Latest Judgments

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

• Mst. Amtul Mubin Alias Mst. Mubin Karim vs Magistrate Illaqa, South1991 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02
  discharge of accusedjudicial discretionpolice reportindependent judicial mindcriminal revisionadministrative order
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order passed by the Magistrate Illaqa, which discharged the accused persons from a criminal case based solely on a police report. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate acts lawfully when discharging an accused person by mechanically adopting the police report without applying an independent judicial mind. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside. The Court reasoned that while the order of discharge is administrative in nature, a Magistrate is not permitted to render their discretion subservient to police dictates. The Court established the principle that a Magistrate is legally obligated to apply an independent mind to the facts presented by the investigating agency and must formulate their own opinion rather than acting in a purely mechanical fashion based on the police's recommendation. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the concerned Court to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring judicial scrutiny is exercised rather than mere rubber-stamping of police reports.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Magistrate required to apply an independent mind when passing an order of discharge based on a police report?
  • Can a Magistrate render their judicial discretion subservient to the police's opinion in a discharge proceeding?
  • Does the mechanical adoption of a police report by a Magistrate in a discharge order constitute a legal error?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akbari Bibi vs Muhammad Sajjad Alias Sajjad1991 P Cr. L J 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Afzal Begum vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst Zubaida Parveen vs Deputy District Education OfficerK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 468 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst Siddiqan Bibi vs Additional District Judge and AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 467 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mst Mubin Khanam vs Javed Ahmad KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 392 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mst Fazlan Mai vs Tab Nawaz and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 464 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Robina Wahala vs Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal/Controlling1991 MLD 2243 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Maryam Wasif vs Mrs. Shahida Khan and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 478 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. K.P. Boga and others vs Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Deputy Settlement1991 MLD 835 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Amir Fatimah vs Government of the Punjab1991 PLC (C.S.) 517 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• MRs, Rubina Muhajar vs Federation of Pakistan and others1991 MLD 2383 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
• Moracfco Industries Ltd. and another vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 21991 PLC 501 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• Moor Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1906 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mojahid And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Yasin vs The State1991 KLR Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Tayyab vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 351 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sadiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 297 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Riaz vs Mohammad Ehtesham Etc.K.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ramzan vs Bashir Ahmad(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 53) · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ishfaq Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 200 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Azam Khan and Other vs Nobat Khan and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Aslam vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 189 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Anwar vs Nabi HussainK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
• Moazam Ali And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 817 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mistri Bashir Ahmad vs Mayor, Metropolitan Corporation1991 CLC 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Miss Janna T Bhatti vs Abdul Haq and others1991 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09Read full judgment →
• Miss Fatima Tuz Zohra vs S.H.O., Police Station `A' Division, Okara and others1991 P Cr. L J 1321 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-05Read full judgment →
• Mirza Zafar Ali and 4 Other vs Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, and 2 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 17) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mirza Riaz Beg vs District Manager And Others1991 P Cr. L J 1744 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mian Shabbir Ahmad and anothers vs Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others1991 CLC 1830 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29
  constitutional petitionex parte ejectmentservice of summonsprocess-server reportretrospectivity of statutealternative remedyrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, whereby the petitioners' application to set aside an ex parte ejectment order was dismissed. The core legal questions involved the legality of proceeding ex parte on the basis of a defective process-server report, the competence of a ministerial officer to adjourn a case and issue notices, and the availability of an alternative remedy under a subsequently amended law. The Lahore High Court held that the Rent Controller acted with undue, mala fide haste, that a ministerial officer (Reader) cannot fix dates or issue notices, and that the process-server's report was incomplete and inconsistent with his deposition. The Court laid down that ex parte proceedings vitiate when initiated on dates fixed by ministerial officers rather than the court, and that statutory amendments providing alternative remedies do not apply retrospectively to pending matters if not expressly provided.

  Questions settled

  • Can a ministerial officer of the court fix a date of hearing and direct the issuance of notices to a party?
  • Whether an ex parte order passed with undue haste and on the basis of a defective process-server report is sustainable in law?
  • Does an amendment introducing a right of second appeal apply retrospectively to cases filed before its promulgation?
  • Is a constitutional petition barred when the alternative remedy of a second appeal was not available at the time of the appellate order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Saeed Akhtar vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Local1991 CLC 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Yasin vs Muslim Commercial Limited1991 CLC 550 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Aslam vs The District Education Officer and another1991 MLD 511 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Aslam vs Abud Ul Khair Primary School(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 91) · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ali Hassan vs Fateh Mohammad Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 69 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan And 3 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Bari vs WAPDA through its Chairman and 2 others1991 MLD 313 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-18
  territorial jurisdictionstatutory corporationprincipal officecivil revisiondamageselectricity disconnectionWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts returning the plaintiff's plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff had instituted a suit for damages against WAPDA and its officers in Lahore arising from a dispute over electricity charges and disconnection of supply at Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether Civil Courts at Lahore possessed territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, considering that WAPDA maintains its principal office in Lahore. The Lahore High Court held that WAPDA is a statutory corporation created under Section 3 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, possessing a distinct legal personality, and thus falls within the purview of Explanation II to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court laid down that a statutory corporation is deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office, and since WAPDA's central management and control, and thus its principal office, are located in Lahore, the Civil Courts at Lahore have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) is a statutory corporation within the meaning of Explanation II to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 make any distinction between a statutory corporation and a corporation registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Where is a statutory corporation deemed to carry on business for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Do Civil Courts at Lahore have territorial jurisdiction to try a suit against WAPDA when its principal office is located in Lahore?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Hameed and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 2015 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Services Sales Corporation vs Sh. Abdul Karim1991 CLC 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Republic Motors Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 767 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Raja Industries Ltd. vs Rent Controller, Sialkot Cantonment1991 MLD 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Punjab Club vs Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution1991 PLC 72 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pasrur Sugar Mill vs Abdul Qadeer and others1991 PLC 821 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Paper Corner vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1991 CLC 740 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01
  rejection of plaintappellate court powersconstructive res judicatasuit for rendition of accountslimitation periodtemporary injunctioninterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from a decision of the District Judge, Sargodha, which set aside a temporary injunction and rejected the plaint in a subsequent suit for rendition of accounts filed by the appellants against the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha. The core legal questions involve the power of an appellate court under section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to reject a plaint during an appeal against an interlocutory order, whether the subsequent suit was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the suit was barred by limitation without the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Lahore High Court held that an appellate court, possessing co-extensive powers under section 107(2) and having explicitly withdrawn the suit to its own file, is fully empowered to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court held that the subsequent independent suit based on pleas already adjudicated in earlier proceedings was barred by constructive res judicata and time-barred. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the power to reject a plaint when hearing an appeal against an interlocutory order if the suit has been transferred to its own file?
  • Whether a subsequent independent suit raising pleas already adjudicated in a prior suit between the same parties is barred by constructive res judicata?
  • Can the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 be extended to a plaintiff who failed to show due diligence and good faith in prosecuting a prior proceeding?
  • Are the instances given in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejecting a plaint exhaustive?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nlisrat Elahi and 41 others vs The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and 68 others1991 MLD 2546 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionjudicial independenceservice mattermaintainabilityHigh Court employeesadministrative orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by 42 senior clerks of the Lahore High Court challenging the promotion of other employees to B.P.S. 11 and 16, alleging that these promotions were made without the mandatory competitive test required by the High Court (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable by employees of the High Court against administrative orders passed by the Court or its Registrar. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that Article 208 of the Constitution grants the High Court the power to regulate the terms and conditions of its own staff to ensure judicial independence. Furthermore, Article 199(5) of the Constitution explicitly excludes the High Court from the definition of 'person' against whom writ jurisdiction can be exercised. Consequently, administrative orders passed by the Chief Justice or the Registrar on behalf of the Court are immune from challenge under Article 199.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable by High Court employees against administrative orders passed by the High Court or its Registrar?
  • Does the definition of 'person' in Article 199(5) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 exclude the High Court from writ jurisdiction regarding its own administrative actions?
  • Are High Court employees governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to frame its own rules for the appointment and conditions of service of its staff under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nemat Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Punjab and others1991 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Film Development Corporation Ltd., Islamabad vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Islamabad1991 PTD 1056 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nasir Mughis Ltd., Lahore vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies1991 PTD 874 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Naseer Mughis Ltd. vs Commissionzr of Income-Tax, Lahore1991 PTD 871 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Murree Brewery Company Limited vs Directorgeneral, Excise1991 MLD 267 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07
  freedom of tradepolice powersnatural justiceaudi alteram partembrewery rulesnon-alcoholic beveragesmala fidesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition was filed by M/s. Murree Brewery Company Limited challenging the legality of orders and actions of the Excise and Taxation Department restraining the company from manufacturing and producing a non-alcoholic beverage named 'Malt-79' within its brewery premises. The core legal questions involved whether the company required permission under the Punjab Excise Act 1914 to manufacture non-alcoholic beverages, whether the state could prohibit rather than merely regulate such activity, and whether the impugned orders violated the principles of natural justice and were tainted with mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution allows citizens to conduct lawful business subject only to licensing systems or statutory qualifications, and since no law prohibited manufacturing non-alcoholic beverages, no special permission under the Excise Act was required. The court further held that while the state possesses police powers to regulate commercial activities to protect public health, regulation does not encompass total prohibition. Finally, the court ruled that the impugned orders were void ab initio for violating the principle of audi alteram partem as no opportunity of hearing was afforded, though the allegation of mala fides was rejected for lack of specific proof. The petition was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a citizen or public company requires permission under the Punjab Excise Act 1914 to manufacture non-alcoholic beverages within a licensed brewery?
  • Does the power of the State to regulate a trade or business under its police powers include the authority to totally prohibit it?
  • Whether the withdrawal of a manufacturing permission without affording an opportunity of hearing violates the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish allegations of mala fides against official executive actions in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mumtaz Industries vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, Multan through Manager and another1991 MLD 863 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Moon Elite Enterprises vs M.C. Lyallpur and others1991 CLC 796 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26
  natural justicerecovery of taxesshow-cause noticemunicipal taxationdue processwarrant of distressadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a notice of demand issued by the Municipal Committee for the recovery of Rs. 1,48,538.75, purportedly under the Pakistan Municipal Committee (Recovery of Taxes) Rules, 1962. The core legal question was whether the Taxation Officer could initiate recovery proceedings via a warrant of distress without first issuing a show-cause notice or conducting an inquiry to ascertain the liability of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the failure to provide an opportunity to explain the accounts violated the principles of natural justice and established legal precedents. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority because the Taxation Officer failed to provide the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to explain their position regarding the alleged liability. The Court affirmed that it is a cardinal principle of natural justice that a party must be given notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before a liability is determined and recovery proceedings are initiated. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Taxation Officer for fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Taxation Officer required to issue a show-cause notice before initiating recovery proceedings for taxes?
  • Does the failure to provide an opportunity to explain liability before issuing a demand notice violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can recovery proceedings under the Pakistan Municipal Committee (Recovery of Taxes) Rules 1962 be initiated without first ascertaining the amount due?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Iqbal Sweet House vs Director, Punjab Social Security1991 PLC 331 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haji Butt and others vs National Bank of Pakistan1991 CLC 778 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Duke Sports Ltd vs The C.I.T., Rawalpindi1991 PTD 776 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bashir & Co. vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 4 others1991 CLC 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Azam Agencies vs Excise and Taxation Officer and others1991 CLC 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05
  constitutional petitiontaxationimport and exportlawful authoritytax demand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by M/s. Azam Agencies Limited challenging the demand for tax imposed by the Excise and Taxation Officer under the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963. The petitioner, a registered importer and exporter under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, contested the legality of the tax demand. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the tax levied under the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963, upon persons engaged in the trade of importing and exporting was lawful. Relying on the precedent established in the case of Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi v. Excise and Taxation Officer 'L' Division Karachi (PLD 1976 Karachi 1238), the Court held that the tax demand was illegal and issued without lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition and restrained the respondents from levying the tax on the petitioner. The judgment affirms that demands for tax under the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963, are without lawful authority, thereby providing relief to the petitioner against such tax impositions.

  Questions settled

  • Is the demand for tax made under the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963, considered lawful?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to restrain tax authorities from levying taxes deemed illegal?
  • Can a registered importer and exporter challenge a tax demand under the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963, through a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din Alias Majah And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mehraj Din Alias Maja vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1694 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mehr Lal Khan vs Haji Ahmad and 2 others1991 M L'D 663 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mehr Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 366 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
• Mehr Khan vs The State-1991 PCr.LJ 93 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
• Mehnaz Begum and anothers vs Muhammad Sarfraz and others1991 CLC 782 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Khan vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17
  plea of guiltyconviction on admissionshow cause noticeexplosive substancesremand for fresh trialcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Sargodha, convicting the appellant under Section 4-B of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and sentencing him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment based on his plea of guilty regarding the possession of 300 detonators. The core legal question was whether convicting the appellant forthwith upon his plea of guilty without providing him an opportunity to show cause why he should not be convicted, as mandated by Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is legal. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of asking the accused to show cause after recording his admission, which is designed to avoid involuntary admissions and ensure fairness. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh trial in accordance with the law, laying down the principle that the procedure under Section 243 Cr.P.C. must be strictly followed before sentencing upon a plea of guilty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conviction based on a plea of guilty without giving the accused an opportunity to show cause under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is legal?
  • Is a trial court obliged to ask the accused to show cause why he should not be convicted after recording an admission of guilt?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon a plea of guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali and another vs Mst. Sharifan Bibi and 21 others1991 CLC 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20
  admissibility of documentspublic documentspedigree tableforeign public documentsappellate powerspossession suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Lahore High Court addresses two regular second appeals arising from a remand order by the Supreme Court concerning suits for possession of land. The core legal question revolved around the admissibility of a pedigree-table (Exh.P3) originating from India and whether the seal of the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India amounted to substantial compliance with the mandatory certification requirements under sub-section (6) of Section 78 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the appellants argued that they were prejudiced because the trial court exhibited the document without ruling on its admissibility and that the appellate court could not exclude it without giving them an opportunity to cure the defect. The court held that the document lacked the requisite certificate from the legal keeper and necessary consular/diplomatic attestation mandated by law, and thus was rightly held inadmissible. The court further held that an appellate court possesses full powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass orders that the trial court ought to have passed. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the seal of the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India on a foreign document constitute sufficient compliance with sub-section (6) of Section 78 of the Evidence Act?
  • Can an appellate court exclude a document from consideration if the trial court exhibited it without deciding an objection as to its admissibility?
  • Whether an appellate court has the power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass any decree or order that ought to have been passed by the trial Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Illahi vs The StateK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 373 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Illahi vs The State1991 MLD 1024 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Maulana Zahid Ur Rashid And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 822 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
• Masooda Begum vs District Education Officer, Toba Tek Singh and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 155 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
• Masjid Mauza Mathruma through Sajjada vs Makhdoom Shah and others1991 MLD 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Market Committee, Chichawatni District Sahiwal through Chairman vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1991 CLC 118 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27
  Zakat exemptionlocal authorityMarket CommitteeSahib-e-Nisablocal fundcompulsory deduction of Zakatwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions filed by Market Committees challenging memorandums issued by National Savings authorities directing the compulsory deduction of Zakat from the petitioners' funds. The core legal question was whether Market Committees established under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 qualify as 'local authorities' and are thus exempt from payment of Zakat under Section 2(xxiii)(a) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980. The Lahore High Court allowed the petitions, holding that because Market Committees are body corporates entrusted with statutory self-governing functions, powers to issue licences, and control of an independent local fund subject to local fund audit, they satisfy the definition of a 'local authority' under Section 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, as local authorities, they are excluded from the definition of 'Sahib-e-Nisab' under Section 2(xxiii)(a) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980, making the impugned memorandums demanding Zakat unlawful and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Market Committee constituted under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 is a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 3(28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Whether Market Committees are excluded from being 'Sahib-e-Nisab' and exempted from payment of Zakat under Section 2(xxiii)(a) of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980?
  • Does the statutory duty and power to maintain, control, and spend a local fund qualify an entity as a local authority under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Market Committee vs Federation of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 536 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Market Committee vs Federation of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul HAMIDs vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1991 MLD 672 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01
  rendition of accountsrejection of plaintres judicatalimitationappellate jurisdictiontemporary injunctioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a decision by the District Judge, Sargodha, rejecting a plaint for rendition of accounts and vacating a temporary injunction. The core legal questions were whether an Appellate Court possesses the authority to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during an appeal against an interlocutory order, and whether the subsequent suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and limitation. The High Court held that under Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an Appellate Court has co-extensive powers with the trial court to reject a plaint, provided the suit is on its file. The Court affirmed the rejection, finding the suit barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the claims had been previously adjudicated. Furthermore, the Court ruled the suit was time-barred, noting that Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable as prior proceedings did not prevent the institution of the current suit. The judgment confirms that an Appellate Court may reject a plaint if the suit is transferred to its file.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Appellate Court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during an appeal against an interlocutory order?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit for rendition of accounts when the claims were previously adjudicated?
  • Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to exclude time spent in previous civil proceedings where those proceedings did not prevent the institution of the subsequent suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mardan Ali and others vs Not1991 CLC 82 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-14
  plaintprayer clausecivil revisionpleadingssubstance over formdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration regarding ownership and possession of agricultural land, wherein the trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. The petitioners challenged these concurrent findings, arguing that the plaint was defective because it lacked a specific prayer clause, thereby violating Order VII Rule 1(g) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioners could not raise a point not specifically pleaded in their revision petition. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the absence of a formal prayer clause is not fatal to a suit if the relief sought is decipherable from the plaint as a whole. The Court affirmed that pleadings must be read in their entirety, prioritizing substance over form. It established that a court is competent to grant relief not specifically prayed for, provided such relief is consistent with the pleadings, supported by evidence, and does not cause surprise to the adversary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant relief that was not specifically prayed for in the plaint?
  • Should a plaint be interpreted by looking at the document as a whole or only the prayer clause?
  • Is the absence of a formal prayer clause fatal to a civil suit if the relief is otherwise decipherable from the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Elahi vs Secretary Education EtcK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 632 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 346 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed (Akhtar) Alias Sooda vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1627 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs Mst. Musarratara1991 CLC 294 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-08Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-17Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmed vs Sh. Aziz Din and others1991 CLC 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 2533 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
• Maosood Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 950 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Manzur Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1865 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Manzoorulhaq vs Mst. Zainab and others1991 CLC 790 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Manzoorahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1888 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 287 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-22Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The State1991 MLD 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and others vs Bhole Khan and others1991 CLC 640 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-18
  minor propertyguardian's powerMahomedan lawspecific performancepre-emptioncourt-feede jure guardian
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a civil suit concerning the competence of a legal guardian under Mahomedan Law to alienate or agree to sell the immovable property of his minor wards, alongside subsidiary issues regarding court-fee deficits. The core legal questions involve whether a natural/de jure guardian can bind minor wards through an agreement to re-convey property to avert pre-emption litigation, and the consequences of inadequate court-fee payment on alternative reliefs. The Lahore High Court held that a de jure guardian (such as a father) possesses the power to alienate or enter into an agreement to sell minor's immovable property provided the transaction satisfies the stringent conditions of absolute necessity and manifest benefit to the minors. The Court ruled that the enumerated instances in classical texts are illustrative of this underlying rule of necessity and benefit. Furthermore, court-fee matters are primarily between the suitor and the State, and parties must be afforded an opportunity to make good any discovered deficiencies before penal consequences ensue. The appeal was dismissed, and parties were directed to make up the deficit court-fees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a de jure guardian under Mahomedan Law is competent to bind a minor by entering into an agreement to sell immovable property?
  • Are the classical conditions permitting the alienation of a minor's immovable property exhaustive, or are they illustrative of the broader rule of absolute necessity and benefit?
  • Can a court direct a party to make good a deficit court-fee on a plaint or memorandum of appeal before resorting to punitive rejection or dismissal?
  • Whether an agreement to re-convey pre-emptible property executed by a natural guardian for the benefit of minor vendees is specifically enforceable?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor And 3 Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs (Mst). Akhtar Begum & 2 Other(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 110) · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and others vs The State1991 MLD 866 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Alias Shami vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mansib Dar vs The State;1991 P Cr. L J 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mansha vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-06Read full judgment →
• Manik And 2 Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1918 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →