2347 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saddan vs Muhammad Nawaz and another1991 CLC 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24
  custody of minorguardianshipwelfare of minormaternal grandmothernatural guardiancustody vs guardianshipmaintenance of minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a custody dispute under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, concerning a minor child. The petitioner, the maternal grandmother, challenged an appellate order by the Additional District Judge that reversed a Guardian Judge's decision and granted custody to the respondent, the minor's father. The core legal question was whether the father's status as a natural guardian automatically entitles him to custody, and whether the grandmother's lack of independent financial means is sufficient grounds to deprive her of custody. The Lahore High Court held that the father's status as a natural guardian does not grant an absolute right to custody, which is distinct from guardianship. The Court ruled that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration and that a lack of financial means is not a valid ground to deny custody, as the father is legally obligated to provide maintenance. The Court restored the Guardian Judge's order, emphasizing that under personal law, custody rights in the absence of the mother vest in the maternal grandmother.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of a father as a natural guardian automatically entitle him to the custody of his minor child?
  • Is a lack of independent financial means sufficient grounds to deprive a maternal grandmother of the custody of her minor grandchild?
  • Is there a legal distinction between the right to custody and the right to guardianship under personal law?
  • Does the obligation to maintain a minor child rest with the father even if the child is in the custody of another relative?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saadia Shirin vs Javed Ali Bhatti and 2 others1991 MLD 784 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruqayya Yasmin vs Muhammad Riaz and others1991 MLD 166 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04
  custody of minorswelfare of the minorHizanatremarriage of motherconstitutional jurisdictionguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent orders of the Guardian Judge and the appellate court regarding the custody of two minors. The core legal question was whether the custody of minors could be determined solely on the ground of the mother's remarriage, effectively terminating her right of Hizanat, without evaluating the welfare of the minors. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by treating the mother's remarriage as the exclusive factor for denying custody. The impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority, and the matter was remanded to the Guardian Judge for a fresh decision. The Court affirmed that the paramount and overriding consideration in all custody disputes is the welfare of the minor, encompassing their material, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being. While a mother's remarriage is a relevant factor, it cannot serve as the sole basis for determining custody; the court must weigh all evidence to ensure the decision serves the minor's best interests.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court determine the custody of a minor solely on the basis of the mother's remarriage?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in custody disputes under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • Does the factum of a mother's remarriage automatically disqualify her from the custody of her minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Kausar vs Mian Abdur Rauf and another1991 CLC 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rozi Samuel Shad vs The Superintendent Jail, Lahore and another-1991 P Cr. L J 405 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasul Bibi vs Qadar Dad and another1991 MLD 2008 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18
  pre-emption suitsuperior right of pre-emptionopinion evidenceSection 50 Evidence Actpreponderance of probabilitiescivil revisionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff, Mst. Rasul Bibi, claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on her alleged relationship as the sister of the vendor, Fazal Elahi. The trial court decreed the suit in her favor, but the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the oral evidence regarding the relationship failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872. The High Court, upon review, held that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to establish the relationship. The Court clarified that while Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872 allows for opinion evidence based on conduct, it does not require a party to lay a formal foundation of conduct for every witness, particularly when the witness is a relative or friend with special means of knowledge. Emphasizing that civil matters are decided on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court restored the trial court's decree, finding the plaintiff's evidence credible and unrebutted.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 50 of the Evidence Act 1872 require a witness to explicitly lay a foundation of conduct before testifying about a family relationship?
  • Is a party's own deposition on oath admissible and probative in a civil proceeding?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish a fact in issue in a civil pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasool Bibi vs Qadar Dad and others1991 MLD 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Perveen Akhtar vs District Collector and others1991 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Akhtar vs Ghulam Akbar and others1991 CLC 1393 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nurgis Nazar vs Divisional Superintendent Pakistan RailwaysK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 664 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan vs Nazir Ahmad Khan and others1991 CLC 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Neelofar alias Shah Bano vs Wasihuddin and others1991 MLD 2381 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Zohra vs Multan Development Authority through Director1991 CLC 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-23
  land acquisitionhousing schemeMultan Development Authoritymala fide exercise of powercompensation market valuebypass roadconstitutional petitionjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was instituted by a landowner challenging a notification dated 21-1-1980 issued under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 for acquiring land for the Multan Bypass. Land acquisition proceedings had initially commenced in 1976 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for public highway construction, but respondents abandoned the 1894 Act proceedings and initiated fresh acquisition under the 1973 Act, capping compensation at Rs. 20,000 per acre. The core legal issues were whether land required solely for constructing a bypass could legally be treated as a 'housing scheme' under the 1973 Act and the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976, and whether abandoning proceedings under the 1894 Act to pay lesser compensation constituted mala fide exercise of power. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition, declaring the 1980 notification illegal and void. The Court held that constructing an independent bypass road without residential development is not a housing scheme, and switching statutes to deprive owners of fair market value constitutes a mala fide, colorable exercise of authority subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can the acquisition of land solely for the construction of an independent bypass road be legally treated as a 'housing scheme' under the Punjab Acquisition of Lands (Housing) Act 1973?
  • Does an acquiring authority commit a mala fide and unlawful act by abandoning acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and initiating fresh proceedings under a statute capping compensation to avoid paying market value?
  • Is a notification issued under land acquisition statutes immune from judicial review by the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction where allegations of mala fides and colorable exercise of power are established?
  • Can an Official Development Agency acquire land for a scheme under the Punjab Development of Cities Act 1976 without the scheme being properly prepared and sanctioned by the Government in accordance with Section 12 of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Mahmooda vs Mumtaz Imran and others1991 MLD 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Khatoon and others vs Syed Irshad Hussain and others1991 MLD 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20
  maintenance decreeminor's welfareexecution of decreefamily court jurisdictioncompromisenext friendconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the enforceability of a maintenance decree in favor of minor children after a compromise was recorded during execution proceedings. The petitioners, minor daughters, obtained a maintenance decree against their father, which was later challenged after a compromise was recorded in an execution petition, leading the appellate court to declare the decree unenforceable. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the rejection of the objection petition, and whether a compromise entered into by a next friend on behalf of minors, without judicial scrutiny of the minors' welfare, renders a maintenance decree permanently unenforceable. The Court held that the order rejecting the objection was a 'decision' under the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, and thus appealable. However, it ruled that a compromise involving minors requires judicial verification of their welfare. Furthermore, the Court established that a maintenance decree is not extinguished by a temporary reconciliation or the withdrawal of an execution petition; it remains enforceable if the father subsequently fails to provide maintenance.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order by a Family Court rejecting an objection petition considered a 'decision' appealable under Section 14 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Can a compromise entered into by a next friend on behalf of minors be binding if the court fails to ascertain if it is for the minors' benefit?
  • Does the resumption of cohabitation or the withdrawal of an execution petition render a maintenance decree permanently unenforceable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Saddique vs District Education Officer (W), Sahiwal and 21991 MLD 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nargas Alias Soma vs Mahniood Ahmad Butt And Another1991 PCr.LJ 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mussarat Begum and 3 others vs Ameer Ali Shah and another1991 CLC 784 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarrat Parveen vs Muhammad Akram1991 P Cr. L J 878 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-29
  habeas corpuschild custodyminorwrit jurisdictionguardian judgefamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor child, Mst. Naurin Akhtar, who was currently in the custody of the respondent-father, Muhammad Akram. The core legal question was whether the father's detention of the child was unlawful, thereby warranting the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The respondent contended that he had divorced the petitioner due to her alleged illicit relations with another man, providing evidence of letters and visa applications suggesting the petitioner intended to remove the child from Pakistan. The Court observed that the father's apprehension regarding the child's removal was not baseless. Holding that the father's custody of his own child could not be deemed unlawful or illegal, the Court declined to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court affirmed that the child should remain with the father and directed the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies regarding custody through the competent Guardian Judge, thereby establishing that habeas corpus is not the appropriate mechanism for resolving custody disputes where the father's possession is not illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ of habeas corpus the appropriate remedy for a mother to seek custody of a minor child from the father?
  • Can a father's custody of his own child be considered unlawful or illegal in the context of a habeas corpus petition?
  • What is the proper forum for a parent to seek custody of a child when habeas corpus is denied?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mobin Kfianum vs Ata Mohiuddin, Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others1991 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Miraj Bibi vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06
  specific performancerejection of plaintrent controller jurisdictionmaintainability of suitcivil procedureejectment order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement and a declaration of title, which also challenged an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller, was barred by the provisions of Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the suit was maintainable. The ratio decidendi is that where a suit encompasses a claim for specific performance—a relief beyond the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller—it cannot be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of being barred by law. The court affirmed that questions regarding the maintainability of a suit involving complex claims of title and specific performance are best determined after framing necessary issues rather than through summary dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for specific performance be summarily rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that it challenges an ejectment order?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to grant a decree for specific performance of an agreement?
  • Is the question of a suit's maintainability required to be determined after framing issues when the claim involves complex relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manzooran vs Station House Officer, Layyah and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 665 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Johora Jana vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila vs Hadi Hussain And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1755 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01
  re-investigationdischarge of accusedpolice powersjudicial oversightcriminal proceduremagistrate's authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the legality of a re-investigation initiated by the police after the accused had already been discharged by a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the police possess the authority to commence a fresh investigation into a case after a Magistrate has formally discharged the accused under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, without obtaining prior judicial permission. The Lahore High Court, relying on the precedent set in Bahadur v. State (PLD 1985 SC 62), held that the police are not competent to unilaterally launch a re-investigation once a discharge order has been passed by a Magistrate. The Court ruled that such a re-investigation is legally impermissible unless the investigating agency first obtains necessary authorization from the concerned Magistrate. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the unauthorized re-investigation, and established the principle that judicial oversight is mandatory for re-opening investigations following a formal discharge order, thereby preventing arbitrary or unchecked police action in matters already adjudicated by a Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police initiate a fresh investigation into a case after the accused has been discharged by a Magistrate without obtaining prior permission?
  • Is a Magistrate's discharge order a bar to further police investigation without judicial authorization?
  • Does the police officer have the inherent power to re-investigate a case after a discharge report has been accepted by a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs District Judge, Kasur and others1991 CLC 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Bibi vs Nazir Ahmad and others1991 CLC 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06
  regular second appealappellate judgmentnon-application of mindwritten argumentsremand of caseduty of appellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises out of a suit for declaration originally filed before the civil court. The trial court decreed the suit in part and dismissed it in part. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge accepted the appeal by issuing a verbatim copy of the written arguments submitted by the respondents, appending a single concluding line of acceptance. The core legal question was whether an appellate judgment that merely reproduces a party's written arguments without independent appraisal complies with the law. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate judgment demonstrated a failure to apply a conscious judicial mind and violated the mandatory provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rendering it no judgment in the eye of the law. The Court established the principle that an appellate court must independently appraise the material on record, address points for determination, and record its own findings rather than abdicate its judicial duty by copying counsel's written arguments.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate judgment that merely reproduces a party's written arguments satisfy the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the failure of an appellate court to record its own findings on contentions raised a mere irregularity or an illegality?
  • What is the legal consequence when an appellate court fails to apply its conscious judicial mind to the facts and evidence of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussain Bibi and others vs Punjab and Kashmir Bank Ltd.1991 CLC 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena Begum and others vs Mst. Nazma Begum and others1991 MLD 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hanifan Bibi vs Muhammad Iqbal And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 1864 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hanifan Bibi and others vs Muhammad Hussain and others1991 CLC 770 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Begum vs Mst. Nazir Bano and 4 others1991 CLC 288 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajran Bibi vs Khalid Abbas and others1991 CLC 831 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajran Bibi vs Additional District Judge and others1991 MLD 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others vs Muhammad Din and others1991 CLC 1704 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima And Another vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghausia Bibi vs Assistant Commissioner1991 CLC 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Firdaus Begum and Other vs The Additional District Judge, LahoreK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 50 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Fazlan Mai vs Rab Nawaz and another-1991 P C r. L J 12 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazlan Bibi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1832 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida Parveen and anothers vs Ghulam Hussain and others1991 CLC 1440 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqis Bano vs Ghulam Rasool and others1991 MLD 2375 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran vs Muhammad Abbas And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1509 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs S.H.O. and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Barkat Bibi vs Mst. Sakina Bibi and 7 others1991 CLC 546 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10
  civil revisiontemporary allotmentmaintenance allowanceinheritanceproprietary rightsbona fide purchaserrefugee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner-plaintiff's suit for a share in agricultural land. The petitioner, daughter of the original temporary allottee, claimed a share in the land under inheritance following her father's death. The core legal question was whether agricultural land temporarily allotted to a head of a family for maintenance (guzara) is heritable by heirs outside the designated family unit, and whether the petitioner had any entitlement to proprietary rights subsequently acquired by the surviving associate members and sold to a bona fide purchaser. The Lahore High Court held that land temporarily allotted solely for maintenance does not form part of the estate of the deceased allottee and is not heritable, as the right to receive maintenance terminates upon death. Consequently, the temporary allotment enured only to the surviving associate family members who later purchased proprietary rights and validly sold them. The Court laid down the principle that temporary maintenance allotments do not constitute heritable property upon the allottee's death and dismissed the revision in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether agricultural land temporarily allotted for maintenance purposes is heritable upon the death of the allottee?
  • Does a daughter who was not part of the temporary allottee's associate family unit have a right to inherit or share in the temporarily allotted land?
  • Can surviving associate family members who acquire proprietary rights in a temporary allotment validly convey title to a bona fide purchaser for value?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balqees Bano vs Shamim Ahmad alias Yasin and 2 others1991 CLC 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakht Bano vs Mst. Zainab Khatoon1991 MLD 2389 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14
  civil revisionsale mutationburden of prooforal saleconcurrent findingsfraud and impersonationperpetual injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for a perpetual injunction and declaration regarding land, challenging a sale mutation on the grounds of impersonation, fraud, and lack of consideration. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding the sale mutation to be fictitious and invalid, which decision was subsequently affirmed by the Additional District Judge in appeal. The core legal question revolved around the genuineness of the oral sale evidenced through the disputed mutation and whether the beneficiary of the mutation successfully discharged the onus of proof regarding the payment of consideration and valid execution. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below suffered from no jurisdictional error, misreading, or non-consideration of evidence. The key legal principle laid down is that the onus of proof to establish the validity of a sale mutation heavily rests upon its beneficiary, and where evidence regarding payment of consideration and appearance before the Revenue Officer is discrepant and fraught with serious doubts, the mutation cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Where a sale mutation is challenged on the ground of fraud and impersonation, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the validity of the sale?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below regarding the ungenuineness of a sale mutation be interfered with in civil revision in the absence of jurisdictional error or misreading of evidence?
  • Whether an oral sale of land through mutation is legally sustainable when the evidence regarding the payment of consideration is materially discrepant and uncorroborated?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Badshah Begum and others vs Baradri Kashmiri and others1991 CLC 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Awal Marjan vs Mst. Gul Jan1991 P Cr. LJ 717 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-13
  habeas corpuscustody of minorsHizanatmother's right to custodyguardian judgesummary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, brought by a mother seeking the custody of her four minor children from her mother-in-law and husband. The core legal question revolved around whether the High Court should grant custody of minor children to the mother in summary proceedings under Section 491, Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the pendency of guardianship proceedings before the Guardian Judge. The Lahore High Court held that under personal law (Hizanat), the mother holds a superior right to the custody of minor children compared to the grandmother or father, and summary habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy to restore custody to the mother despite pending guardianship litigation, as complex questions regarding the mother's financial circumstances and the welfare of minors are best settled by the Guardian Judge upon evidence. The key principle laid down is that the mother's right of Hizanat under personal law warrants the delivery of minor children's custody to her through summary proceedings, leaving broader factual determinations regarding welfare and suitability to the competent Guardian Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mother seek the custody of her minor children through a habeas corpus petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the pendency of an application before the Guardian Judge preclude the High Court from granting custody of minors in summary proceedings?
  • Does the mother have a preferential right of Hizanat over the father and paternal grandmother under personal law?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the welfare of minors and the mother's financial circumstances be adjudicated in summary habeas corpus proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asma Begum and others vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1991 CLC 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asia Bano vs The Rent Controller, Gujranwala and 9 othersI991 MLD 813 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Arjumand Bano vs Ch. Ali Muhammad1991 MLD 250 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Begum and 7 others vs Syed Muhammad Siddique and another1991 MLD 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-27
  ejectment proceedingswillful defaultsublettingadvance rentlandlord and tenantrent controllertenancy dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by landlords against tenants for a shop in Rawalpindi. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding the tenants in default of rent and guilty of subletting. The core legal questions were whether the tenants committed willful default given an advance payment held by the landlords, and whether the presence of a relative in the shop constituted subletting. The High Court held that the advance payment of Rs. 50,000 was clearly intended as advance rent, not security, and the landlord’s admission of adjusting monthly rent from this sum negated the claim of willful default. Furthermore, the Court held that a relative assisting a tenant in business does not amount to subletting, especially absent evidence of a transfer of tenancy rights. The principle laid down is that where a landlord holds sufficient advance rent to cover alleged arrears, the tenant cannot be held a willful defaulter, and the mere presence of a relative assisting in business does not establish subletting. The eviction order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of an advance payment held by a landlord preclude a finding of willful default if the amount covers the arrears?
  • Does a relative assisting a tenant in business operations constitute subletting of the premises?
  • Can a landlord who admits to adjusting monthly rent from an advance payment later claim the payment was merely security?
  Read full judgment →