Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Saif-Ur-Rehman vs Bashir Ahmad alias Bashira and another1990 P Cr. L J 931 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
- Said Rasool vs Muhammad Fazil and another1990 P Cr. L J 210 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, which declared the accused a chronic schizophrenic, incapable of making his defense, and consequently postponed his murder trial while releasing him on security. The core legal question was whether the trial court followed the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the determination of an accused's mental unsoundness. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally flawed because the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry that allowed both the prosecution and the defense to lead evidence and rebut opposing claims. The Court emphasized that when a trial court doubts an accused's sanity, it must treat the determination of that fact as a preliminary stage of the trial. The key principle laid down is that the inquiry into an accused's mental capacity is mandatory and compulsory; it requires the court to provide both parties a full and fair opportunity to produce evidence, with the prosecution generally bearing the initial burden to establish the accused's sanity.
Questions settled- Is the inquiry into an accused's unsoundness of mind under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a mandatory preliminary stage of the trial?
- Does the prosecution have the right to lead evidence to rebut a medical report claiming an accused is of unsound mind?
- Must a court provide both the prosecution and the defense an opportunity to lead evidence during an inquiry into an accused's mental capacity to stand trial?
- Safia Begum vs The District Magistrate, Faisalablad1990 CLC 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
- Saeed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-19Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 773 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-09Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad and 3 others vs Tanveer Ahmad and another1990 MLD 788 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a dispute where the respondent filed a second suit for partition and rendition of accounts while a first suit for partition of the same property was still pending. The respondent subsequently withdrew the first suit unconditionally without seeking permission to file a fresh suit. The petitioners sought dismissal of the second suit, arguing that the withdrawal of the first suit barred the second suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) and Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, invoking the principle that no one should be vexed twice for the same cause of action. The Court addressed whether a second suit, instituted during the pendency of a first suit, is barred if the first suit is later withdrawn unconditionally. Relying on the precedent in Ghulam Nabi v. Seth Muhammad Yaqoob (PLD 1983 SC 344), the Court held that the bar under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) applies only to suits instituted after the withdrawal of a prior suit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision, ruling that a suit filed while the first was pending is not precluded by the subsequent withdrawal of the first.
Questions settled- Does the unconditional withdrawal of a first suit bar a second suit that was already pending at the time of such withdrawal?
- Does the bar under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a suit instituted before the withdrawal of a previous suit?
- Can a plaintiff maintain a second suit for the same relief if it was filed during the pendency of an earlier suit that was subsequently withdrawn?
- Sabir and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1267(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-07Read full judgment →
- S.K. Masood And 3 Others vs Special Committee Through Member, Board1990 CLC 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the order dated 10-7-1975 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which held that transfer documents and auction proceedings regarding the disputed evacuee plot in favour of the petitioners were forged and fabricated. The core legal questions were whether Settlement Authorities retain jurisdiction to scrutinize and cancel forged or fabricated records after the repeal of evacuee laws under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and whether petitioners with unclean hands can claim discretionary constitutional relief. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the findings of fraud regarding the auction bid sheet and deed of association. The Court held that the custodian of a record is the best judge to determine its veracity and genuineness, possessing inherent power to examine fabrication within its own record. Furthermore, extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate fraud or retain ill-gotten gains.
Questions settled- Does a Settlement Authority or record custodian possess jurisdiction to examine and determine questions of forgery and fabrication within its own records notwithstanding the repeal of settlement laws?
- Can extraordinary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be exercised in favour of a party seeking to retain ill-gotten gains through forged documents?
- Are Settlement Authorities competent to receive balance auction price deposits after the enactment of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 when the matter is not a pending case under Section 2(2)?
- S.H. Malik vs Additional District Judge, and 2 others1990 MLD 1924 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
- Rustam Ali and 4 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
- Riaz Shah and anothers vs The State1990 MLD 204 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
- Riaz Masih alias Nanna and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
- Riaz Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-14Read full judgment →
- Riaz Hussain Janjua vs B.A. Nasir, Assistant Commissioner Chunian1990 P Cr. L J 716 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad vs Municipal Committee, Chishtian And Other1990 CLC 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
- Riaz Ahmad Tahir vs The Pakistan Railway Through Its General Manager1990 CLC 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Razia Bibi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- Raunao Ali Khan and another vs Provincial Government through Collector, Gujranwala and 9 others1990 P Cr. L J 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
- Rauf Trading Company Limited vs Faisalabad Municipal Corporation1990 CLC 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed constitutional petitions challenging the validity of enhanced octroi rates fixed by the Faisalabad Municipal Corporation on items such as RBD oil, iron and steel pipes, and marble slabs. The respondent corporation had initially proposed a specific rate increase in a public notice inviting objections, but subsequently passed a resolution fixing the rates at a significantly higher level than proposed, without issuing a fresh public notice or inviting objections. The Lahore High Court held that the procedural stages for tax imposition under the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 are mandatory, and any omission of these steps vitiates the tax itself. The Court ruled that the corporation had no jurisdiction to levy a rate higher than that notified in the public notice, as doing so defeats the purpose of inviting public objections. Consequently, the Court declared the enhanced rates illegal, restored the previous schedule, and directed the establishment of a special account to process refunds for the overcharged citizens.
Questions settled- Whether a local council has the jurisdiction to levy a tax or octroi rate higher than the rate originally proposed in its public notice without inviting fresh objections?
- Are the procedural stages for tax formulation and notification under the Punjab Local Councils (Taxation) Rules, 1980 directory or mandatory in nature?
- Does the failure of a local authority to follow mandatory statutory procedures for tax revision render the subsequent tax imposition illegal and void?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained despite the availability of an alternative supervisory remedy under Section 139 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Rao Muhammad Jalees alias Jaloo vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail petition arose from charges under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, involving the alleged recovery of heroin from the petitioner's private residence. The core legal questions concerned whether an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition Order is cognizable when committed in a private house, and whether procedural irregularities regarding search and recovery warrant the grant of bail. The Court held that, pursuant to Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, an offence under Article 4 is only cognizable if committed in a public place. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution's case questionable. Furthermore, the Court observed that the failure to associate independent inhabitants of the locality during the search violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noted the potential bias arising from the complainant acting as the investigating officer. Emphasizing that procedural compliance is essential and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage favors the accused, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, rejecting the prosecution's arguments regarding the scope of cognizable offences.
Questions settled- Is an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, cognizable if committed in a private house?
- Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a search violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a complainant who is also the investigating officer conduct a fair investigation?
- Does the quantity of narcotics recovered determine the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Rana Muhammad Shabbir (Deceased) Through His 10 L.Hrs. vs Muhammad1990 CLC 546 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a dispute over the right of pre-emption concerning agricultural land situated in the Border Area of village Badri Narianpura. The appellants, legal representatives of the original vendee, challenged the lower courts' decree in favor of the respondents, who claimed a superior right of pre-emption as village owners and Patidars. The core legal questions were whether the land, being in a Border Area, was exempt from pre-emption under the relevant allotment scheme and whether the suit was maintainable given alleged valuation and court-fee deficiencies. The Court held that the sale was pre-emptible, noting that the provided scheme did not prohibit such sales to private persons and that no notification under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, had been issued to exclude this land from pre-emption. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that court-fee deficiencies do not bar a suit if paid as ordered. The key principle laid down is that once proprietary rights are acquired in State or evacuee land, such land is subject to pre-emption unless explicitly excluded by a notification from the Board of Revenue.
Questions settled- Is land situated in a Border Area exempt from the right of pre-emption in the absence of a specific notification by the Board of Revenue?
- Can a suit for pre-emption be dismissed solely on the grounds of late payment of court-fee?
- Does the acquisition of proprietary rights in State land render such land subject to the right of pre-emption?
- Rana Iqbal Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
- Rana Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Shaft and others1990 MLD 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the appellate court's dismissal of an appeal against a civil decree. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the trial court's order but failed to append a certified copy of the decree, submitting only an uncertified copy of the judgment. The core legal question was whether the appellate court could dispense with the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree or grant time for its submission. The High Court held that the appeal was rightly dismissed as incompetent. It affirmed that under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the requirement to append a certified copy of the decree is mandatory, and the appellate court lacks the authority to dispense with this specific document. The court further held that the failure to file the decree was not a mere technicality but a fatal procedural defect. Additionally, the court ruled that the petitioner’s failure to obtain and file the copies due to negligence did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908.
Questions settled- Is an appeal maintainable if the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree?
- Does an appellate court have the power to dispense with the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree under Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can delay in filing the requisite copies of the judgment and decree be condoned where the appellant has been negligent in obtaining them?
- Ramzan vs Sohrab Khan and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 314 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for declaration that a land sale mutation was fraudulent and without consideration. The petitioner, defendant in the original suit, argued the appeal was improperly dismissed and the suit was time-barred. The court held that where a power of attorney explicitly mandates that co-agents must act jointly, an appeal filed by only one attorney is incompetent and void, as the act of a single agent cannot bind the principal. Regarding limitation, the court determined that the cause of action for the plaintiffs, heirs of the deceased owner, accrued when the defendant asserted ownership and demanded a share of the produce after the owner's death, rather than at the time of the mutation. Consequently, the court affirmed the ex parte decree, finding the evidence supported the claim that the mutation was fraudulent and lacked consideration. The principle established is that strict adherence to the terms of a joint power of attorney is required, and unauthorized acts by a single co-agent are legally ineffective.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be validly presented by one of two co-agents when the power of attorney mandates that they act jointly?
- When does the limitation period commence for a suit challenging a mutation based on fraud and lack of consideration?
- Is an act performed by a single co-agent void when the principal has expressly delegated authority to be exercised jointly?
- Rafique Alam vs The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot And 31990 CLC 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from a long-standing property dispute under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 regarding the transfer of a portion of a house in Sialkot between the petitioner, Rafique Alam, and the respondent, Amanat Ali. Both parties' fathers were initially jointly allotted separate portions of the house in 1952. After protracted administrative rounds and a previous remand by the High Court directing the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to ascertain if the petitioner was in possession by December 20, 1958, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's form through a roving inquiry into abandonment and lack of rent clearance. The core legal questions involved whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner exceeded his remand authority, whether non-claimant displaced persons can claim possession through their parents under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, and whether non-clearance of rent defeats such possession. The Lahore High Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted without lawful authority by exceeding the specific remand directions, and that the petitioner was entitled to transfer based on undisputed continuous possession derived from his father. The petition was accepted, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded for issuance of transfer documents.
Questions settled- Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can exceed the specific scope and instructions of a High Court remand order?
- Whether a non-claimant displaced person is entitled to take the benefit of the father's possession for the transfer of a property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Whether the non-clearance of rent by a target date disqualifies a person from being deemed in possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Rab Nawaz and 2 others vs The State1990 MLD 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Qazi Inayat Ullah vs Election Tribunal1990 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Qamaruzzaman vs Zilla Council, Bahawalpur through Chairman, Zilla1990 MLD 1748 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a dispute over the interpretation of the term 'truck' in the Schedule of Export Tax notified by the District Council, Bahawalpur. The petitioner, a trader of cotton seeds and cotton cakes, challenged the practice of the respondents—contractors for the District Council—of charging export tax based on the weight of the goods rather than per truck, as stipulated in the Schedule. The core legal question was whether the term 'truck' in a taxing statute should be interpreted according to the Motor Vehicles Ordinance or its ordinary dictionary meaning, and whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was barred by the availability of alternative remedies under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that taxing statutes must be construed strictly according to their letter, rejecting any equitable or extended interpretation. It ruled that 'truck' refers to the vehicle itself, not the weight of the cargo. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies is not an absolute bar to constitutional jurisdiction when the issue involves the interpretation of law or acts in excess of authority.
Questions settled- Whether a taxing statute can be interpreted using definitions from a different, unrelated statute?
- Does the availability of alternative remedies under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- Should the term 'truck' in a tax schedule be interpreted based on the weight of the cargo or as a vehicle unit?
- Is the principle of strict construction applicable to the interpretation of fiscal statutes?
- Qaim Din through Legal Heirs vs Said Ahmad through Legal Heirs and another1990 MLD 1736 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
- Province of the Punjab, through its Secretary, Communication & Works1990 PLD Lahore 25 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The dispute arose from a contract for the construction of a bridge between the appellant, Province of the Punjab, and the respondents, M/s. M.A. Rashid Said Alam Khan, which was referred to arbitrators. After an award was rendered in favour of the respondents, they applied under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to make it a rule of the court. Notice was served on the appellant, but objections were not filed within the thirty-day limitation period prescribed by Article 158 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. The trial court declined to entertain the time-barred objections and made the award a rule of the court. Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the award was improperly filed under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, that it lacked accompanying depositions and documents, and that service of notice was defective. The Lahore High Court held that any party to the arbitration may file the award pursuant to High Court rules framed under section 44 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and that a party filing the award is not strictly bound to attach depositions and documents concurrently. Finding no merit in the appellant's contentions, the appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a party to an arbitration agreement can file an award in court under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Is a party filing an arbitration award legally mandated to concurrently submit all depositions and documents along with it?
- Whether the period of limitation for filing objections to an arbitration award can be extended by the court?
- Does the receipt of notice of an arbitration award by an official clerk constitute valid service upon a government department?
- Province of Punjab vs Mst. Zenat Shaheen and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 180 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three writ petitions filed by the Province of Punjab challenging orders passed by the trial court and the Additional District Judge, which closed the petitioner's evidence in civil suits involving state-owned land. The core legal question was whether the trial court acted with lawful authority in closing the petitioner's evidence when previous adjournments were granted without imposing costs or designating them as final opportunities, and where the court had previously adjourned the matter on a date that became a public holiday. The High Court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable and lacked lawful authority. The court reasoned that the trial judge failed to exercise discretion judiciously by closing evidence without prior warning or imposing costs, particularly given the nature of the state property involved. The key principle laid down is that a court should not abruptly close a party's evidence without having previously indicated that a specific adjournment was the final opportunity, or without attempting to secure compliance through the imposition of costs, especially in matters involving significant public interest or state property.
Questions settled- Can a trial court close a party's evidence without having previously imposed costs or warned that an adjournment was the final opportunity?
- Does a trial court act without lawful authority when it closes evidence after failing to consider the procedural history of adjournments?
- Is it a judicious exercise of discretion to close evidence in a suit involving state-owned land without granting a final opportunity subject to costs?
- Province of Punjab vs Ashiq Muhammad Khan1990 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from a civil suit instituted by the respondent, a former Field Qanungo, challenging his compulsory retirement under the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions involved whether a civil suit seeking a declaration that an administrative order is null and void is governed by Article 14 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, whether a plea of limitation or estoppel not raised in the lower courts can be urged in second appeal, and whether the Commissioner possessed the legal authority to pass an order of retirement after the appeal had already been validly decided by the Deputy Commissioner under unamended rules. The Lahore High Court held that new pleas not raised in pleadings or before the first appellate court cannot be entertained in second appeal, that Article 120 (and not Article 14) of the Limitation Act applies to suits for a mere declaration that an official order is void, and that subsequent amendments to rules cannot operate retrospectively to divest an authority of powers validly exercised prior to such amendment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether a plea of limitation or estoppel not raised in the trial court or first appellate court can be allowed to be raised for the first time in a second appeal?
- Does Article 14 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit seeking a declaration that an official order of compulsory retirement is null and void?
- Can an amendment to the Public Conduct (Scrutiny) Rules 1959 operate with retrospective effect to invalidate an appeal already decided by the competent authority?
- Whether an administrative order of compulsory retirement communicated to a civil servant but never actually signed or passed by the competent authority is legally operative?
- Province of Punjab vs Abdul Latif and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 66 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves eight Regular Second Appeals filed by the Province of Punjab against the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Bahawalpur, which declared the respondents as owners of disputed Ahatas and set aside an order of cancellation passed by the Additional Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of the allotment cancellation under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and whether the Revenue Authorities could cancel an allotment after the allottee had fulfilled the requisite conditions of payment and possession. The High Court held that the Civil Court maintains jurisdiction to determine the validity of actions taken under the Act and the legal effect of such orders. The Court affirmed that once the purchase price is deposited and possession is transferred, the allottee acquires full proprietary rights, rendering the allotment final. Consequently, the Revenue Authorities lacked the authority to interfere with the established ownership. The Court established that statutory provisions override conflicting departmental instructions, and the fulfillment of allotment conditions confers permanent rights upon the allottee.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of an order passed under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912?
- At what point does an allottee of government land acquire full proprietary rights?
- Can Revenue Authorities cancel an allotment of land after the allottee has deposited the purchase price and taken possession?
- Do statutory provisions override conflicting departmental instructions regarding land allotment?
- Province of Punjab through Collector, 'Sialkot and 4 others vs Muhammad Sharif1990 PLD Lahore 208 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a defendant's second appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court dismissed the appellants' appeal in limine without examining the merits, holding that the appeal was not filed or presented by a duly authorized person. The core legal questions involve whether a counsel who represented parties in the trial court requires a fresh power of attorney to file an appeal, and whether a defect in the presentation or authorization of an appeal is fatal or merely a curable procedural irregularity. The Lahore High Court held that a power of attorney enures through the appellate stage as an appeal is a continuation of the suit, and that procedural defects regarding presentation or authorization are curable irregularities rather than grounds for summary dismissal. The court set aside the lower appellate court's judgment and remanded the matter for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Does a power of attorney given to a counsel in the trial court continue to authorize the counsel to file and represent the party in an appeal?
- Whether a defect in the presentation of an appeal or lack of written authorization is a fatal illegality or a curable procedural irregularity?
- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal summarily on the ground of unauthorized presentation without affording an opportunity to rectify the defect?
- Pir Bakhsh and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1917 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-20Read full judgment →
- Pir Aftab Ahmad vs The Chief Administrator Auqaf Lahore1990 CLC 2033 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Promotors Limited vs Monopoly Control1990 CLC 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 20 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 challenged an order of the Monopoly Control Authority imposing a penalty on the appellant for failing to register distributorship agreements under section 16(1)(k) of the Ordinance. The core legal question concerned whether the registration requirement under section 16 is independent of the exceptions relating to restrictive trade practices under section 6(2), and whether the appellant's omission to register was 'wilful' under section 19. The Lahore High Court held that the initial registration stage for data collection under section 16 is distinct from the subsequent inquiry stage under section 6, and that the appellant's deliberate inaction over a prolonged period constituted a wilful default attracting a penalty. The Court laid down that registration is a mandatory preliminary step for information gathering, independent of whether an agreement may ultimately qualify for exemptions under section 6, and that 'wilful' connotes a conscious, deliberate omission rather than inadvertence.
Questions settled- Are the registration requirements under section 16 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 independent of the exceptions provided in section 6(2)?
- What constitutes a 'wilful' failure to register agreements under section 19 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
- Whether other parties to a registrable agreement are necessary parties entitled to a pre-registration hearing by the Monopoly Control Authority?
- Does the statutory scheme of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 distinguish between the initial registration stage and the subsequent inquiry stage?
- P vs 'R'K.L.R 1990, Labour & Service Cases 3 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 732 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Noor Muhammad, who was charged under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged misappropriation of funds while working as a clerk. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence, the delay in the trial, and the fact that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner should be released on bail. The court reasoned that the case involved accounting matters where the petitioner's continued detention would prejudice his ability to prepare his defence. Furthermore, the court noted that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that in cases involving accounting disputes where the accused is no longer required for investigation, bail should generally be granted to ensure the accused can adequately prepare their defence, particularly when the trial is not likely to commence immediately.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail in cases involving accounting disputes when the investigation is complete?
- Does an offence under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the potential prejudice to an accused's defence due to incarceration be a valid ground for granting bail?
- Noor Muhammad vs Gaman and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Rawalpindi and others1990 PLC 788 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-10Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Ahmad and another1990 PLD Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-13Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad And Another vs Ch. Liaquat Ali Khan1990 CLC 929 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application filed by the respondent for the dismissal of an appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order 43 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging that notice was not properly served before the pre-admission stage, depriving the respondent of the right of being heard. The core legal question is whether an appeal filed without complying with the pre-admission notice requirements under Order 43 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be dismissed, or if an alternative remedy exists. The Lahore High Court held that while the right to be heard at the pre-admission stage is mandatory and its infringement causes prejudice, the appeal itself should not be entirely defeated or dismissed solely due to this technical non-compliance. Instead, the court established that the appropriate course of action in such circumstances is to recall the admission order and any interim relief granted, restoring the status quo ante, and refixing the appeal for motion hearing in the presence of both parties.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with the pre-admission notice requirement under Order 43 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 warrant the outright dismissal of an appeal?
- What is the legal effect of infringing a respondent's right to be heard at the pre-admission stage of an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an admission order and interim relief be recalled by the High Court if the respondent was deprived of an opportunity to contest the admission of an appeal?
- What procedure should be adopted when an appeal is entertained and admitted to regular hearing without prior service of notice upon the respondent as mandated by Order 43 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Noor Alam vs Mehdi And 2 Other1990 CLC 321 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil second appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of land, based on an alleged fraudulent oral sale mutation. The core legal question concerned the genuineness of the sale and the evidentiary weight of mutation entries in establishing title. The High Court upheld the lower appellate court's dismissal, holding that the vendees had sufficiently discharged the burden of proving the sale's validity. The Court emphasized that mutation proceedings are not judicial determinations of title but fiscal inquiries for revenue purposes. Consequently, mutation entries do not confer title or terminate existing rights, nor do they possess an irrebuttable presumption of truth. When a mutation is challenged, the beneficiary of the transaction bears the initial burden of proving its authenticity. The Court concluded that the evidence, including the vendor's failure to challenge the transaction during his lifetime, supported the validity of the sale, and affirmed that findings of fact by the lower appellate court, when based on proper evidence, are binding in second appeal.
Questions settled- Does a mutation entry in revenue records confer title or ownership rights?
- What is the evidentiary value of a mutation entry in proving a disputed sale of land?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when the genuineness of a mutation entry is challenged?
- Are findings of fact by a lower appellate court binding in a second appeal?
- Nizam Din And Another vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Vehari And Another1990 CLC 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
- Nirala & Company [M/s.] Jail Road, Lahore. vs Commissioner Of IncomePTCL1990 CL. 87 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Niamat Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-19Read full judgment →
- Nek Muhammad vs Mu14ammad Aslam And 2 Other1990 CLC 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Zulfioar and another1990 P Cr. L J 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 364 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1632 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Kasana vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 573 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Butt vs Malik Mushtaq Ahmad and 2 others1990 MLD 2039 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-13Read full judgment →
- Nazarul Hussain vs The Collector, Lahore District, Lahore and 51990 PLD Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions challenging the validity of notifications issued under Sections 17 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioners, claiming ownership of the subject land, argued that because no acquisition proceedings were taken within one year of the Section 4 notification, the entire acquisition process stood terminated by virtue of Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983. The respondents contended that Rule 7 was merely directory, that the Commissioner possessed wide powers to act 'at any time' under Section 17, and that the petitioners lacked locus standi. The Lahore High Court held that Rule 7 is mandatory, as it explicitly provides the legal consequence of termination for non-compliance. Since the basis of compensation is tied to the Section 4 notification date, unreasonable delays prejudice landowners. Consequently, the failure to issue the requisite notifications within the prescribed one-year period (plus any authorized extension) extinguished the acquisition proceedings, rendering the subsequent notifications under Sections 17 and 6 void and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Whether Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 is mandatory or directory in nature?
- What is the legal consequence of failing to issue a notification under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 within the one-year period prescribed by Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983?
- Can the Commissioner exercise urgency powers under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 after the underlying acquisition proceedings have expired by operation of law?
- Does a delay in challenging a Section 4 notification constitute laches if the petitioner's actual grievance is against subsequent notifications issued years later under Sections 6 and 17?
- Nazar Ali Khan and others vs Pakistan Railways and others1990 PLC 157 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Nawazada Muhammad Saeed Khan vs The Collector, Land Acquisition, Multan and another1990 MLD 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprised two cross Regular First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 against an award of the reference court (Administrative Civil Judge, Multan) dated 25 June 1973, which had enhanced the Acquisition Collector's compensation from Rs. 9,240 to Rs. 14,400 per acre for land acquired in Village Mari Seetal, Multan. The core legal questions involved the proper principles for determining market value under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, specifically whether potential future value, inclusion in a master plan for industrial development, location within municipal limits, and prices of comparable land in the vicinity must be considered. The Lahore High Court held that compulsory acquisition laws must be construed in favor of the landowner and that market value encompasses potential value from present and future uses as well as surrounding land transactions. Calculating a mean average of relevant sale transactions and awards for comparable local industrial and residential properties, the High Court enhanced the land's market value to Rs. 26,098.12 per acre alongside statutory compulsory acquisition allowance and compound interest.
Questions settled- What elements must be considered when determining the market value of compulsorily acquired land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Whether the potential value for future industrial or commercial use of agricultural land can be factored into market value assessment at the time of acquisition?
- How should comparable sale instances and previous acquisition awards in the same vicinity be utilized to determine fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Nawab vs Additional Commissioner (R), Lahore Division, Lahore And 21990 CLC 1587 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
- Nawab Din and 4 others vs Mst. Jewni and others1990 MLD 725 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Sialkot and 2 others vs The Punjab Labour1990 PLC 511 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Punjab Labour Court No, 7, Gujranwala1990 PLC 34 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Nisar Ahmad Khan and others1990 PLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan through its General Attorney vs Punjab1990 PLC 192 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah vs The State1990 MLD 140 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
- Nasir Ahmad alias Nasri vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
- Nasim Ahmad Khan vs Salim Ahmad Khan1990 CLC 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-05Read full judgment →
- Naseer vs Home Secretary, Government of Punjab Lahore and 2 others1990 PLD Lahore 389 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-13Read full judgment →
- Naeem-Ul-Zaman vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Etc.K.L.R. 1990, Labour and Service Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Nadir vs The State1990 MLD 148 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Akhtar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pak Cement Company Limited vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal,K.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 67 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mutalli and 6 others vs The State1990 MLD 374 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Ashfaq Ahmad and others1990 PLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and another vs Punjab Labour Appellate1990 PLC 325 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Muzaffar Iqbal Mir Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service 73 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Masih vs Haji Muhammad Ashraf and another1990 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-26Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 806 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mushtao Ahmed Khan And 3 Others vs Province of Punjab, Through District Collector, Vehari1990 CLC 970 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Musarrat Bibi vs Liaqat Ali and another1990 P Cr. L J 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, who was accused of committing rape under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the trial court exercised its discretion judicially in granting bail despite the existence of incriminating material. The High Court held that the trial court erred in granting bail, noting that the absence of physical marks of violence on the prosecutrix did not negate the allegations, especially given the threat of death and the prosecutrix's age of fourteen. The Court emphasized that the respondent failed to provide a motive for the false implication of the prosecutrix. Furthermore, the trial court failed to consider the statements of two independent witnesses who corroborated the prosecution's version. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the bail, ruling that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause and that the concession of bail was not justified under the circumstances.
Questions settled- Does the absence of physical marks of violence on a victim's body automatically entitle an accused to bail in a rape case?
- Is the failure of a lower court to consider corroborating witness statements a valid ground for the High Court to cancel bail?
- Can bail be denied in a case involving the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Murammadali vs Ali Muhammad And Other1990 CLC 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
- Munir Hussain vs Sardar Muhammad and another1990 MLD 146 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 1547 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-18Read full judgment →
- Munir Ahmad Khan vs Municipal Corporation LahoreK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Case 224 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
- Municipal Committee, Mandi Bahauddin through its Chairman vs The Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division and anothers1990 PLD Lahore 344 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muneer Ahmad vs Director of Education and 2 others1990 PLC (C.S.) 701 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
- Munawar Etc. vs The StatePTCL 1990 CL. 1014 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
- Munawar alias Nikka vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Munawar Ali vs Imam Din1990 MLD 72 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ali Khan vs The State1990 MLD 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz Ahmad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Masih vs Muhammad Rafique Majhetia, Additional District1990 PLD Lahore 393 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Hussain vs Muhammad Iqbal Khan1990 CLC 1499 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 555 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-24Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State and 4 others1990 P Cr. L J 744 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-09Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmad vs Giiafoor Ahmad and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This habeas corpus petition was filed for the recovery of an alleged detenue, Mst. Shehzadi, aged 22, who claimed she was being detained by her father against her will and wished to join the petitioner, whom she claimed to have married. The respondents, the father and mother of the detenue, denied the existence of any valid Nikah. The core legal question was whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set the detenue at liberty and hand her over to the petitioner in the absence of Rukhsati and given the disputed validity of the marriage. The Court held that the detention by the father was neither illegal nor improper, noting that parental restraint, within reasonable limits, is not illegal unless it is patently cruel or unjust. The Court refused to intervene to facilitate a relationship of questionable legal standing or to effect a Rukhsati, emphasizing that the validity of the Nikah must be determined by a competent forum. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and custody was restored to the father.
Questions settled- Can a court exercise its jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to effect a Rukhsati?
- Is the restraint placed by a father on his daughter, in the absence of cruelty or maltreatment, considered illegal or improper detention?
- Should a court grant a habeas corpus petition to hand over a daughter to a petitioner when the validity of the alleged Nikah is disputed by the parents?
- Muhammad Zuloarnain vs Muhammad Anwar And Other1990 CLC 736 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case concerns a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution, challenging an Election Tribunal's order in an election petition. The respondent had challenged the petitioner's election as Member District Council Gujrat, alleging illegalities in vote recounting and requesting a fresh recount. The Tribunal allowed the request based on the respondent's statement and averments in the election petition. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred by ordering recounting without overwhelming evidence and by not framing an issue and recording evidence as per the Code of Civil Procedure, citing Rule 8 of the Election Petitions Rules 1979. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Tribunal's satisfaction that a recounting request is reasonable, based on positive allegations and cross-examined statements, is sufficient, and overwhelming evidence is not a prerequisite. Furthermore, Rule 8 is merely an enabling provision and does not necessitate converting an election petition into a full-fledged suit trial for a recounting request.
Questions settled- Is overwhelming evidence required for an Election Tribunal to order a recounting of votes?
- Can an Election Tribunal order recounting based on a respondent's statement and averments in an election petition?
- Does Rule 8 of the Election Petitions Rules 1979 mandate converting an election petition into a full-fledged suit trial for disposing of a recounting request?
- What is the standard for an Election Tribunal's satisfaction when considering a request for recounting?
- Muhammad Zaki vs The State1990 MLD 249 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-27Read full judgment →