Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Hafeez vs Sargodha Municipal Corporation and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 677 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayyaz vs Collector of Central Excise & Sales Tax, Lahore1990 CLC 1168 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fasih Ur Rehman Through Legal Heirs vs Federal Land1990 CLC 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Sadiq1990 MLD 2104 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din and 9 others vs Province of Punjab though Collector, District Rahimyar Khan and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 58 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19
  civil revisioncanal water supplyextra water for gardensaudi alteram partemnatural justicemisreading of evidencemandatory notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for a declaration that the order discontinuing the supply of extra canal water for their garden was illegal and void. The core legal questions involved the proper application of rules framed under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 regarding the cancellation of extra water supplies, the necessity of mandatory inspection reports and notice, and the application of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence, misapplied inapplicable rules, and failed to comply with the mandatory notice and inspection requirements under rule 12 and rule 17 of the rules framed under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873. The Court ruled that natural justice and the principle of audi alteram partem must be read into statutory frameworks unless expressly excluded, requiring a proper notice and hearing before cancelling water rights. Consequently, the revision was accepted and the lower courts' decisions were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the cancellation of an extra supply of canal water for a garden requires a mandatory six-month notice under the rules framed under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873?
  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to administrative actions curtailing property or water rights when the governing statute does not expressly bar it?
  • Are concurrent findings of lower courts based on a misreading of evidence and misapplication of rules liable to be set aside in civil revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota Anjum vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-03
  quashment petitionfalse chargeQazfHudood lawscompetency of police officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal quashment petition arises out of proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, after an initial police report under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the petitioner's application alleging that certain individuals were running a brothel and committing Zina, which was found baseless. The core legal questions involved whether the S.H.O. was competent to take action and whether the Qazf proceedings were maintainable without a direct application from the aggrieved person. The Lahore High Court held that the S.H.O. was competent to act upon the application forwarded by the S.S.P., and that the charge of Qazf was validly added upon the application of the aggrieved party, Mst. Amna Bibi. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an S.H.O. is competent to take action under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon an application forwarded by the S.S.P.?
  • Can proceedings under Section 7 of the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 be initiated without an application from the aggrieved person?
  • Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when the trial court has properly amended the charge based on the application of the aggrieved party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota and 4 others vs The Additional District & Sessions1990 MLD 718 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs S.H.O., Police Station Saddar, Kamalia and another1990 P Cr. L J 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Lal Din and others1990 MLD 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir And 7 Others vs Allah Rakha And Another1990 CLC 1715 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-20
  mortgage redemptionguardian ad-litempreliminary decreecivil revisionres judicataprocedural irregularitymortgage suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate decree that affirmed a trial court's judgment granting a suit for redemption of a mortgage and recovery of possession. The petitioners contended that the trial court failed to properly appoint a guardian ad-litem for a minor defendant and that the absence of a preliminary decree violated the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that the appointment of the Court Reader as guardian ad-litem was procedurally valid given the circumstances and caused no prejudice. Furthermore, the court determined that a preliminary decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not an absolute requirement in every mortgage suit, particularly where the facts do not necessitate the specific inquiry contemplated by the rule. However, the court found the decree defective for failing to incorporate the requirements of Order XXXIV, Rule 7(c), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding document delivery and re-conveyance. Consequently, the revision was allowed solely to remit the case for the rectification of the decree's form to ensure compliance with statutory procedural requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Is a preliminary decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory in every mortgage redemption suit?
  • Can a court appoint its Reader as a guardian ad-litem for a minor defendant when other relatives refuse the responsibility?
  • Does the failure to include provisions for document delivery and re-conveyance in a redemption decree violate Order XXXIV, Rule 7(c), Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Mst. Bakhtan and others1990 PLD Lahore 22 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar vs General Manager (Operation), Power, WAPDA1990 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24
  constitutional petitiondisciplinary proceedingsservice tribunal jurisdictionfunctus officioshow-cause noticepast and closed transactionrevisional powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Executive Engineer serving with WAPDA, challenging a final show-cause notice and an office order seeking to reopen concluded disciplinary proceedings against him. The core legal question was whether the General Manager had the authority to reopen a closed disciplinary matter after seven years, and whether the High Court's jurisdiction was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution. The Lahore High Court held that the General Manager lacked any review or revision powers under the relevant rules, having become functus officio once the penalty was executed and accepted, making the matter a past and closed transaction. Furthermore, because no appeal lay before the Federal Service Tribunal against a mere show-cause notice prior to any final order, the constitutional bar under Article 212 did not operate to oust the High Court's jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that where disciplinary proceedings are patently without jurisdiction and no appeal is competent before the Service Tribunal against an interlocutory notice, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court can be validly invoked.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the General Manager has the power to review or revise an earlier concluded disciplinary order in the absence of statutory provisions?
  • Does the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan operate against a constitutional petition directed solely against an illegal show-cause notice?
  • Can an authority reopen a disciplinary matter after the penalty has been implemented and accepted as a past and closed transaction?
  • Is an appeal competent before the Federal Service Tribunal against a show-cause notice prior to the passing of a final departmental order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem Qureshi vs Hakim Syed Akhtar Irshad And 4 Other1990 CLC 122 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Muhammad Hayat and 8 others1990 P Cr. L J 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and 6 others vs Minister for Education Punjab1990 PLC (C.S.) 278 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub alias Ayub and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-03
  transfer of casefair trialright to counselcross-examinationreasonable apprehension of biasmurder trialexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal transfer application seeking to move a murder trial from the Court of the Sessions Judge, Okara, to another competent jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the trial court’s insistence on proceeding with the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, despite the sudden appointment of state-funded counsel who had no time to prepare, violated the accused's right to a fair trial and created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court held that while expeditious disposal of murder trials is a legitimate objective, it cannot supersede the fundamental requirement of providing an accused with a fair opportunity to defend themselves. Forcing a newly appointed counsel to cross-examine witnesses without preparation renders the right to legal assistance a mere formality. The Court concluded that the circumstances created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused that he would not receive an impartial trial. Consequently, the case was transferred, and the transferee court was directed to recall the witnesses for fresh cross-examination, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

  Questions settled

  • Does forcing a newly appointed defense counsel to cross-examine witnesses without preparation violate the right to a fair trial?
  • Is a transfer of a criminal case justified when the actions of a judge create a reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the accused?
  • Can the administrative goal of expeditious disposal of murder trials justify the denial of a fair opportunity for the defense to prepare?
  • What is the legal effect of a trial court compelling a state-appointed counsel to proceed with cross-examination without adequate time to study the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1990 MLD 193 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Suhanra1990 C'L C 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Sharif Ashraf and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 595 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Zainab Bibi And 3 Other1990 CLC 934 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24
  past maintenancelimitation periodresiduary article 120family courtconstitutional petitionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Family Court and Additional District Judge directing the petitioner to pay past and future maintenance to his former wife and son. The core legal question was whether a suit for recovery of past maintenance is governed by a limitation period of three years or six years. The Lahore High Court held that since there is no specific article in the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 prescribing a limitation period for suits for maintenance, the residuary Article 120 applies, providing a limitation period of six years. The Court affirmed that suits for past maintenance under the Punjab Muslim Family Courts Act, 1964 as well as proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 are governed by the six-year limitation period under Article 120, and dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • What is the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit for recovery of past maintenance?
  • Does Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to suits for past maintenance filed before a Family Court?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact recorded by Family Courts open to interference in constitutional jurisdiction without proof of misreading of evidence?
  • Does the limitation period for past maintenance differ between proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and suits under the Punjab Muslim Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Faqir Muhammad And Another1990 CLC 549 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Falak Sher1990 CLC 1119 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26
  summary suitleave to defendpromissory notedeemed admissionrecovery of moneyrecording of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a suit for the recovery of forty thousand rupees based on a promissory note. The appellant filed an application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which the trial court dismissed because it was unsupported by an affidavit, and thereupon straightaway decreed the suit on the ground that the plaint's averments were deemed admitted. The core legal question was whether a trial court can outright decree a suit under Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) simply by refusing or rejecting an application for leave to defend. The Lahore High Court held that the provision only applies when a defendant fails to appear, fails to apply for leave to defend, or defaults in defending after leave is granted; it does not apply when an application for leave to defend is filed and subsequently rejected by the court. In such cases of rejection, the plaintiff must still prove the case by recording evidence. The appeal was accordingly accepted, the decree set aside, and the case remanded for recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of an application for leave to defend automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree under Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a trial court required to record evidence of the plaintiff after refusing leave to defend in a summary suit?
  • What specific eventualities are contemplated under Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for straightaway decreeing a suit without evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam alias Sooba vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 704 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08
  unlicensed weaponspecial courtexpired ordinanceremandcriminal appealbail pending retrial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction recorded by a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, wherein the appellant was found guilty of possessing an unlicensed sten-gun and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the conviction could be sustained given that the Pakistan Arms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988, and the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988, had expired due to a failure to receive approval from the National Assembly and the Senate, thereby lacking the force of law at the time of the trial. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate-General, conceded this position, acknowledging that the ordinances were not in force. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to the District and Sessions Judge, Lahore, for entrustment to a court of competent jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court directed the appellant's release on bail pending the new trial, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction based on an ordinance that has expired due to lack of legislative approval remain valid?
  • What is the effect of an expired ordinance on the jurisdiction of a Special Court constituted under that ordinance?
  • Can an appellate court order the release of an appellant on bail after setting aside a conviction and remanding the case for retrial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 278 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-25
  pre-arrest bailcommon objectsimple injuryjuvenile offendermala fidecriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused of participating in an assault involving multiple individuals under Sections 307, 325, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being named in the FIR with a specific role, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given his age, the nature of the injury attributed to him, and allegations of mala fide prosecution. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of his pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the injury inflicted by the petitioner was simple and on a non-vital part of the victim, and that he did not repeat the injury despite having the opportunity to do so, indicating a lack of intent to cause further harm. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the petitioner's status as a student under eighteen years of age and the potential for unjustified humiliation and harassment, aligning with the broader scope for granting pre-arrest bail established in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the infliction of a simple injury on a non-vital part of the victim, without repetition, negate the intent to cause further harm for the purpose of bail?
  • Can the age of the accused be considered a mitigating factor for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the specific naming of an accused in an FIR with a specific role automatically disentitle them to pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Khan vs Rahim Bux and others1990 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif alias Shauka vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1969 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1990 MLD 673 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1359 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Others vs Muazzam Ali And Other1990 CLC 254 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 3 others vs Member (S&R), Board of Revenue, Punjab and another1990 MLD 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 368 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-10
  murderhostile witnessidentification paradecriminal appealevidentiary valueacquittalreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased following a dispute over bus fare. The core legal questions concern the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the necessity of a test identification parade when the accused are unknown to witnesses, and the evidentiary value of a witness declared hostile. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with glaring discrepancies, including contradictory statements regarding the motive, the sequence of events, and the presence of witnesses at the scene. Furthermore, the failure of the investigating officer to conduct a test identification parade for the appellant, who was previously unknown to the witnesses, proved fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that when prosecution witnesses are declared hostile and their testimonies are inconsistent, the evidence loses its probative value. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of a prosecution witness declared hostile lose all evidentiary value?
  • Is a test identification parade mandatory when the accused is unknown to the eyewitnesses?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to reconcile glaring discrepancies in the testimony of ocular witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 726 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1646 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asadullah vs Incharge Public Complaint Cell, Lahore and another1990 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs S.H.O., Police Station, Mussafirkhana and 51990 MLD 143 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1904 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Mac)Bool1990 PLD Lahore 397 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-05
  pre-emptionadditional evidencelimitationestoppelwaiverbenamisecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for possession of land through pre-emption, where the vendee-defendant challenged the lower courts' decrees in favour of the respondent. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court erred in refusing to admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 10 of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether the plaintiff was estopped from claiming pre-emption due to his presence at the sale or acting as a benamidar. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellate court correctly exercised its discretion regarding additional evidence and that the limitation period commenced from the registration of the sale deed, not the prior agreement to sell. Furthermore, the Court held that mere passive presence of a family member at a sale does not constitute estoppel or waiver of pre-emption rights. The principle laid down is that a prospective pre-emptor is not legally obligated to intervene during sale negotiations, and the right of pre-emption is not waived merely by a 'wait and see' approach before the final price is settled.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a family member at a sale transaction constitute estoppel against their subsequent claim of pre-emption?
  • When does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence under Article 10 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can an appellate court refuse to consider a request for additional evidence before deciding the merits of the appeal?
  • Is a prospective pre-emptor required to intervene during the negotiation of a sale price to avoid a claim of waiver?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen vs Muhammad Younis And 2 Other1990 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alsam and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1380 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Hassan vs Fateh Muhammad and AnotherK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1132 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 8 others vs Jam Lalu1990 PLD Lahore 190 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 574 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Shad vs Additional District Judge And 2 Other1990 CLC 908 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-29
  ejectmentlandlord-tenant relationshipWest Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959constitutional petitionmala fidedefault in rentgeneral power of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, which directed the ejectment of the petitioner for default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the owner of the premises could maintain an ejectment petition when the property had been let out and managed by her father as a general attorney. The Court held that the owner remains the landlord and is entitled to seek ejectment, as the definition of "landlord" under the Rent Restriction Ordinance encompasses not only those who physically receive rent but also those entitled to receive it. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea that the agent was the sole landlord, noting that an owner does not lose their rights by appointing an agent. Furthermore, the Court found the petitioner’s denial of the landlord-tenant relationship to be mala fide, contumacious, and contradicted by his own conduct and admissions in previous proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with special costs, affirming that the owner’s statutory right to control the property cannot be impaired by agency arrangements.

  Questions settled

  • Does an owner lose their status as a landlord under the Rent Restriction Ordinance by appointing an agent to manage the property and collect rent?
  • Is a tenant's denial of the landlord-tenant relationship legally sustainable when the tenant has previously admitted the tenancy in court proceedings?
  • Does the definition of 'landlord' under the Rent Restriction Ordinance include the owner of the property even if they have not personally collected rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Khan and 3 others vs Sufi Soap and Chemical1990 PLC 488 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and another vs The State1990 MLD 1553 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 864 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah And Others vs Noor Muhammad And Other1990 CLC 726 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs National Bank of Pakistan1990 PLC 189 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali Khan And 7 Others vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, FinanceDepartment, Civil Secretariat, Lahore And Another1990 CLC 136 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-07
  Secretariat allowanceequal protection of lawreasonable classificationHigh Court establishmentconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of serviceProvincial Consolidated Fund
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, sought a direction against the Government of Punjab to extend the benefit of a Finance Department memorandum granting a 20% Secretariat allowance to employees of the Punjab Secretariat and Board of Revenue, to the officers and servants of the Lahore High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court employees were barred from invoking writ jurisdiction due to alternative service tribunal remedies or lack of specific framing of rules under Article 208, and whether the denial of the Secretariat allowance to High Court staff constituted unconstitutional discrimination under Articles 4 and 25. The Lahore High Court held that its employees do not fall within the definition of civil servants under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, that rule 22 of the High Court Establishment Rules governs their allowances through the Civil Service Rules (Punjab), and that denying the allowance to High Court staff similarly situated to Secretariat employees violates the right to equal protection of law. The court established that administrative expenses charged upon the Provincial Consolidated Fund under Article 121 preclude the state from denying legitimate allowances based on financial constraints.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the officers and servants of the High Court fall within the definition of civil servants so as to exclude the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does the failure of the High Court to frame separate rules under Article 208 disentitle its staff from claiming allowances governed generally by the Civil Service Rules (Punjab)?
  • Is the denial of a Secretariat allowance to the staff of the High Court while granting it to the Punjab Secretariat and Board of Revenue employees violative of the principle of equal protection under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Can the Provincial Government refuse to grant admissible allowances to High Court employees on the ground of financial constraints in light of expenditures charged upon the Provincial Consolidated Fund?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst.Nasreen Akhtar vs Asmat Ullah PehalwanK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umatullah vs Maqbool Hussain and 4 others1990 MLD 2363 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surayya Begum vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and 4 others1990 PLD Lahore 4 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-02
  execution proceedingsattachment of propertyobjection petitionbanking courtbona fide purchaserCode of Civil Procedureremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order by the Special Judge (Banking Court) rejecting the appellant's objection petition against the attachment and auction of property during execution proceedings. The appellant claimed ownership via a registered sale deed predating the suit. The core legal question was whether the executing court could summarily dismiss the objection without conducting an investigation. The High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable, as the executing court failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Order XXI Rules 58, 59, and 62 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court emphasized that an executing court is legally obligated to adjudicate upon claims relating to title or interest in attached property by providing parties an adequate opportunity to establish their claims. Summary rejection based on conjectures, without proper investigation or framing of issues, violates these provisions. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the proviso to Rule 58(1) regarding delay must be interpreted cautiously to avoid defeating the substantive right to adjudication. The case was remanded for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is an executing court required to conduct an investigation into claims of title regarding attached property under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an executing court summarily reject an objection petition against attachment without framing issues or allowing parties to lead evidence?
  • Does the proviso to Order XXI Rule 58(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow for the rejection of an objection petition without investigation solely on the grounds of delay?
  • Is a separate suit maintainable to establish title or interest in attached property, or must it be determined by the executing court under Order XXI Rule 62 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Kausar vs Sarfraz Ahmad and another1990 MLD 935 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1552 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 693 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs Bashir Ahmad1990 CLC 853 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum vs Taj Din And Other1990 CLC 1503 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-03
  second appealcertified copyspecific performancemaintainability of appealmandatory requirementCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which granted specific performance of an agreement to sell in favour of the respondents. The core legal question before the Court was whether a second appeal is maintainable when the appellant fails to file a certified copy of the trial court's judgment along with the memorandum of appeal, as required by law. The Court held that the appeal was not properly constituted and was incompetent. The Court reasoned that the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment is a mandatory requirement under Order XLI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Since the appellant failed to provide the required document despite having notice of the defect for several years and failed to seek condonation of delay, the appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the requirement to file certified copies of lower court judgments in a second appeal is mandatory, and failure to comply without a court-ordered dispensation renders the appeal incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Is the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment a mandatory requirement for a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a second appeal be considered properly constituted if the appellant fails to file the required certified copies and does not obtain a dispensation from the court?
  • Does the failure to file certified copies of lower court judgments render a second appeal incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rubia Zarin vs Aamer Amin Malik1990 MLD 2150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rifat Zohra vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Kabirwala, District Khanewal and 2 others1990 MLD 771 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Riaz Begum vs The S.H.O., Police Station, Ferozewala and 3 others1990 P Cr. L J 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-13
  transfer of investigationconstitutional jurisdictionfair investigationpolice negligencewrit petitioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner, Mst. Riaz Begum, seeking the transfer of the investigation of a criminal case (F.I.R. No. 563/89) from the local police to an independent officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner alleged that the investigating officer acted with mala fide intent, ignored crucial evidence regarding the deceased parties' armed presence at the petitioner's residence, and failed to investigate the accused party's plea of self-defence. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could direct the transfer of an ongoing police investigation where the investigating officer failed to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry. The Court held that while the police have the authority to investigate, they are legally obligated to collect all evidence, whether supporting or contradicting the prosecution. Finding that the investigating officer's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias and failed to meet the legal requirements of a proper investigation, the Court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to transfer the investigation to a superior officer to ensure impartiality.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to direct the transfer of a police investigation?
  • Is an investigating officer legally required to collect evidence that may support the accused's version of events?
  • Does the failure of an investigating officer to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry justify the transfer of the investigation to another officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehana Masud vs Farrukh Saeed Siddiqui1990 MLD 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rajan vs Jewan1990 CLC 896 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazra Begum vs Government of the Punjab1990 PLC (C.S.) 93 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naziran vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naziran Mai vs The State1990 MLD 254 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Akhtar vs Asmat Ullah Pehlawan1990 PLD Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar and 5 others vs S.H.O., Police Station Civil Lines, D.G.1990 P Cr. L J 1845 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naghmana Gul vs Alhaj Maj. Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad1990 MLD 2131 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naeema Tabassum and anothers vs Additional District Judge, Gujrat and another1990 MLD 1217 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kishwar Sultana vs Municipal Corporation Faisalabad, through Mayor1990 MLD 1927 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Qamar Ud Din And Other1990 CLC 1463 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26
  ejectment applicationrent defaultstatutory noticeSection 13-Alandlord and tenantsubstantial compliancewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an appellate order which dismissed an ejectment application against a tenant solely due to the absence of a formal notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether the filing of an ejectment petition itself constitutes substantial compliance with the statutory notice requirement under Section 13-A. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, held that the filing of an ejectment petition provides the tenant with sufficient knowledge of the landlord's title and entitlement to rent, thereby serving as substantial compliance with the statutory notice requirement. Consequently, the appellate court's dismissal of the petition based on the lack of formal notice was set aside. The High Court ruled that the appellate authority must decide the case on its merits, specifically regarding the issue of rent default, which had not been adjudicated. The matter was remanded to the District Judge for an expeditious decision on the remaining issues, affirming that formal notice is not an absolute bar when the tenant has actual knowledge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of an ejectment petition constitute substantial compliance with the notice requirement under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an ejectment petition solely for lack of formal notice under Section 13-A when the tenant has actual knowledge of the landlord's claim?
  • Is a tenant relieved of the obligation to pay rent during the pendency of an ejectment application until an order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is passed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs Punjab Province and 3 others1990 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iffat Masood and 2 others vs Rehmat Ali1990 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-21
  default of appearancedeath of appellanttermination of counsel authoritynullity of orderlegal representativessubstitutioninherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an order dismissing an appeal for default of appearance and a subsequent order refusing its restoration. The core legal question was whether an appeal could be validly dismissed in default when the appellant was already deceased at the time, and whether the authority of a counsel survives the client's death. The Lahore High Court held that upon the death of a client, the power of attorney given to a counsel terminates, and a dead person cannot be treated as a defaulter; consequently, any order dismissing a suit or appeal for default in appearance passed in ignorance of a party's death is a complete nullity. The court laid down the principle that procedural rules regarding default in appearance do not apply to a deceased litigant, and courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alongside provisions of Order XXII, to rectify such null and void orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of attorney given to an advocate survive the death of the client?
  • Can an appeal or suit be legally dismissed for default of appearance when the party is already dead?
  • What is the effect of an order dismissing an appeal for default passed in ignorance of the appellant's death?
  • What are the remedies available to the legal representatives of a deceased appellant against whom an order of dismissal in default was passed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussain Jan And 5 Others vs Mst. Channo Bi1990 CLC 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-06
  sale deednon-payment of considerationpassing of titleoral evidencefraudulent transactioncivil revisionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which decreed a suit for declaration of title in favor of the plaintiff-respondent after annulling a registered sale deed. The core legal questions concerned whether a vendor can prove non-payment of consideration despite a recital in the sale deed acknowledging receipt, and whether title passes if the sale price remains unpaid. The High Court held that a recital of payment in a sale deed is a statement of fact, not a term of the contract; therefore, Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 does not bar a party from leading oral evidence to prove that consideration was not actually paid. The Court further affirmed that while the registration of a sale deed generally transfers title, this is subject to the parties' intention. Where evidence establishes that the parties intended ownership to transfer only upon payment, and such payment was never made, the transaction is ineffective. The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' findings that the sale was fraudulent and title did not pass.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party lead oral evidence to prove that the consideration mentioned in a registered sale deed was not actually paid?
  • Does the recital of payment in a sale deed constitute a term of the contract that cannot be contradicted under Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872?
  • Does title to land pass upon the execution of a sale deed if the parties intended that ownership would only transfer upon payment of the sale price?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hawwa And Others vs Karim Bakhsh And Other1990 CLC 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Maulvi Muhammad Saeed Rehmani and 9 others1990 MLD 117 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima And 6 Others vs Imam Bux Nasikh Saift Through Legal1990 CLC 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Firdaus Begum vs The Additional District Judge and another's1990 MLD 1921 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farkhanda Akhtar vs Mian Naeemurrehman and 12 others1990 MLD 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran Bibi And Others vs Additional District Judge And Other1990 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bachal Mai vs Allah Ditta and another1990 P Cr. L J 93 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Arita Amjad And 2 Others vs Abbas Tayyab Dar And Another1990 CLC 1743 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-05
  partition suitadjournmentdismissal for defaultwant of proofrestoration of suitdouble defaultappellate powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arose from a trial court's order closing the plaintiffs' evidence and dismissing their partition suit for want of proof in their absence. The Lahore High Court examined the distinction between Order XVII Rule 2 and Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Rule 3 is penal in nature and applies only when time has been granted at the party's request to perform a specific act, the party is present or deemed present, and there is sufficient material on record for a decision on the merits. Since the adjournment was not at the plaintiffs' request and they were absent, Rule 3 was inapplicable. The proper course was to treat the dismissal as one for default under Rule 2. Exercising its appellate powers under Section 107, the High Court found sufficient cause for the plaintiffs' non-appearance, set aside the dismissal, and restored the suit for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • What are the necessary conditions for the application of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to decide a suit forthwith?
  • Can a court dismiss a suit on the merits under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of the plaintiff and without any evidence on record?
  • Whether an appellate court can convert an erroneous dismissal under Order XVII Rule 3 into a dismissal for default under Order XVII Rule 2 and restore the suit on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Begum alias Noor Begum vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1559 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amna Bibi vs Muhammad Iqbal1990 CLC 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-21
  civil revisioncompromise decreeauthority of counselvakalatnamareferee's statementadmissiondowry recoverydissolution of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from the dismissal of the petitioner-plaintiff's appeal by the District Judge, Okara, upholding a compromise decree passed in matrimonial and financial litigation between spouses. The core legal questions involved whether a party could resile from a compromise and an agreement to be bound by a third party referee's statement, and whether a counsel had the implied authority to bind the client through such a compromise statement. The Lahore High Court held that a compromise is a binding contract that cannot be unilaterally rescinded, and that a counsel acting under a Vakalatnama possesses implied authority to sign a compromise statement binding the client. Furthermore, the Court held that an agreement to be bound by a third person's statement operates as an admission under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, preventing a party from avoiding its legal effects. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party can resile from a compromise agreement and an undertaking to be bound by a referee's statement?
  • Does a counsel have the implied authority under a Vakalatnama to sign a compromise statement binding the client?
  • Can an agreement to be bound by a third person's statement operate as an admission under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  • Is a compromise decree passed on the basis of a joint statement and referee report appealable or revisable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allawan Bibi alias Saha Bibi vs Umar Hayat and 4 others1990 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Khalida Muzaffar vs Tariq Sultan, Secretary, Education1990 PLC (C.S) 754 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mohyuddin and anothers vs Muhammad Ashraf and 4 others1990 MLD 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mohsab Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1510 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ramzan vs Rafhan Maize Product Etc.K.L.R. 1990, Labour & Service Cases 263 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Bashir vs Lal DinK.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Azhar vs Gjvi.WAPDAK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 243 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Asif vs Secretary to Govt EtcK.L.R.1990 Labour & Service Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Asif vs Secretary Govt of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Labour and Service Cases 319 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-20Read full judgment →