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.

• Farid And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Farasat Ali Shah Alias Cheena Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Farasat Ali Shah Alias Cheena Shah vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Faqir Sain And Others vs Ghulam Ahmed And Another1991 P Cr. L J 1566 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Muhammad Sharif1991 MLD 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Haji Muhammad Latif And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and others vs Chief Land Commissioner and another1991 CLC 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Alam Sher And 2 Others1991 P Cr. L J 2432 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 237 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-11Read full judgment →
• Faiz Elahi vs Shamir1991 CLC 2005 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24
  colonization of government landsoccupancy tenantabsolute ownershiptransfer of landspecific performanceconsent decreealienationregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, which had declared a previous consent decree regarding the sale of land as void. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell land, originally granted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, was invalid due to the absence of the Collector's permission under Section 19 of the Act. The High Court held that the vendor had attained absolute ownership of the land upon paying the full price to the government in 1958, prior to the agreement to sell. Consequently, the statutory restriction on alienation under Section 19 was inapplicable. The Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree, affirming the validity of the sale. The key principle laid down is that an occupancy tenant under the Act becomes the absolute owner of the land the moment the full price is paid, and title is not contingent upon the formal execution of a conveyance deed.

  Questions settled

  • Does an occupancy tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, become the absolute owner of land immediately upon payment of the full price to the government?
  • Is the prior permission of the Collector under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, required for the transfer of land once the full price has been paid to the government?
  • Can a consent decree be challenged on the ground that the underlying agreement was void due to statutory restrictions on alienation?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs Munir Ahmad and 2 OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 467 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 44 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Fahmida Begum and others vs Khalid Roheel Alam and others1991 CLC 1644 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Ellahi Bakhsh and 12 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 others1991 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-06Read full judgment →
• Elahi Bux vs The State1991 MLD 226 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Hussain vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others1991 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah Bajwa vs Chairman City & Regional Planning DepartmentK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 308 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-17Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ali vs District Food Controller (R), Lahore1991 PLC (C.S.) 386 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
• Dura Foam (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Union Council Kamahan, Tehsil Cantt., District Lahore and 4 others1991 MLD 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Dr. S.S. Naeemul Hamid vs Mst. Tahira Sultana and others1991 CLC 853 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22
  limitation periodcopying agencycross-objectionscross-appealrevision petitioncertified copyadministration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as an appeal against an appellate court's dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court correctly computed the limitation period for filing the appeal, specifically regarding the date an application for a certified copy of the decree was made, and whether a cross-appeal could be treated as cross-objections even if the original appeal was withdrawn. The High Court, treating the appeal as a revision petition, held that the limitation period must be calculated from the date the copying agency entertained the application, regardless of when court fees were affixed or internal sanctions obtained. Furthermore, the court held that a cross-appeal filed while another appeal is pending can be treated as cross-objections, and such cross-objections must be decided on merits even if the original appeal is subsequently withdrawn. The key principle laid down is that the date an application is entered in the copying agency's register constitutes the date of application for limitation purposes, and procedural technicalities regarding the labeling of an appeal should not preclude substantive justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the date an application for a certified copy is entered in the copying agency's register determine the start of the limitation period, regardless of when court fees are affixed?
  • Can a cross-appeal be treated as cross-objections even if the original appeal is subsequently withdrawn?
  • Is an appellate court required to decide cross-objections on their merits even if the main appeal is withdrawn?
  • Can a second appeal be treated as a revision petition if the valuation of the suit does not support a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Siddique vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1959 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Shaukat Iqbal and others vs Muhammad Luqman Arshad1991 MLD 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-18
  ejectmentrent-defaultremandconstitutional petitionconcurrent findings of factburden of proofsubletting
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord against his tenant for rent-default and subletting of a shop. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but upon appeal, the lower appellate court set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for a fresh inquiry on the recast issue of rent-default. Following remand, the Rent Controller found the tenant to be a defaulter and ordered his ejectment, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The petitioner challenged these concurrent findings through a constitutional petition under Article 199, arguing that the remand was legally defective under the relevant rent ordinance and that the courts below disregarded material evidence. The Lahore High Court held that appellate authorities possess inherent powers of remand governed by the principles of the Civil Procedure Code, that the previous remand order having been accepted could not be reopened, and that questions of fact regarding rent payment appraised concurrently by the lower courts are not open to review in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate authority has the power to remand a case for a fresh trial or further inquiry under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding rent-default recorded by the lower courts be interfered with in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Where a party accepts a remand order and participates in subsequent proceedings without challenge, can the legality or propriety of that remand order be questioned subsequently?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the payment, discharge, or satisfaction of rent liability in an ejectment proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Saeed vs Ahsan Raza and another1991 CLC 1266 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khalid Karim vs Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 10 others1991 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. H.H. Mirza vs Mst. Waheeda Kahtoon1991 MLD 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ahmed Salman Waris vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Health and others ,1991 PLC (C.S.) 670 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1763 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad And 6 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• District Evacuee Trust Committee, Lyallpur vs Abdul Ghafoor1991 CLC 1670 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Director Education and others vs Islamulhaq and others1991 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Multan and another1991 MLD 791 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and others vs Evacuee Property Trust Board and others1991 MLD 2353 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
• Dilshad vs Judge Family Court, Kharian and another1991 CLC 1564 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-12Read full judgment →
• Dil Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and 3 others1991 MLD 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17
  arbitration awardlimitation periodwritten noticerule of the courtresiduary articleconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged concurrent orders of the lower forums rejecting the petitioner's plea that an application to make an arbitration award a rule of the court was barred by time. The core legal question was whether limitation under Article 178 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, runs from the date of a formal written notice served by the arbitrator under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or if mere knowledge or information obtained otherwise (aliunde) suffices to trigger the limitation period. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a written notice served strictly in the manner prescribed by Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is a condition precedent for attracting Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court laid down that knowledge gained aliunde does not substitute for the formal written notice, and in the absence of such statutory notice, the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies.

  Questions settled

  • Does limitation under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908 run from the date of knowledge of an arbitration award or from the service of a formal written notice?
  • Is a written notice served by the arbitrator under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 mandatory to attract Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • What limitation article applies to an application for filing an award when no formal written notice has been served by the arbitrator?
  • Does knowledge gained aliunde of the making of an award suffice to commence limitation under Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Daulat Bibi vs Galeen Khan and another1991 MLD 2335 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. through its Manager vs Abdul Aziz and another1991 PLC 494 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sakina And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-01
  post-arrest bailunder-trial prisonersfemale prisonerswelfare of minorssuckling babiesjudicial discretionjail inspection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the detention of female prisoners with minor children in the Women Jail, Multan, and the broader issue of the incarceration of women with suckling infants in the Province of Punjab. The core legal question addressed is whether under-trial female prisoners accompanied by minor children are entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon reviewing the report from the Superintendent of Women Jail, Multan, the Court held that the identified under-trial female prisoners, who were caring for children aged between two months and two years, fell within the scope of the second proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted them bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds. Regarding convicted women, the Court clarified it lacked jurisdiction to suspend sentences for those convicted under the Hudood Ordinance, directing them to the Federal Shariat Court. The Court further emphasized the duty of Sessions Judges to inspect jails and ensure the welfare of suckling babies and minor children, affirming that courts possess inherent, extensive powers to protect their interests.

  Questions settled

  • Are under-trial female prisoners with minor children entitled to bail under the second proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to suspend the execution of sentences for women convicted under the Hudood Ordinance?
  • What are the powers of Sessions Judges regarding the inspection of jails and the protection of minor children detained with their mothers?
  Read full judgment →
• Col. Mirza Dawood Ahmad vs Dr. Afsar Aijaz and others1991 CLC 1566 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Col. (Retd.) Fakhar Hussain Shah vs Raja Muhammad Aslam and others1991 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Saleem Ullah Etc vs Noor MuhammadK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 289 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
• Chan Baig and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 221 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-02Read full judgment →
• Champion Clock Company vs Central Board of Revenue and others1991 PTD 778 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-04
  sales tax exemptionmanufactured goodsend-producttax liabilityconstitutional petitionintegral componentswholesale exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a ruling by the Central Board of Revenue and a subsequent show-cause notice directing the petitioner to pay sales tax on plastic bodies/cases manufactured for wall clocks. The core legal question was whether components (bodies/cases) manufactured by the petitioner and subsequently incorporated into an end-product (wall clocks)—which were themselves exempt from sales tax—remained liable for tax as independent goods. The Court held that because the end-product (wall clocks) enjoyed a wholesale exemption from sales tax, the components incorporated into them lost their separate identity for tax purposes. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Messrs Shaiq Corporation Ltd., the Court determined that where raw materials or partly manufactured goods are assimilated into an exempt end-product, they cannot be subjected to sales tax as independent items. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, restraining the authorities from levying sales tax on the clock bodies/cases as long as the exemption notification for wall clocks remained operative, ruling that the fiction of law regarding 'sale' under section 3(6) of the Act did not apply.

  Questions settled

  • Whether components of an end-product are liable for sales tax when the end-product itself is exempt from such tax?
  • Does the incorporation of a manufactured component into an end-product result in the loss of the component's separate identity for tax purposes?
  • Can the fiction of law regarding 'sale' under section 3(6) of the Sales Tax Act 1951 be applied to components used by a manufacturer to produce an exempt end-product?
  Read full judgment →
• CH.Talib Nawaz vs Aurangzib Durrani Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 286 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-11Read full judgment →
• Ch. Qadir Bakhsh vs Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh and others1991 CLC 154 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ch. Niaz Ahmad vs Dr. Muhammad Yusuf and others1991 CLC 1632 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ch. Nasrullah Khan vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1991 CLC 104 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-06
  specific performanceagreement to sellrevisional jurisdictionexecution of documentburden of proofattesting witnessconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside the trial court's judgment decreeing the petitioner's suit for specific performance of a contract. The core legal questions revolved around whether the execution of the agreement to sell and payment of earnest money were satisfactorily established by the plaintiff, and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower appellate Court could be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiff failed to satisfactorily prove the execution of the agreement and the payment of consideration due to material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, discrepancies regarding the identity of an attesting witness, failure to produce the second attesting witness or the registered power of attorney mentioned in the plaint, and the non-existence of the corpus of the bargain on the date of the alleged agreement. The Court laid down the principle that findings of fact recorded by an appellate court, being reasonable and sound, cannot be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can findings of fact recorded by an appellate court be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when they are based on sound and reasonable evaluation of evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce an attesting witness or explain his absence through acceptable legal means weaken the proof of execution of a disputed agreement?
  • Whether material contradictions among the plaintiff's witnesses regarding the date, manner of execution, and payment of consideration are sufficient to invalidate a claim for specific performance?
  • Can an agreement to sell be effectively enforced when the corpus of the bargain was non-existent on the purported date of its execution?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Yousaf vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima through Legal Heirs1991 CLC 1096 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Shabbir vs Haji Muhammad Ashraf and others1991 CLC 863 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Rasheed and 5 others vs Abdul Waheed Rathor and others1991 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Rafiq vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 944 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad vs Income Tax Officer and others1991 CLC 2001 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hussain and 9 others vs Secretary, Local Government1991 CLC 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• CH. Muhammad Farooq vs (Mst) Surrayya Naheed(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 108) · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs Amanullah And OtherPTCL 1991 CL. 421 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
• Ch. Jamil Ahmad vs Nippon Bobbin Company (Pakistan) Ltd.1991 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31
  intra-court appealwinding-up orderCompanies Ordinancecompetency of appealSupreme Court appealstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two intra-court appeals arising between the same parties out of proceedings in a company case. The core legal question addressed by the Lahore High Court is the competency of an intra-court appeal before the High Court against orders passed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, after a winding-up order of the company has already been made. The Court held that by virtue of Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, once a winding-up order has been passed, an appeal against any order, decision, or judgment of the Court lies exclusively to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whereas Section 10(2) applies only where a winding-up order has not yet been directed. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the intra-court appeals were not competent before it and dismissed them accordingly, laying down the principle that the word 'any' in Section 10(1) has a sweeping connotation covering all orders, decisions, or judgments passed under the Ordinance post-winding-up.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against an order passed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 lie to the High Court or the Supreme Court once a winding-up order has been made?
  • What is the scope and interpretation of the word 'any' in Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • When does Section 10(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 apply with respect to appeals against orders passed by the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad and anothers vs Muhammad Ayub and 3 others1991 CLC 296 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-07
  ex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreesufficient causerevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factcounsel's negligencenon-appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The petitioners, defendants in a recovery suit, failed to appear before the trial court, resulting in an ex parte decree. They subsequently filed an application to set aside the decree, alleging that their counsel had advised them that their personal attendance was unnecessary and that the counsel had been ill. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently dismissed the application after the petitioners' own counsel testified that he had received no instructions and had not advised them to stay away. The High Court examined the findings on the issue of 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance. The Court held that the determination of whether sufficient cause existed was a question of fact concurrently decided by the lower courts. Finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence, nor any jurisdictional defect or material irregularity in the lower courts' orders, the High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of 'sufficient cause' to set aside an ex parte decree?
  • Does the failure of a party to appear in court based on alleged advice from counsel constitute sufficient cause to set aside an ex parte decree when the counsel denies giving such advice?
  • Can an ex parte decree be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the applicant fails to prove sufficient cause for non-appearance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Bashir Ahmed and others vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24
  civil revisiontemporary injunctionprior noticeadmission of appealregular hearingactus curiae neminem gravabitremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from the dismissal of an appeal by the Additional District Judge on the sole ground that the petitioners failed to serve a prior notice on the respondents as required under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an interim order, once admitted to regular hearing by the appellate court, can be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-filing notice requirement of Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision, set aside the dismissal, and remanded the case for a decision on the merits. The Court held that the utility of the prior notice is restricted to the preliminary hearing stage to allow the respondent to contest admission in limine. Once the appeal is admitted to regular hearing, it cannot be dismissed for non-compliance with Order XLIII Rule 3, as any wrong entertainment or admission by the court cannot prejudice the appellant under the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an interim order can be dismissed after its admission to regular hearing for non-compliance with the prior notice requirement under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the requirement of giving previous notice of filing an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the post-admission stage of an appeal?
  • Can an appellant be penalized for the court's omission or wrong entertainment and admission of an appeal without prior notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahmad Khan Chadhar, D.S.P. vs The Inspector-General of Police1991 PLC (C.S.) 539 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Majid vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1662 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Caltex Oil (Pak). Ltd. vs Mian Ashiq Mohammad FaizK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 140 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
• C.M. Bashir vs State Life Insurance Corporation(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 27) · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-15Read full judgment →
• Budhu Shah and others vs Chief Administrator Auqaf and others1991 CLC 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
• Boota and others vs Sardar and others1991 MLD 1601 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Amir vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 198 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-15Read full judgment →
• Bilal Nasir vs The Province of Punjab and another1991 MLD 708 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Bilal Hussain vs The State1991 PLD Lahore 346 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21
  Special Court jurisdictionSuppression of Terrorist Activitiesautomatic weapon recoverySection 561-A CrPCSection 249-A CrPCtrial competenceWest Pakistan Arms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the dismissal of an application for acquittal filed under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought acquittal from the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, arguing that the case was not triable by that court because no automatic weapon (Kalashnikov) was recovered during the investigation. The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975 depends upon the actual recovery of an automatic weapon or merely on the allegation of its use in the commission of an offence. The Court held that the jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the allegations rather than the recovery of the weapon. It ruled that the trial by the Special Court was proper because the offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was allegedly committed in combination with an offence under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The principle laid down is that the trial of an offence by a Special Court is not contingent upon the recovery of the weapon used, but on the allegations made in the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Does the jurisdiction of a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act 1975 depend on the actual recovery of an automatic weapon?
  • Is an offence under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 triable by a Special Court if committed in combination with an offence under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965?
  • Can an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted solely on the ground that the weapon alleged to have been used was not recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Bhap vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1831 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Bhag Din and Another vs Mian Hamad Mahmood and Other.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 271 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
• Begum Rabia Hamoodur Rehman and Another vs Lahore DevelopmentK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 92 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Begum Munawar Khatoon vs Hamayun and another1991 MLD 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-08Read full judgment →
• Begum Masooda Malik . vs Province of PunjabK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 157 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Before Muhammad Amir Malik J Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Idris1991 MLD 184 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-07Read full judgment →
• Batala Engineering Company and others vs Thal Development1991 CLC 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Bashir Masih vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 49 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Qasuri and anothers vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health (Health Division), Islamabad and 2 others1991 CLC 691 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and others vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others1991 MLD 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and others vs Muhammad Boota and others1991 CLC 1153 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 333 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Plastic Bag Packaging Limited and others1991 PLD Lahore 386 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-10
  winding up petitionspecial oathOaths Actrevocation of offersettlement of disputecompany law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the winding up of a company, Plastic Bag Packaging Limited. During the evidence stage, the petitioner proposed settling the dispute through a special oath on the Holy Qur'an, which the respondents initially accepted. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application seeking permission to revoke their acceptance before the oath was administered. The core legal question was whether the respondents could resile from their agreement to settle the dispute via a special oath. The Court held that the respondents were entitled to withdraw their acceptance. Relying on Section 12 of the Oaths Act 1873, the Court determined that the statute explicitly permits a party who has accepted an offer of a special oath to resile from that commitment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the respondents could not be legally compelled to abide by the oath once they decided to withdraw. The principle laid down is that under Section 12 of the Oaths Act 1873, the party accepting an offer to settle a dispute by special oath cannot be forced to honor that agreement if they choose to resile from it.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who has accepted an offer to settle a dispute via a special oath be compelled to abide by that oath if they wish to resile?
  • Does Section 12 of the Oaths Act 1873 allow a party to withdraw their acceptance of an offer to settle a dispute by special oath?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Mst. Nasreen and another1991 CLC 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriagekhulafamily courtrestoration of benefitsreconciliation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the judgment and decree of the Family Court dissolving the marriage of the parties on the sole ground of Khula. The core legal question was whether a marriage can be dissolved on the ground of Khula alone when all other issues framed in the suit were decided against the wife. The Lahore High Court held that Khula is an independent ground for the dissolution of marriage, provided the court's conscience is satisfied that the spouses cannot live within the limits prescribed by Almighty Allah. The Court ruled that where reconciliation efforts have failed, parties have lived separately for years, and serious allegations have been exchanged, forcing them to remain in a hateful union is impermissible. Furthermore, the wife's refusal to return benefits was held immaterial where the Family Court found that no benefits worth naming were bestowed upon her. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a marriage be dissolved on the ground of Khula alone when other grounds or issues are decided against the wife?
  • Whether the refusal of a wife to return benefits defeats her right to Khula when no substantial benefits were bestowed upon her?
  • Does the High Court interfere with the decision of a Family Court granting Khula when the conclusion is based on the wife's aversion and failed reconciliation?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Mirza Muhammad Ya000b and 10 others1991 MLD 579 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-11
  bail cancellationpre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailunlawful assemblycriminal assault
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest and post-arrest bail granted to the respondents in a case registered under sections 307, 448, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Yazman. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant the cancellation of bail already granted to the accused persons by the lower courts. The Lahore High Court held that no case was made out for the cancellation of bail, noting that twelve persons were implicated for twelve injuries, no firearm or grievous injuries were attributed to the respondents, and the counsel did not press for the cancellation of bail for the post-arrest respondents. The court laid down the principle that once bail has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction, strong and exceptional grounds are required for its cancellation, and no useful purpose would be served by sending the respondents to jail when they would ultimately be released.

  Questions settled

  • Are strong and exceptional grounds required for the cancellation of bail once it has been granted by a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Whether bail should be cancelled when the accused persons are not attributed any firearm or grievous injuries and the number of accused matches the number of injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Civil Judge, Jhang and others1991 CLC 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs (Mst). Zubaida Bibi Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 103 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 211 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
• Basharat Hussain vs Ijaz Bibi and others1991 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26
  dissolution of marriageKhulaZar-e-Khularestoration of benefitswritten statementconstitutional petitionalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner to assail the judgment and decree of the Family Court whereby a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent No. 1 was decreed on the basis of Khula. The core legal question raised was whether the Family Court acted illegally in not determining the benefits to be restored in lieu of Khula despite oral assertions. The Lahore High Court held that in the absence of any specific plea regarding the restoration of benefits in the written statement, the Family Court was justified in disregarding oral evidence on the matter. Furthermore, the Court held that the decision of the Family Court on the question of Zar-e-Khula is subject to appeal under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and since the petitioner failed to avail of this adequate alternate remedy of appeal, the constitutional petition was not competent. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court is justified in ignoring oral evidence regarding the restoration of benefits in a Khula case when no plea was raised in the written statement?
  • Can a decision of the Family Court on the question of Zar-e-Khula be subjected to appeal under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 competent when the aggrieved party fails to avail the alternate remedy of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Aziz vs District Magistrate Sialkot EtcK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Province of Punjab and others1991 CLC 865 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Mst. Barkat Bibi and another1991 MLD 2707 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-01
  giftinheritanceundue influencecause of actionlimitationdeclaratory suitco-sharerMuhammadan Law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a declaratory suit filed by a daughter against her brother and sister challenging a gift mutation made by their deceased father in favor of the brother, claiming her share of inheritance. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that the gift was vitiated by undue influence, lacked the essentials of a gift under Muhammadan Law, and that the best evidence (registered gift deed) was withheld. The lower appellate court affirmed the decree, ruling that the suit filed within one year of the father's death was within time, as the cause of action only accrued upon the father's death, and that technical objections regarding limitation and prior withdrawal of a suit during the father's lifetime were meritless. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding undue influence and the invalidity of the gift contained no jurisdictional error. The Court further affirmed that a co-sharer is not required to sue for possession and that the limitation period for challenging such a transaction begins upon the death of the donor. Key principles relate to the invalidity of gifts intended to disinherit legal heirs and the accrual of cause of action for inheritance.

  Questions settled

  • When does the cause of action accrue for a legal heir to challenge a gift made by a father during his lifetime?
  • Does a co-sharer need to sue for physical possession when challenging a gift affecting their inheritance?
  • Can a gift made with the primary object of disinheriting legal heirs be sustained under Muhammadan Law?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding undue influence in executing a gift can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.
  Read full judgment →
• Banaras Masih vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2287 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
• Balunda through Legal Heirs and others vs Bashir Ahmad1991 MLD 682 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Balquees Zaman Khan and others vs Tahir Mahmood Butt1991 CLC 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06
  pre-emption suitbank guaranteeSection 24rejection of pre-emption suitfurnishing bank guaranteestatutory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses proceedings concerning statutory compliance under pre-emption law, specifically evaluating whether a bank certificate furnished by a pre-emptor meets the legal criteria of a bank guarantee. The core legal question was whether a certificate issued by a bank satisfies the mandatory requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee under subsection (1) of Section 24 of the Act. The High Court observed the necessary format and covenants required for a valid bank guarantee tendered to a court, holding that the certificate submitted by the National Bank of Pakistan failed to meet the statutory standard contemplated by law. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge as illegal and without lawful authority, and dismissed the respondent's pre-emption suit pursuant to subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere bank certificate fulfill the statutory requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee under Section 24(1) of the Act?
  • What are the consequences under Section 24(2) of the Act if a pre-emptor fails to furnish a valid bank guarantee as required by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Balam Naz And Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 280 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-15Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2398 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24
  Suppression of Terrorist ActivitiesArms Ordinancespecial court jurisdictioncoram non judiceejusdem generisautomatic weaponsillegal weapons
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for offences relating to the possession of .32 and .30 bore automatic Mauser pistols under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether such weapons fell within the category of automatic or semi-automatic weapons enumerated in section 13-A and the Schedule of the 1975 Act, thereby making them exclusively triable by Special Courts. The Lahore High Court held that applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the phrase 'such as Klashnikov, a G-III rifle or any other type of assault rifle' restricts the scope of automatic or semi-automatic weapons to assault weapons of that gravity, and that Mauser pistols do not fall within that category or schedule. Consequently, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction (coram non judice), leading the court to set aside the convictions and sentences, and direct that challans be submitted before competent courts of magistrates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether possession of .30 or .32 bore Mauser pistols falls within the category of automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • Are offences under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 involving pistols other than assault rifles exclusively triable by Special Courts under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Does the principle of ejusdem generis apply to the interpretation of specific weapon categories listed alongside general terms in section 13-A of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →