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.

• Zia Ullah Khan vs Muhammad Aslam and anothers1990 MLD 123 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• Zenul Abidin And 5 Others vs Ahmad And 3 Other1990 CLC 1452 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Hussain vs Muhammad Ismail And Other1990 CLC 144 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Zahid Malik vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
• Zahid Khalil vs Wajid Ali and another1990 P Cr. L J 713 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-16
  summoning of accusedprivate complaintpolice investigationpreliminary inquirycurable irregularityplea of alibi
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was summoned as an accused to face trial under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code in a private complaint, despite having been found innocent during police investigation. The core legal questions involved whether a Sessions Court is bound to examine police case diaries before summoning an accused on a private complaint, whether a delay in recording the complainant's statement under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates subsequent proceedings, and whether preliminary evidence consisting of injured and ocular witnesses furnished sufficient ground for issuing process. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that preliminary evidence of eye-witnesses and medical testimony provided a sufficient prima facie basis for summoning the accused, that the failure to immediately record the complainant's statement under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was merely a curable irregularity causing no prejudice, and that the trial court was not legally required to examine the police investigation file or the plea of alibi before issuing process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Sessions Court is bound to examine police case diaries and investigation records before issuing process against an accused in a private complaint?
  • Does a delay in recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render subsequent proceedings illegal or constitute a curable irregularity?
  • Is preliminary evidence consisting of injured and ocular eye-witnesses sufficient to justify summoning an accused who was declared innocent by the police during investigation?
  • Whether the trial court is required to consider a plea of alibi and police investigation findings before summoning an accused in a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 706 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
• Zafar Shah and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1748 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zafar alias Chandi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 885 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Masih and anothers vs The State1990 MLD 790 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
• Younus Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1719 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-31Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 297 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority and others vs S.M. Saleem1990 PLC 588 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Wasi Zafar vs Speaker Provincial Assembly1990 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-17
  constitutional petitionprovincial assemblybudgetary procedurejudicial reviewinternal proceedingsparliamentary privilegegovernor's powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of the summoning of the Punjab Provincial Assembly, the simultaneous presentation of the Annual and Supplementary Budgets, and the Speaker's allocation of time for budget discussion. The petitioner argued that the Governor lacked authority to change the time of a summoned meeting, that presenting two budgets in one session violated the constitutional scheme, and that the time allocated for discussion was insufficient. The Court held that the Governor's power to summon the Assembly includes the authority to fix and subsequently change the time of the meeting, as this does not constitute an adjournment or postponement. Regarding the budget, the Court found no constitutional prohibition against presenting Annual and Supplementary Budgets in the same session, provided that statutory requirements for discussion and voting are met. Crucially, the Court affirmed that under Articles 69 and 127 of the Constitution, internal proceedings and procedural irregularities within the Assembly are immune from judicial scrutiny, as the legislature possesses plenary powers to regulate its own business and conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Governor have the authority to change the time of a meeting of the Provincial Assembly after it has been summoned?
  • Can the Annual Budget and the Supplementary Budget be presented to the Provincial Assembly in the same session?
  • Are the internal proceedings and procedural irregularities of the Provincial Assembly subject to judicial scrutiny by the High Court?
  • Does the presentation of two separate budgets in one session violate the constitutional scheme of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ward Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 566 · Lahore High Court · 1965-03-01Read full judgment →
• War Yam Etc. vs CSC Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Revenue Case 112 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Muhammad Yar and 5 others1990 PLD Lahore 120 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-23Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh and another through Legal Heirss vs Ghulam Muhammad1990 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-15
  declaratory suitlimitation periodconsolidation of holdingsrevenue record entriesconsequential reliefpossessionadverse denial
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief for possession, wherein the appellants challenged revenue record entries from 1921-22 and subsequent consolidation proceedings finalized on June 30, 1955. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, but the first appellate court reversed it, holding the suit to be barred by time. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration of title and consequential possession based on erroneous revenue entries and consolidation proceedings is governed by Article 120 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act. The Lahore High Court held that a suit primarily seeking a declaration of title—with possession sought merely as a consequential relief to remove the hurdle of adverse revenue entries and consolidation schemes—falls under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, providing a limitation period of six years from the date the right to sue accrues or when title is openly denied and put in jeopardy. The court laid down that limitation starts from the date of open denial of rights, such as the finalization of a consolidation scheme, and a plaintiff cannot bypass the six-year limitation for declaratory suits by invoking Article 144.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration of title with consequential relief of possession based on erroneous revenue entries is governed by Article 120 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act?
  • When does the limitation period commence for filing a declaratory suit challenging adverse entries in the revenue record and consolidation proceedings?
  • Can a plaintiff claim the 12-year limitation period under Article 144 of the Limitation Act when the primary relief sought is a declaration to remove the hurdle of standing revenue records and consolidation schemes?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ahmad And Others vs Additional Commissioner1990 CLC 220 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-26
  constitutional petitionres judicatabinding precedentsettlement schemefraudulent misrepresentationreview applicationinherent powerswithdrawal of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter arises from the fourth round of litigation concerning the transfer of the Dawn Hotel in Murree under settlement laws, specifically examining whether an Additional Commissioner could reopen and alter property entitlement rights that had already been conclusively settled by concurrent decisions of the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal questions involved the finality of prior judicial determinations, the binding nature of apex court precedents, and technical objections regarding the review of orders dismissed in limine and the withdrawal of petitions. The Lahore High Court held that once a matter regarding property entitlement is finally adjudicated up to the Supreme Court, the decision is binding under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and subordinate authorities have no jurisdiction to reopen or bypass it. The Court laid down the principle that subordinate tribunals and authorities cannot review or reopen concluded controversies through suppression of facts, that courts possess inherent powers to recall orders passed without jurisdiction or obtained by fraud, and that withdrawing a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court does not bar a party from pursuing other competent legal remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Commissioner or Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction to reopen a property transfer dispute that has been finally adjudicated by the High Court and the Supreme Court?
  • Is a prior notice mandatory under Order XLVII Rule 4(2)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a court recalls an order that dismissed a petition in limine?
  • Does a court possess inherent powers to recall its previous order without notice if the order suffers from patent illegality or was obtained through fraud?
  • Does the withdrawal of a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court preclude a party from seeking remedies through other competent proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Sartaj Industries through Qaisar Iqbal, Managing Partner and 6 others1990 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04
  banking recoveryleave to defendpromissory notemortgage deedlimitation periodpenal interestjuristic entitynegotiable instrument
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was instituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, by United Bank Ltd. against Sartaj Industries and others for the recovery of a loan. The defendants sought leave to defend the suit, challenging the limitation period, the enforceability of a mortgage deed across different bank branches, the validity of a promissory note signed in blank, and the legality of penal interest. The Court dismissed the application for leave to defend, holding that no triable issues existed. It ruled that the suit was within the twelve-year limitation period under Article 132 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court established that a mortgage executed in favor of a bank as a juristic entity remains enforceable by the bank regardless of which specific branch handles the transaction. Furthermore, it affirmed that a promissory note signed in blank is valid and enforceable under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provided it is completed within a reasonable time. Finally, the Court emphasized that allegations of fraud must be pleaded with specific particulars as required by Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mortgage executed in favor of a bank as a juristic entity be enforced by a branch other than the one named in the deed?
  • Is a promissory note signed in blank valid and enforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
  • What is the limitation period for a suit based on a mortgage deed?
  • Does a vague allegation of fraud without specific particulars satisfy the requirements of Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer Din alias Umroo vs S.H.O.,Bhai Pheru and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 948 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Umer Din alias Umroo vs S.H.O, Bhai Pheru and Respondents1990 P Cr. L J 948 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmad Qureshi vs Accountant-General Pakistan1990 PLC (C.S.) 219 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• TM Begum vs Ghulam Abbas and 5 others1990 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
• The Superintending Engineer, WAPDA, Lahore and another vs Muhammad1990 PLC 242 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Salimuddin1990 P Cr. L J 818 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rashid Ahmad, S.I., Police Station, Saddar Sheikhupura1990 P Cr. L J 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-26Read full judgment →
• The State vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, Islamabad1990 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Pakistan Medical & Dental Council, Islamabad1990 CLC 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Hassan and another1990 P Cr. L J 288 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Messrs Mian1990 PTD 868 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-24Read full judgment →
• The Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore through its1990 MLD 731 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-17Read full judgment →
• Tariq Saeed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
• Tariq Rashid and another vs The State1990 MLD 697 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-20Read full judgment →
• Tariq Butt vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 537 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Brother Oil Dealers vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax1990 PTD 383 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29
  agreed assessmentIncome-tax Ordinanceconditional acceptanceassessing officerquestion of lawtax assessmentCommissioner of Income-tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed under Section 136(2) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, challenging an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner sought to enforce an 'agreed assessment' proposal made to the Income-tax Officer (I.T.O.), which the I.T.O. had accepted subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax. When the Commissioner withheld approval, the I.T.O. proceeded to assess the petitioner's income on merits. The core legal question was whether the I.T.O. could lawfully impose a condition requiring the Commissioner's approval for an agreed assessment, and whether such a conditional acceptance created an enforceable contract. The Court held that the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, does not provide for 'agreed assessments' and requires the I.T.O. to assess income based on material evidence. Consequently, the I.T.O. acted within his discretion to voluntarily impose a condition precedent for such an assessment. The Court affirmed that no enforceable right arose from the unapproved proposal, and as no substantial question of law existed, the petition was dismissed in limine. The principle established is that an assessing officer may voluntarily impose conditions on non-statutory assessment procedures, which do not confer enforceable rights until fulfilled.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Income-tax Officer voluntarily impose a condition requiring the Commissioner's approval for an agreed assessment?
  • Does the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, provide for the concept of an agreed assessment?
  • Does a proposal for an agreed assessment subject to a condition precedent create an enforceable legal right before that condition is met?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Din and 4 others vs Zilla Council, Kasur and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 269 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25
  cattle marketprivate marketZila CouncilMunicipal CommitteelicencePunjab Local Government Ordinanceintra-court appealfreedom of trade
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court disposes of intra-court appeals arising from writ petitions concerning the establishment and operation of private cattle markets within municipal limits. The core legal question was whether a Zila Council possesses the exclusive right to hold cattle markets within the municipal limits of an urban local council, thereby precluding private individuals from operating private cattle markets under a licence from the Municipal Committee. The court held that the Zila Council's power to hold cattle markets does not nullify or override the provisions governing private markets, and that private individuals may establish and maintain private cattle markets under a licence granted by the urban local council pursuant to Section 62 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The ratio decidendi is that private markets are specifically excluded from the Zila Council's functions, and both statutory bodies operate within their distinct spheres without repugnancy. The key principles laid down include that special provisions prevail without implying the repeal of independent general provisions, that framing bye-laws is not a condition precedent for issuing licences under Section 62, and that the validity of statutory provisions cannot be challenged on the touchstone of Principles of Policy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Zila Council has the exclusive authority to hold cattle markets within municipal limits so as to exclude private cattle markets?
  • Does the power of a Zila Council under Section 51 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 override or repeal the provisions of Section 62 regarding private markets?
  • Is the framing of bye-laws a mandatory condition precedent for the issuance of a licence by an urban local council under Section 62 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can the vires of a statutory provision be tested on the touchstone of the Principles of Policy contained in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj alias Taju vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 707 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Tahir Habib vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahzad Hussain and 4 others vs Mst. Hajira Bibi and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-30
  res judicataabuse of processinherent powersadverse possessionrejection of plaintwrit jurisdictioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a civil suit filed by the petitioners claiming exclusive ownership and possession of a passage comprising Khasra Nos. 621 and 622, asserting title by prescription under the Limitation Act. The respondents contended that the status of this passage as a common thoroughfare had been conclusively determined by the High Court in previous writ proceedings. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, despite the formal inapplicability of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the courts below erred in rejecting the plaint. The Court held that while Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 did not strictly apply to writ jurisdiction decisions, the general principles of res judicata and the court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process barred the re-litigation of the passage's status. However, the Court clarified that the suit could not be summarily dismissed regarding the separate claim of unauthorized construction on the petitioners' property, as that specific factual issue remained undecided. The suit was partially remanded for trial on the latter issue.

  Questions settled

  • Does the general principle of res judicata apply to bar a civil suit when the matter was previously decided by the High Court in writ jurisdiction?
  • Can a court exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to dismiss a suit that constitutes an abuse of process?
  • Is a plaint liable to be rejected in its entirety if only one of the reliefs claimed is barred by res judicata?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to cases where the suit is barred by the general principles of res judicata?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Hussain Bokhari and anothers vs S.P., City Lahore and 21990 MLD 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26
  religious processionfundamental rightsPolice Act 1861public orderlicensingwrit jurisdictionultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the District Magistrate, Lahore, rejecting the petitioners' application for a license to take out a religious procession. The petitioners contended that the refusal violated their fundamental rights to assemble and practice religion. A central legal question concerned the validity of the second proviso to Section 30(3) of the Police Act 1861, as amended by Punjab Ordinance VIII of 1984, which allowed refusal of licenses based on 'public interest.' The Court held that while the state may regulate processions to maintain public order, the impugned order was legally flawed for lacking reasons and demonstrating non-application of mind. Furthermore, the Court declared the inclusion of 'public interest' in the proviso ultra vires the Constitution, as it exceeded the permissible scope of 'public order' under Articles 16 and 20 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. The principle established is that executive authorities must exercise their licensing powers reasonably, providing specific reasons for refusal, and that statutory restrictions on fundamental rights must remain strictly within the bounds of constitutional provisions regarding public order.

  Questions settled

  • Is the inclusion of 'public interest' as a ground for refusing a procession license under the Police Act 1861 constitutionally valid?
  • Does the refusal of a license for a religious procession require the executive authority to provide reasons?
  • Can the District Magistrate ban a religious procession under Section 30 of the Police Act 1861 without demonstrating a threat to public order?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ijaz Hussain Sherazi And 28 Others vs Secretary, Local1990 CLC 230 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-25
  local council suspensionnatural justiceaudi alteram partemquasi-judicial powerconstitutional petitionadministrative discretionpunitive action
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, elected members of the Municipal Committee, Sheikhupura, challenged a government notification suspending the committee under Section 159 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the government's power to suspend a local council is absolute or subject to the principles of natural justice and objective justification. The Court held that the impugned order was illegal and unsustainable. It ruled that the power to suspend a local council is quasi-judicial in nature, not purely administrative, and carries severe consequences. Consequently, the government is legally obligated to adhere to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, before taking such punitive action. Furthermore, the Court established that the statutory requirement of 'reasons to believe' necessitates objective satisfaction based on sufficient material, rather than arbitrary or whimsical exercise of discretion. As the government failed to provide reasons, demonstrate application of mind, or produce evidence justifying the suspension, the order was struck down for violating both procedural fairness and the statutory requirements of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power of the Government to suspend a local council under Section 159 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 absolute or subject to judicial review?
  • Does the principle of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, apply to the suspension of a local council even if the statute is silent on the matter?
  • Must the government demonstrate objective satisfaction based on material evidence when exercising the power to suspend a local council?
  • Is the suspension of a local council a punitive act or a purely administrative measure?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Raza and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah and anothers vs Gharib Alam1990 PLD Lahore 432 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-20
  malicious prosecutiondamagesFIR cancellationabuse of process of lawactio personalis moritur cum personaabatement of suitconstitutional principlesIslamic lawreputation damagefalse report
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involved two suits for damages for malicious prosecution, initiated by the plaintiffs after a false First Information Report (FIR) alleging abduction and conspiracy to murder was lodged against them, which was subsequently cancelled by the Ilaqa Magistrate. The Civil Judge found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages. However, the Additional District Judge reversed this decision, holding that no malicious prosecution occurred as the matter did not reach a court, and that a claim for slander/libel was time-barred. The High Court, in second appeal, re-examined the concept of malicious prosecution, holding that the term 'prosecution' is not limited to technical court proceedings but includes police proceedings where damage to the plaintiff results. The Court further held that the English common law maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' (a personal right of action dies with the person) is not applicable in Pakistani law, especially where a decree has been passed, being repugnant to the Constitution and Islamic principles. Consequently, the High Court restored the Civil Judge's decrees for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does an action for malicious prosecution require the proceedings to have reached a court, or can it be founded on police proceedings that cause damage?
  • Is the English common law maxim 'actio personalis moritur cum persona' applicable in Pakistani law, particularly in cases of malicious prosecution where a decree has been passed?
  • Can a suit for damages for malicious prosecution abate upon the death of the defendant after a trial court decree but before appellate finality?
  • What is the scope of 'prosecution' in the context of an action for damages for malicious prosecution under Pakistani law?
  • Does the Constitution of Pakistan, particularly Articles 4 and 14, influence the interpretation of malicious prosecution actions?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Gaffar Hussain vs Ilahee Bakhsh1990 MLD 739 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Farooo And 3 Others vs Muhammad Arif Through L.Rs. And 31990 CLC 310 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sultan Khan vs Shahbaz Khan and others1990 MLD 2145 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
• Sultan and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 718 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
• Sultan And 3 Others vs Mst. Sat Bharai1990 CLC 887 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
• Suhail Hanif vs Secretary, Planning and Development Division, Islamabad And Another1990 CLC 127 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
• Subtreasury Officer, Alipur, District Muzaffargarh and another vs Shabbir Ahmad and 2 others1990 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Subhan Khan vs Nawal Khan1990 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-10Read full judgment →
• Subedar Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Shah Begum and others1990 MLD 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-18
  Intra-Court AppealSection 12(2) CPCCondonation of delayRevisional jurisdictionLaw Reforms OrdinanceCivil Courts OrdinanceMistaken legal advice
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's refusal to condone a nine-year delay in filing an application under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions were whether an Intra-Court Appeal is competent against an order passed in revisional jurisdiction and whether Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, confers original civil jurisdiction or applies to High Court judgments. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent under Section 3, Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, as that provision does not contemplate appeals against orders passed in revisional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, does not apply to High Court judgments because the High Court is not a 'Civil Court' under the Civil Courts Ordinance 1962. The Court also affirmed that mistaken legal advice is not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, emphasizing that each day of delay must be accounted for. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal competent against an order passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute an exercise of original civil jurisdiction?
  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be filed against a judgment of the High Court?
  • Does mistaken legal advice constitute a valid ground for the condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Subedar Imam Din vs Riaz Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan through its Manager (Rawalpindi Branch) vs The Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Rawalpindi and another1990 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Siraj vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1109 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-23Read full judgment →
• Sindbad Travels (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs P.Ia. Corporation, Lahore1990 MLD 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29
  preliminary issuespiecemeal trialcivil revisionmixed questions of law and factjurisdictiontrial court discretionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a money suit filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation against Sindbad Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. for the recovery of Rs. 4,81,831.10, instituted in 1971. The petitioners challenged an order of the trial court declining to decide certain preliminary issues first and opting instead to adjudicate all issues on merits. The core legal question is whether the trial court was bound to try certain preliminary issues of law before proceeding to record evidence and decide the entire suit on merits under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that while pure questions of law touching on jurisdiction, limitation, or bar to a suit may be tried as preliminary issues to avoid protracted litigation, issues that are mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence cannot be so isolated. The court established that piecemeal trial is generally deprecated, a successor judge is competent to regulate the course of trial, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in deciding to hear the full case on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is bound to try preliminary issues of law before settling issues of fact under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can issues raising mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence be treated as preliminary issues?
  • Does a successor judge have the authority to alter a procedural course or mode of trial previously adopted in a suit?
  • When should a court exercise its discretion to try an issue as a preliminary issue to prevent protracted litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindbad Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. and 6 others vs Pakistan International1990 MLD 1794 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Shah vs Administrator Auqaf, West Paksitan and 8 others1990 PLD Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Zulfiqar And Another1990 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and 2 others vs Muhammad Ali and 11 others1990 MLD 232 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19
  redemption of mortgagelis pendenspendente litesecond appealnon-joinder of partiesmortgagee rightsrevenue authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute concerns the redemption of mortgaged land where the mortgagee rights were transferred during the pendency of redemption proceedings before Revenue Authorities. The appellants, having purchased the mortgagee rights pendente lite, challenged the subsequent redemption order, arguing that they should have been impleaded as parties and that the order was not binding on them. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the transfer of interest during the pendency of litigation does not affect the validity of the proceedings or the resulting order. Applying the doctrine of lis pendens, the Court ruled that the assignee is bound by the decision against the assignor. Furthermore, the Court noted that Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is permissive, and the appellants' failure to formally apply to be impleaded precluded them from challenging the proceedings on the ground of non-joinder. The Court affirmed that the redemption order remained valid and binding on the successors-in-interest, who could separately seek to withdraw the deposited mortgage amount.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decision regarding the redemption of mortgaged land binding on an assignee who purchased mortgagee rights during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Does the failure to implead an assignee of mortgagee rights who did not apply to be joined as a party vitiate the proceedings?
  • Is the rule contained in Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or permissive regarding the continuation of a suit by an assignee?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Allah Rakha vs Sheikh Muhammad Yousaf1990 MLD 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
• Sharif and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
• Tariq and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 939 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Munawar Butt vs Vice Chancellor, University of the Punjab1990 CLC 316 · Lahore High Court
  university examinationlost answer bookaverage marksstatutory interpretationwrit petitionadministrative practicePunjab University Calendar
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed before the Lahore High Court concerned the entitlement of a student to average marks for a lost examination script under university regulations. The petitioner appeared in the Second Professional B. Pharmacy examination, but his written answer book for Pharmaceutical Chemistry-II (Physical) was reported untraceable by the university. The university denied him average marks under the proviso to Regulation 6 of the Punjab University Calendar Volume-I, relying instead on result sheets and award lists showing his marks, and cited past departmental practice. The core legal question was whether the university could resort to alternative materials to determine marks when an answer book was lost, bypassing the proviso to Regulation 6. The Court held that the amended Regulation 6 is clear and unambiguous: when an answer book received by an examiner is lost, a candidate is entitled as of right to the award of average marks obtained in other papers, with an option to reappear. The Court laid down the principle that a patently wrong and absurd departmental construction of a clear statutory rule or regulation cannot be permitted to perpetuate injustice, and that alternative materials cannot be used to defeat the right to average marks or render the re-checking provision nugatory.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate is entitled as of right to average marks under Regulation 6 of the Punjab University Calendar Volume-I when an answer book is lost after being received by an examiner?
  • Can university authorities rely on alternative materials, such as award lists or result sheets, to determine marks when an answer book is lost?
  • Whether a patently wrong and absurd construction of a regulation followed as a past departmental practice can be allowed to perpetuate injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Parveen vs Saeed Mirza And Another1990 CLC 938 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-20
  execution proceedingsattachment of propertyobjection petitionsummary dismissalevidentiary investigationcivil proceduretitle deeds
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from execution proceedings where the Executing Court dismissed objections to the attachment and sale of property, primarily because the objectors produced only photocopies of their title deeds. The core legal question was whether an Executing Court can summarily dismiss an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without conducting a formal investigation or recording evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the Executing Court's summary dismissal was legally unsustainable. The Court ruled that under Order XXI, Rules 58 and 59, the Executing Court is mandatorily required to conduct a proper judicial investigation into the claims. This necessitates framing issues, allowing parties to lead evidence, and considering rebuttal evidence, rather than dismissing claims based on the technicality of producing photocopies. The Court emphasized that a perfunctory approach violates the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision after a full evidentiary inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Executing Court summarily dismiss an objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence?
  • Is an Executing Court required to frame issues and record evidence when adjudicating claims of title to attached property?
  • Does an appeal lie against an order passed by an Executing Court dismissing objections to the attachment of property under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Afghan vs The District Magistrate and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 274 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-07
  preventive detentionMaintenance of Public OrderDistrict Magistrateconstitutional petitionpending criminal casesapplication of mindcyclostyled order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged a detention order dated 21-09-1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Jhang, detaining the petitioner for three months under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The detention was premised on allegations of narcotic trafficking, involvement in 22 criminal cases, and failure to heed warnings against creating public discord. The High Court examined whether preventive detention could be validly ordered on pending criminal cases and vague, uncorroborated allegations using cyclostyled pro formas without independent application of mind. The Court held that preventive detention requires objective assessment based on tangible material showing reasonable, non-arbitrary satisfaction. Pendency of criminal cases cannot justify preventive detention, as detention cannot substitute for prosecution or pre-empt trial. Finding that the order was issued on stereotyped cyclostyled reports without independent application of mind, the Court declared the detention order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, accepting the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order of preventive detention under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 be validly grounded solely on the pendency of criminal cases against the detenu?
  • Is a preventive detention order sustainable if passed mechanically on a cyclostyled pro forma without independent application of mind by the detaining authority?
  • What standard of objective material and assessment is required by law for a statutory functionary to order the deprivation of a citizen's liberty under preventive detention laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahadat and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
• Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 553 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and another vs Muhammad Rafiq and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and 8 others vs Additional District Judge I, Bahawalpur and 7 others1990 PLD Lahore 64 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-10
  rent restrictionejectmentrent determinationfunctus officiodefault in rent depositlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a revision petition challenging an order of the Appellate Court, which had upheld an ejectment order against tenants for failing to deposit rent as directed by the Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller, after passing an ejectment order for non-compliance with a rent deposit direction, remains obligated to finally determine the actual rent due from the tenant. The High Court held that while the ejectment order itself was valid and remained intact due to the tenant's default, the Rent Controller is statutorily bound to finally determine the actual rent payable. The court affirmed that proceedings do not legally conclude upon the mere issuance of an ejectment order; the Rent Controller is not functus officio regarding the determination of rent. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Rent Controller with directions to take evidence and determine the final rent liability, ensuring that the statutory requirements for final adjudication are satisfied despite the prior ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Rent Controller remain functus officio after passing an ejectment order for non-payment of rent?
  • Is the Rent Controller statutorily obligated to finally determine the actual rent due even after an ejectment order has been issued?
  • Can an ejectment order based on non-compliance with a rent deposit direction be maintained while simultaneously remanding the case for final rent determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad alias Shaman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad alias Manna vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Shah Behram vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Bibi vs Deputy Education Officer (Women), Tehsil and District Sahiwal1990 PLC (C.S.) 345 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-09
  transfer ordercivil servantadministrative discretiondictationvoid ab initiocompetent authoritycoram non judice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a primary school teacher. The appellant contended that the Deputy Education Officer (DEO) cancelled her transfer order solely due to a directive from the Minister for Revenue, rather than through independent administrative assessment. The core legal question was whether a transfer order issued by a competent authority under the dictation of an unauthorized official is legally sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was void ab initio. The Court reasoned that while the DEO is the competent authority for such transfers, the act of passing an order in mechanical obedience to an unauthorized Minister, without applying an independent mind or considering administrative necessity, renders the action coram non judice. The Court emphasized that government functionaries are creatures of law, bound to exercise their authority strictly within their legal sphere. Consequently, the Court set aside the transfer order, declaring it to have been passed without lawful authority, while clarifying that the competent authority remains free to initiate lawful transfers in the future.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority pass a transfer order based solely on the directive of an unauthorized official?
  • Is a transfer order passed without the application of an independent mind by the competent authority legally valid?
  • Does a Minister for Revenue have the authority to direct the transfer of primary school teachers?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafqat alias Shaukat Javaid and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Shafqat alias Mithoo and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 281 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Shabbir vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs District Magistrate, Sialkot and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 1534 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01
  preventive detentionMaintenance of Public Ordernon-application of mindconstitutional petitioncriminal prosecutionunlawful detentionhabeas corpus
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged a detention order dated 30-09-1989 passed by the District Magistrate, Sialkot, under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner was detained for three months based on a list of fifteen historical criminal cases. During proceedings, it transpired that the petitioner had already been acquitted in eight cases, was never named in two, had completed sentences in three minor/past cases, and was currently facing regular trial in the remaining three cases. The High Court held that where the state has chosen to prosecute an individual on substantive criminal charges, those pending charges, past convictions, or past acquittals cannot reasonably form the basis for preventive detention under the Ordinance. The Court further observed that the District Magistrate mechanically accepted the police recommendation without independent application of mind. Consequently, the High Court declared the detention order to be without lawful authority and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can pending criminal charges or past acquittals and convictions serve as a lawful basis for ordering preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
  • Whether the mechanical acceptance of police recommendations by a District Magistrate without independent application of mind invalidates a preventive detention order?
  • Is it an unreasonable exercise of preventive detention powers to detain a person on grounds for which they are already facing regular prosecution before a criminal court?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Riaz Ahmad And Another vs Qamar Zaman Khan1990 CLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Sharif Uppal vs Sh. Akbar Hussain and others1990 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14
  administration suitpartition of propertyrendition of accountsbenami transactionpartnership deedregistration of documentssecond appealnecessary party
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for administration, partition, and rendition of accounts concerning the estate of the deceased Haji Muhammad Hussain. The primary legal questions involved the ownership of specific properties claimed by the appellant as his own or as partnership assets, the validity of alleged partnership agreements, and procedural issues regarding the amendment of the decree and the impleadment of a necessary party. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove the existence of the alleged partnership firm or the transfer of properties to it, as the documents relied upon were either fabricated, unproved, or required registration which was absent. The Court affirmed that the deceased was the owner of the disputed properties. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a decree must strictly conform to the judgment under Order 20 Rule 6, and failure to include granted relief (rendition of accounts) in the decree-sheet necessitates amendment. The principle laid down is that registration of a document does not create a presumption of its execution when disputed, and a party cannot use additional evidence to fill lacunas in their case at a belated stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere registration of a document raise a presumption of its execution when the execution itself is disputed?
  • Is a court required to amend a decree-sheet if it fails to reflect the relief granted in the judgment?
  • Can an appellate court allow the production of additional evidence to fill lacunas in a party's case at a belated stage?
  • Does the impleadment of a necessary party at the appellate stage violate the rights of the existing parties if no prejudice is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Munir vs L.Da.1990 PLD Lahore 451 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Aslam vs Akbar Ali and 12 others1990 MLD 216 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
• Sh. Imttaz Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 3 others1990 PLC 323 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-11Read full judgment →
• Sawar Ali vs Punjab Labour Court No. 1 and 3 others1990 PLC 321 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Shah vs Muhammad Razaq and 4 others1990 MLD 386 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Khan And 118 Others vs Member, (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab.Lahore And 12 Other1990 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sardar Begum vs Mohammad Anwar Shah Etc.K.L.R.1990 Revenue Cases 114 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sardar alias Sardara vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 557 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-26Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali alias Dara vs Mst. Sakeena Bibi and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 466 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Samia Akbar vs Muhammad Zubair and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-20
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriagekhulareturn of benefitsexecution of decreefamily court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged orders of the Family Court and Additional District Judge regarding the execution of a decree for the return of benefits in a khula dissolution of marriage case. The petitioner contended that the direction to return benefits only created a civil liability enforceable solely through a separate civil suit rather than execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether a Family Court's direction for the return of benefits as a condition of khula can be enforced through execution proceedings by the Family Court itself. The Lahore High Court held that the determination of benefits to be returned is an integral part of the Family Court's decision and decree, and under sections 5, 12, and 13 of the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964, such monetary directions are fully executable by the Family Court, preventing multiplicity of suits. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the direction for the return of benefits in a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula is executable by the Family Court?
  • Does the non-return of benefits invalidate the dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula?
  • Must a husband file a separate civil suit to recover benefits determined by the Family Court in a khula decree?
  • Do provisions relating to payment of money under the Punjab Family Courts Act, 1964 apply to decrees directing the return of benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Salat vs Ahmed alias Ahma and another1990 MLD 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
• Salah-Ud-Din vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Ali Shah vs The State1990 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-30Read full judgment →
• Sajwar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs Superintendent, Darul Aman, Multan and others1990 P Cr. L J 791 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-08Read full judgment →
• Saint Peter High School, Gujranwala vs Assistant Director (Field1990 PLC 244 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
• Sain Akhtar vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 others1990 MLD 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-14Read full judgment →