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.
- Faqir Mohammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1990, Labour & Service Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-11Read full judgment →
- Faq1r Mohammad vs Bashir Ahmad Etc.K.L.R. 1990 Revenue Cases 169 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-25Read full judgment →
- Faoir Muhammad And Another vs Shah Muhammad1990 CLC 242 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
- Falak Naz vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 798 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous petition involves a challenge to the validity of a pardon tendered to the petitioner under section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during the investigation of a murder case, and seeks the quashment of proceedings and release of the petitioner. The core legal questions addressed are whether an approver who attempts to resile from a confessional statement retains that status, and whether criminal proceedings can be quashed where there is an absence of corroborative evidence and no prospect of a successful prosecution. The Lahore High Court held that official acts of recording a confessional statement and granting pardon carry a presumption of regularity under section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872, maintaining the petitioner's status as an approver despite subsequent retractions, but ultimately quashed the proceedings as an abuse of the process of the court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because the prosecution lacked any corroborative evidence to support the approver's statement. The key principle established is that criminal proceedings may be quashed at an early stage when there is a total absence of corroboration and evidence, making the continuation of the case an abuse of the court's process.
Questions settled- Whether a person who has accepted a pardon under section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 loses the status of an approver upon subsequently resiling from their confessional statement?
- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings at the investigation stage under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where there is no corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution's case?
- Does a presumption of correctness and regularity attach to the recording of a confessional statement and the tendering of a pardon by a Magistrate under section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of the court when the conviction or acquittal of the accused is a foregone conclusion due to a lack of evidence?
- Faizulhaq and anothers vs Abdus Salam and 3 others1990 MLD 106 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad vs The State1990 MLD 663 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
- Ehsanulhaq vs Shahnaz Begum and 2 others1990 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
- Ehsan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1320 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
- Eastern Arms Co. vs Plat and others1990 PLC 597 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. S.S. Naeemul Hamid vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council through Secretary, PMDC and 2 others1990 MLD 1605 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-04Read full judgment →
- Dr. Naeem-Ul-Zaman vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and 31990 PLC (C.S.) 25 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by Dr. Naeem-ul-Zaman challenging his removal from service by the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, seeking reinstatement with full back benefits. The core legal questions involved whether the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, whether the master and servant principle applies to its employees, and whether the failure to follow the regular inquiry procedure mandated under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the Commission performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, that its service matters are regulated by statutory rules precluding the master and servant rule, and that once an inquiry committee is constituted, the mandatory procedure under Rule 6 must be followed. The court laid down the principle that an authorised officer cannot abandon a regular inquiry once initiated in favour of a shorter procedure, and that vague show-cause notices without necessary particulars violate due process.
Questions settled- Whether the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employees of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission?
- Can an authorised officer switch from a regular inquiry procedure under Rule 6 to a shorter procedure under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 after initiating an inquiry committee?
- Whether vague show-cause notices lacking necessary particulars vitiate disciplinary proceedings against a public employee?
- Dr. Muhammad Siddique vs Additional District Jduge, Faisailabad And 31990 CLC 1156 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two connected writ petitions challenge the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioners from commercial premises due to rent default. The core legal questions concerned whether the Rent Controller could order the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted in pleadings, whether a third-party co-owner was a necessary party to the proceedings, and whether the failure to comply with a tentative rent assessment justified striking off the defense. The High Court held that the petitioners' clear admissions of tenancy in their written statements bound them, rendering their subsequent denial of the landlord-tenant relationship and attempts to pay rent to third parties legally ineffective. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller’s tentative assessment of rent was a valid exercise of discretion and that the petitioners' failure to comply with the deposit order constituted willful default. Consequently, the Court upheld the striking off of the defense and dismissed the petitions, emphasizing that summary rent proceedings require expeditious resolution.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller order the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 when the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted in the pleadings?
- Does the failure to comply with a tentative rent assessment order by a Rent Controller constitute willful default justifying the striking off of a tenant's defense?
- Is a co-owner a necessary party to ejectment proceedings when the relationship of landlord and tenant is already established between the petitioner and the respondent?
- Dr. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Rana vs Government of the Punjab and others1990 PLD Lahore 88 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the government's refusal to promote the petitioner to an upgraded post (NPS-19) following the upgradation of his existing post (NPS-18) as Principal, Agricultural Training Institute. The core legal question was whether the incumbent of a cadre post automatically moves to a higher grade upon the post's upgradation, or if such upgradation necessitates a new selection process under amended service rules. The Court held that while the post was indeed upgraded and redesignated, the petitioner did not automatically move to the higher grade. Since the post was a cadre post and the petitioner's seniority was maintained within the Extension Wing of the Agriculture Department, he could not claim the upgraded post by superseding senior officers. The Court established that the principle of automatic movement upon upgradation applies only to specific, specialized, or ex-cadre posts. Where a post is part of a service cadre, the incumbent must comply with the prescribed method of recruitment, and the government may validly amend rules to require merit-based selection for upgraded cadre posts.
Questions settled- Does the upgradation of a cadre post automatically entitle the incumbent to the higher grade?
- Can the government amend service rules to require merit-based selection for an upgraded post?
- Is the principle of automatic promotion upon upgradation applicable to cadre posts?
- Dr. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Rana vs Government of the Punjab and others (Copy)1990 PLC (C.S.) 156 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mrs. Suraya Durrani vs Secretary, Government Punjab, Health1990 PLC (C.S.) 313 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged an order of compulsory retirement passed by the Government of the Punjab against a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the 'Authority' could unilaterally impose a major penalty when the 'Authorised Officer' had recommended exoneration, and whether the procedural requirements of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, were satisfied. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority. It established that the 'Authority' and 'Authorised Officer' possess distinct, exclusive jurisdictions. Where an Authorised Officer proceeds via show-cause notice under Rule 6(3) and concludes that no major penalty is warranted, the Authority lacks the jurisdiction to impose such a penalty. The Authority’s jurisdiction is only triggered when the Authorised Officer formally recommends a major penalty after complying with procedural requirements, including obtaining the accused's explanation regarding the proposed major penalty. Additionally, the Court noted that the government had already paid the petitioner's salary for the period of alleged absence, effectively negating the grounds for the penalty. Consequently, the retirement order was declared void.
Questions settled- Can the 'Authority' impose a major penalty under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, if the 'Authorised Officer' has recommended exoneration?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding service matters if the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and is coram non judice?
- Is the 'Authority' empowered to impose a major penalty without the 'Authorised Officer' having first obtained the accused's explanation regarding the proposed major penalty?
- Dr. Iqbal Ahmad Choudhry vs Muhammad Inayat and another1990 MLD 767 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- Divisional Transport Officer and others vs Punjab Labour Court and others1990 PLC 748 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-06Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Abdul Majeed1990 PLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-12Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad and 4 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1339 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
- Daulat Ali vs Shagufta Rani And Another1990 CLC 917 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
- Daood Ahmad vs Mst. Sabira Moqaddas1990 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner-husband challenging the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bahawalpur, which decreed the respondent-wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner contended that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the respondent allegedly resided in Lodhran and not Bahawalpur, and further argued that the grounds for Khula were not established. The Lahore High Court observed that the respondent, an educated school teacher, resided in Bahawalpur with her family for her brothers' education, and that the trial court's finding on her ordinary residence was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. On the merits of Khula, the Court noted that despite the Nikah being performed in 1977, Rukhsati had not taken place, and there was a severe disparity in their educational and social status. Holding that forcing the respondent into an unhappy union would be unjust, the Court affirmed the decree of Khula and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage if the plaintiff-wife ordinarily resides within its local limits despite having ancestral property elsewhere?
- Can the High Court in its writ jurisdiction reappraise the evidence led by parties before a Family Court on the question of territorial jurisdiction?
- Whether an acute disparity in the educational and social status of spouses, coupled with a long delay in Rukhsati, constitutes a valid ground for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula?
- Commossioner Of Income Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore. vs Sh. GulzarPTCL 1990 CL. 115 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujranwala Zone, Gujranwala vs Messrs Arshad Impex, Sialkot1990 PTD 680 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
- Chief Engineer Irrigation, Sargodha and others vs Muhammad Akram1990 PLC 804 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
- Chief Administrator of Auoaf, Punjab vs Allah Ditta And Another1990 CLC 821 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition before the Lahore High Court arose from a suit filed by the respondents against the Chief Administrator of Auqaf and others seeking a declaration of exclusive ownership and possession of land taken over by the Auqaf Department as waqf property under the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act, 1976. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, and the lower appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the civil court possessed jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts is expressly barred to question the taking over of property under the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act, 1976, where a special statutory remedy is provided. The High Court held that the scheme of the special legislation provides an exclusive procedure and remedy before the District Court and expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, set aside the lower courts' judgments, and ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction, establishing that ordinary civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters governed by the exclusive mechanisms of the Auqaf legislation.
Questions settled- Does the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act, 1976 bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts to challenge the notification and taking over of waqf properties?
- Is the remedy provided under section 11 of the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act, 1976 before the District Court exclusive or concurrent with ordinary civil suits?
- Can jurisdiction be conferred upon a civil court by the consent or submission of parties when such jurisdiction is expressly barred by a statute?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a civil court when it finds that its jurisdiction is ousted by a special statute?
- Chaudhry Construction Co. Ltd. vs Pakistan And Other1990 CLC 394 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenged an appellate court order that vacated a temporary injunction previously granted to the petitioner, a construction company. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with a construction contract that had been cancelled prior to the stipulated completion date. The core legal question was whether a court should grant an injunction to prevent an employer from revoking a building contract and re-entering the site, or whether the contractor's remedy is limited to a suit for damages. The Court held that a building or engineering contract constitutes a mere license to enter the site, which the employer may revoke at any time. Consequently, the Court ruled that an injunction cannot be issued to force an employer to continue a contract with a contractor they object to, as the court cannot enforce specific performance of such works. The key principle laid down is that in cases of wrongful termination of building contracts, the contractor's proper and exclusive remedy is a suit for damages, not an injunction.
Questions settled- Can a court grant an injunction to restrain an employer from cancelling a building contract and re-entering the site?
- Is a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 maintainable in respect of a contract?
- Does a building contract grant the contractor an irrevocable right to remain on the site until the contract period expires?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy for a contractor when a building contract is cancelled by the employer?
- Ch. Zafaryab vs Mian Bashir Ahmad, S.H.O._ Inspector, Police Station, Shalimar and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 896 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad And 11 Others vs Rana Abdul Hamid And 9 Other1990 CLC 385 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Rafeq Akhtar vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Faisalabad1990 P Cr. L J 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs Assistant Commissioner, Saddar, Sialkot and 4 others1990 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, whereby the petitioner sought to declare the proceedings of a vote of no-confidence against him as Chairman of a Union Council illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether holding a no-confidence meeting after a slight delay due to the breakdown of the Presiding Officer's vehicle vitiates the proceedings, and whether provisions regarding time in such rules are mandatory or directory. The Lahore High Court held that statutory provisions specifying a time for the performance of a public duty or official act are generally directory rather than mandatory, provided no prejudice is caused. The Court ruled that time is not of the essence in convening such meetings, and if a meeting cannot start at the exact appointed hour due to unavoidable reasons, it may be convened within a reasonable time. The key principle laid down is that the non-compliance with procedural timeframes in public rules does not invalidate subsequent actions unless actual prejudice is shown, and a petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong by prematurely attempting to suspend a meeting.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to convene a no-confidence meeting at the exact appointed time vitiates the subsequent proceedings?
- Are the statutory provisions specifying a time for the performance of a public duty by an official to be construed as mandatory or directory?
- Does a chairman against whom a no-confidence motion is moved have the authority to suspend or postpone the meeting if the presiding officer is delayed?
- What constitutes a reasonable time for holding a meeting when the presiding officer is unavoidably delayed?
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs Amanullah and others1990 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses three consolidated Constitutional Petitions challenging the Corporate Law Authority's refusal to grant the petitioners permission to establish a stock exchange at Islamabad, while simultaneously granting such permission to a respondent group. The core legal question was whether the Minister of State’s decision to favor this specific group, ignoring the Authority’s recommendation for a joint venture, was vitiated by mala fide, nepotism, and procedural irregularities. The High Court held that the Minister of State’s order was tainted by mala fide and favoritism, as it was designed to benefit his business associates and relatives rather than serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned order and all subsequent actions taken pursuant to it as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court established that a mala fide act constitutes a fraud on the statute and is inherently without jurisdiction. Furthermore, when a public functionary exercises power for collateral or ulterior purposes, the resulting order is void, and any subsequent orders or rights built upon such a void foundation must necessarily collapse.
Questions settled- Does a mala fide administrative order constitute a fraud on the statute?
- Can a court set aside subsequent orders that are founded upon an initial void order?
- Is an administrative decision taken for collateral or ulterior purposes subject to judicial review?
- Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae protect rights acquired through a mala fide administrative act?
- Ch. Maqsood Ahmad vs Khalid Pervaiz1990 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision challenged an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed under the summary procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner sought to set aside the decree, arguing he was not served with summons and that the decree was a nullity. The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding laches, noting the petitioner had pursued incorrect remedies based on counsel's advice, and argued that the application failed to disclose 'special circumstances' required under Order XXXVII, rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the revision petition was barred by laches, affirming that wrong advice of counsel is no longer a valid ground for condoning delay, as such condonation would prejudice the opposite party's vested rights. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a mere allegation of non-service of summons does not constitute 'special circumstances' under Order XXXVII, rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. To succeed, an applicant must demonstrate substantial grounds justifying the right to defend the suit, which the petitioner failed to do. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the wrong advice of counsel constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing a revision petition?
- What constitutes 'special circumstances' under Order XXXVII, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a summary decree?
- Is a mere allegation of non-service of summons sufficient to set aside an ex parte decree passed under the summary procedure?
- What is the limitation period for filing a revision petition where no specific limitation is prescribed?
- Ch. Irshad Ahmad vs Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division1990 MLD 1802 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. Ghulam Shakeel vs S.H.O., Naulakha1990 P Cr. L J 587 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
- Ch. Bashir Ahmad and 4 others vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Sargodha and 4 others1990 MLD 986 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition addresses whether an appeal, once admitted to regular hearing, can be dismissed for non-compliance with the notice requirements of Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal by the appellate court, which had been dismissed post-admission due to the failure to serve notice upon the respondents prior to filing. The Court examined the interpretation of the term 'entertain' in the context of the Supreme Court's ruling in Mrs. Dino Manekji Chinoy v. Muhammad Matin. It held that the purpose of Order XLIII, Rule 3 is to facilitate the preliminary (limine) stage, allowing respondents to contest the appeal's admission. Once the court has admitted the appeal, the procedural lapse regarding notice is rendered irrelevant. Applying the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, the Court concluded that an appellant should not be penalized for the court's error in admitting an appeal without prior notice. Consequently, an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-compliance with Order XLIII, Rule 3 after it has been admitted to regular hearing.
Questions settled- Can an appeal be dismissed for non-compliance with Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after it has been admitted to regular hearing?
- Does the requirement of giving notice under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend beyond the preliminary stage of an appeal?
- Does the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit apply when an appellate court admits an appeal without the appellant having complied with the notice requirements of Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Caltex Oil (Pak.) Ltd. vs Mian Ashiq Muhammad Faiz1990 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-22Read full judgment →
- Bibi Rani Etc. vs The Additional Commissionar (Revenue) Lahore, Etc.K.L.R.1990 Revenue Cases 122 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
- Bheeloo vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 186 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
- Bashiran Bibi vs The District Magistrate, Kasur1990 P Cr. L J 913 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kasur, under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 against the petitioner's son on the basis of numerous past criminal cases and secret enquiries. The core legal question was whether past criminal cases and pending prosecutions can form a valid basis for ordering preventive detention, and whether a detention order relying on unverified secret enquiries and past cases is sustainable. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and held that criminal charges for which a person is facing trial or has been prosecuted cannot form a reasonable basis for preventive detention, as the administration must make a choice between prosecution and detention. The Court further laid down that mechanical acceptance of police recommendations without independent application of mind, and reliance on unsubstantiated secret enquiries, vitiates the detention order. Consequently, the impugned order was declared without lawful authority and the detenu was ordered to be released.
Questions settled- Can past criminal cases or pending prosecutions form a valid and legal basis for ordering preventive detention under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?
- Does the mechanical acceptance of police recommendations by a District Magistrate vitiate an order of preventive detention?
- What is the legal effect on a detention order if one of its grounds is found to be non-existent or bad in law?
- Whether an unsubstantiated ground regarding secret enquiries into a detenu's nefarious activities can sustain an order of preventive detention?
- Bashir Masih vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-06Read full judgment →
- Bashir and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 549 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir alias Boota vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1568 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1375 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Yunus and others1990 P Cr. L J 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Muhammad Yunus, by the Sessions Judge, Okara, in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the bail granted to the accused, based on conflicting police investigation reports regarding his innocence and participation, should be cancelled, particularly when superior police officers disagreed with the findings of local investigators. The Court held that the bail order did not warrant interference. It reasoned that the existence of conflicting police reports, where some officers found the accused innocent based on material evidence, created a situation of further inquiry under the law. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible, while the final evaluation remains the prerogative of the trial court. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reports are contradictory, the benefit of such conflict, at the tentative bail stage, should be resolved in favor of the accused, provided the finding of innocence is not entirely unsupported by the record.
Questions settled- Does a conflict in police investigation reports regarding the innocence of an accused constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a court cancel bail granted by a lower court when superior police officers disagree with the findings of local investigators?
- Is a tentative assessment of evidence sufficient to justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad And Others vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd.1990 CLC 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Special Judge Banking, Lahore, in a recovery suit. The appellants sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, contending that the decree was obtained through fraud against a deceased partner. The core legal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to appeals filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, and whether Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 could be invoked to extend the limitation period. The Court held that the appeal was barred by time, as the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 is a special law prescribing a specific limitation period of 30 days. Consequently, by operation of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908, the provisions of Section 5 are inapplicable to such appeals. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only to suits and applications, not appeals. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellants to pursue other legal remedies regarding the alleged fraud.
Questions settled- Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to appeals filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Is Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to appeals?
- Does Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908 exclude the application of Section 5 when a special law prescribes a different period of limitation?
- Bashir Ahmad And 13 Others vs Maula Bakhsh And 24 Other1990 CLC 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners, claiming ownership and possession of land and challenging entries in the Revenue Record made by Consolidation Authorities. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed this dismissal, primarily citing a lack of jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable given a previous dismissal of an identical suit for the same cause of action, and whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to challenge the Consolidation Authorities' orders. The High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, upheld the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the suit was barred under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because the petitioners had previously filed an identical suit that was dismissed in default under Order 9, Rule 8, thereby precluding the filing of a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order 9, Rule 9. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plaint failed to provide specific particulars of alleged fraud, rendering the reliance on case law regarding fraud inapplicable. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a previous suit under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 preclude the filing of a subsequent suit on the same cause of action?
- Is a suit challenging the orders of Consolidation Authorities maintainable in a Civil Court without specific particulars of fraud being pleaded in the plaint?
- Can a Civil Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the suit is barred by procedural law?
- Bashir Ahmad alias Mannu and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1431 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
- Basara and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 311 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-12Read full judgment →
- Barkat vs Muhammad Sadiq And Other1990 CLC 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a suit for declaration of title regarding an evacuee plot of land. The appellant claimed ownership based on an alleged agreement to sell, while the respondents asserted superior title through a Permanent Transfer Deed issued by the Settlement Department. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the appellant's suit, citing failure to prove payment of consideration or transfer of possession, and noting the suit was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to an earlier suit for permanent injunction where the relief of declaration or specific performance was omitted. The High Court affirmed these findings, emphasizing that the appellant failed to produce evidence of payment. Furthermore, the Court held that the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata because a previous suit for possession involving the same property and parties had been decreed against the appellant, and that judgment had attained finality. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on both merits and procedural grounds.
Questions settled- Does a failure to claim relief for declaration or specific performance in an earlier suit for permanent injunction bar a subsequent suit for declaration regarding the same property under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a final judgment in a previous suit for possession between the same parties regarding the same property operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for declaration of title?
- Can a plaintiff claim ownership of property based on an agreement to sell without proving the payment of the full consideration amount?
- Bahawal Bakhsh and 4 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Bahadur Ali vs Syed Ghulam Sabir Gilani1990 MLD 588 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal challenged a trial court judgment and decree in a summary suit for the recovery of Rs. 30,000 based on a promissory note. The appellant contended that the promissory note was actually a bond, that the suit was without consideration, and that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 18, Rules 8 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the recording of evidence, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The Court held that the promissory note was not a bond and that the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 remained unrebutted by the appellant. Regarding the procedural objection, the Court ruled that the provisions of Order 18, Rules 8 and 14 are directory rather than mandatory. Non-compliance with these rules constitutes a curable irregularity rather than an illegality, provided no prejudice is caused to the parties. As the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or inaccuracy in the record, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a trial court to comply with Order 18, Rules 8 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the recording of evidence vitiate the entire proceedings?
- Is the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 applicable to a promissory note until the contrary is proved?
- Does non-compliance with procedural rules that are directory in nature constitute an illegality or merely an irregularity?
- Bagh Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1893 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-07Read full judgment →
- Aziz alias Kala vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
- Awed Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Raja M. Zaheer-Ul-Hassan and 3 others1990 PLC 238 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-04Read full judgment →
- Attiq Ahmad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1572 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
- Ata Muhammad vs Faiz Muhammad and another1990 P Cr. L J 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Ashraf alias Achhoo vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1329 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
- Ashraf Ali Shah and 2 others vs The State and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 1813 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain alias Babu and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-14Read full judgment →
- Asad Ejaz Ahmad vs Rent Controller, Multan and 2 others1990 MLD 750 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
- Asad Abbas Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-01Read full judgment →
- Arshad vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
- Arif Saeed Paganwala vs The State1990 MLD 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-10Read full judgment →
- Arfuat Textile Factory vs The Registrar of Trade Unions and another1990 PLC 37 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Arfaat Textile Factory vs The Registrar of Trade Unions and AnotherK.L.R 1990, Labour & Service Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Anwar Hussain vs The State1990 MLD 181 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Anwar And Others vs Sher Bahadur And Other1990 CLC 274 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, which dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for possession of agricultural land by reversing the trial court's decree. The core legal question revolves around whether the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, Sher D.1, was a real brother or a consanguine brother of the deceased landowners, and the admissibility and evaluation of opinion evidence on relationship under Section 50 of the Evidence Act. The Lahore High Court held that the first appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence and that witnesses who are not family members must demonstrate special means of knowledge, whereas the testimony of a family member with direct knowledge—such as the widow of a predecessor—carries significant weight, particularly when left unchallenged in cross-examination. The court established that while family members or close friends are presumed to have special means of knowledge regarding relationship, outsiders or non-family witnesses must positively establish the foundational basis of their opinion through conduct, and the withholding of material primary witnesses draws an adverse inference.
Questions settled- Whether the opinion of a non-family witness regarding family relationship is admissible without establishing special means of knowledge under Section 50 of the Evidence Act?
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with findings of fact in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- What is the evidentiary value of a material witness's testimony remaining un-cross-examined during trial?
- Does the withholding of a crucial witness by a party raise an adverse presumption against their case?
- Ansar and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 915 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-23Read full judgment →
- Anjuman Khadamul Massajid, Kot Rukan Din Khan, Kasur Through General Secretary vs Border Area Committee And 4 Other1990 CLC 1281 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
- Anjuman Jamia Tauheedia (Regd.), Sheikhupura through President and another vs Deputy Commissioner_District Magistrate, Sheikhupura and another1990 MLD 1468 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a registered society and its president challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Sheikhupura, which dissolved the society's management body, ordered fresh elections, and appointed an Assistant Commissioner as administrator to manage a mosque. The petitioners contended that the Deputy Commissioner had no statutory authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to dissolve a registered society or appoint an administrator. The respondents and intervenors argued that the Deputy Commissioner possessed executive powers under various government circulars to regulate religious places and manage local affairs. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was passed in complete ignorance of the law and was void and without jurisdiction. The Court observed that the power of dissolution under the Act rests with the Provincial Government and not the Deputy Commissioner. It further ruled that the executive circulars relied upon only concerned building permissions and did not authorize the dissolution of registered societies. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was declared illegal.
Questions settled- Does a Deputy Commissioner or District Magistrate have the statutory authority under the Societies Registration Act 1860 to dissolve a registered society or appoint an administrator?
- Can executive circulars regulating the construction of religious places empower a local administrator to dissolve a registered society managing a mosque?
- Whether the power of dissolution of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 vests in the Deputy Commissioner or the Provincial Government?
- Anjuman Arhtian (Regd.) Khanpur through its President vs Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab Agricultural Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 20 others1990 PLD Lahore 32 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a representative body of commission agents, challenged the constitution of the Market Committee, Khanpur, alleging that the Zila Council failed to include their recommended nominees in the panel for appointment, in violation of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978. The petitioner further contended that certain appointed members lacked the requisite qualifications. The core legal question was whether the Zila Council was mandatorily required to recommend names provided by the petitioner and whether the constitutional petition was the appropriate forum for challenging the committee's composition. The Court held that under the 1979 Rules, the Zila Council’s duty to include specific recommended names is discretionary rather than mandatory, unlike previous regulations. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition was not maintainable because the Ordinance provides an alternative statutory remedy under Section 11, allowing the Government to remove improperly appointed members. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, declining to stay the election of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, affirming that where a special statute provides an adequate alternative remedy, constitutional jurisdiction should not be invoked.
Questions settled- Is the Zila Council mandatorily required to include names recommended by trade associations in the panel for Market Committee appointments under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978?
- Does the existence of a statutory remedy for the removal of improperly appointed members under Section 11 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978, bar a constitutional petition?
- Can election proceedings of a Market Committee be stayed on the ground that a member participated who was allegedly not qualified?
- Amjad Saeed and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
- Amir Bakhsh and anothers vs Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others1990 MLD 245 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a suit challenging a gift mutation and seeking inheritance shares, which was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate court decreed the suit, refusing to allow the defendants to argue issues decided against them on the ground that no cross-objections had been filed. The Lahore High Court examined whether a respondent in an appeal can support the trial court's decree on issues decided against them without filing cross-objections or a cross-appeal. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that a respondent is fully entitled to support a decree in their favour on grounds decided against them by the trial court without filing cross-objections, and that the appellate court must address points for determination. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision, set aside the appellate judgment, and remanded the case for rehearing and decision issue-wise.
Questions settled- Can a respondent in an appeal support a decree in their favour on grounds decided against them by the trial court without filing cross-objections?
- Does the failure of a first appellate court to decide and discuss all material issues amount to a violation of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether an appellate court judgment rendered without addressing all points for determination and issues framed constitutes a valid judgment in the eyes of law?
- Amir Alam vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 548(2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
- Ames Irshad and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1594 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
- Allah Jiwaya vs Judge Family Court, Ahmadpur Sharqia and another1990 MLD 239 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged a judgment and decree of a Family Court that dissolved a marriage on the grounds of Khula. The petitioner raised several legal objections, primarily contending that the trial proceedings were vitiated because evidence was recorded by the Reader rather than the Presiding Officer, and that the court had incorrectly described itself as a Civil Court instead of a Family Court. Furthermore, the petitioner sought a reappraisal of evidence regarding the parties' inability to live together. The High Court held that Rule 10-A of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965 permits the recording of evidence by others under the Presiding Officer's supervision. Regarding the misdescription of the court, the Court applied the maxim Falsa Demonstratio Non Nocat, ruling that since the judge possessed the requisite powers of a Family Court, the misdescription did not invalidate the decree. Finally, the Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction does not extend to the reappraisal of evidence absent proof of misreading, and dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the lower court's conclusions.
Questions settled- Does the recording of evidence by a Reader under the supervision of the Presiding Officer vitiate trial proceedings in a Family Court?
- Does the misdescription of a Family Court as a Civil Court in a decree invalidate the judgment if the presiding judge holds both powers?
- Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction reappraise evidence to determine the correctness of a Family Court's factual findings?
- Allah Ditta Bhatti Etc vs Abdul Aziz and OtherK.L.R. 1990 Labour & Service Cases 228 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta Bhatti and others vs Abdul Aziz and others1990 PLC (C.S.) 755 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2080 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-14Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta And Others vs Allah Wasaya1990 CLC 1818 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta and another vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
- Allah Banda vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
- Allah Banda vs Mst. Khurshid Bibi And 2 Other1990 CLC 1683 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the District Magistrate dismissing a revision petition regarding the effectiveness of a divorce (Talaq). The petitioner, a Sunni Muslim, had executed a written divorce deed against his wife, respondent No. 1, which he later claimed was forged or obtained under duress. The Arbitration Council had declared the Talaq effective. The core legal question was whether a 'Talaq-e-Badie' (triple Talaq pronounced at once) dissolves a marriage immediately, and whether Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, which mandates a 90-day waiting period for the effectiveness of Talaq, is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam under Article 2-A of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioner had voluntarily divorced his wife and that, under Hanafi Fiqah, a triple Talaq dissolves the marriage immediately. Following the precedent in Mirza Qamar Raza v. Mst. Tahira Begum, the Court ruled that Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, is repugnant to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, as it attempts to suspend the immediate effect of a valid Islamic divorce. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Badie) pronounced in one sitting dissolve a marriage immediately under Hanafi Fiqah?
- Is Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, repugnant to the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah?
- Can the superior courts strike down statutory provisions that are found to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam under Article 2-A of the Constitution?
- Does the institution of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights automatically amount to the revocation of a previously pronounced Talaq?
- Allah Bakhsh vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 548(1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-06Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs Mst. Shamshad Begum and 2 others1990 MLD 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application to make an arbitration award the rule of the court. The core legal questions involve whether an arbitration agreement and award are valid when executed while civil suits regarding the same subject matter are pending without court intervention, and whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of the arbitration agreement can be interfered with in revision. The Lahore High Court held that any reference to arbitration without the intervention of the court where a suit regarding the same subject matter is pending violates sections 21, 23, and 47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, rendering the award a nullity for the purpose of making it a rule of the court, unless utilized as a compromise or adjustment with the consent of all parties under the proviso to section 47. Furthermore, concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the lack of a valid arbitration agreement warrant no interference in revisional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Can an arbitration award be made the rule of the court if the reference to arbitration was made without the intervention of the court while civil suits regarding the same subject matter were pending?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the execution of an arbitration agreement open to interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Under what circumstances can an arbitration award obtained during a pending suit be utilized as a compromise or adjustment of the suit?
- Allah Bakhsh vs Abdul Aziz1990 MLD 230 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the trial court in a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,000 filed on the basis of a promissory note, which was decreed after the appellant's application for leave to defend was dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the summons were properly served upon the defendant in accordance with the law, thereby justifying the computation of the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend. The Court held that service of summons was defective as the process-server failed to deliver or tender a copy of the summons as mandated by law. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the case back for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that strict compliance with the prescribed mode of service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory before penal consequences such as the dismissal of an application for leave to defend can be visited upon a defendant.
Questions settled- Whether service of summons is legally valid when the process-server fails to deliver or tender a copy of the summons to the defendant?
- Can an application for leave to defend be dismissed as time-barred if the defendant was not properly served with summons?
- What is the proper procedure for the service of summons under Order V Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Allah Bakhsh And 3 Others vs Mst. Bakht Bhari And Another1990 CLC 2027 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which declared the respondent, Mst. Bakht Bhari, the owner of land gifted to her by her father, Muhammad Zaman, via a written deed. The petitioners, claiming ownership through a subsequent mutation, alleged the gift was invalid and collusive. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the gift deed, whether it required compulsory registration, and whether the respondent was required to invoke Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge the petitioners' decree. The Court held that the gift was valid, as the three essential ingredients—declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession—were proven. It further held that a gift deed is not compulsorily registrable and that the respondent was not obligated to utilize Section 12(2) because her suit was already pending when the petitioners obtained their decree. The Court affirmed that under Islamic Law, a gift to a relative within prohibited degrees, once possession is delivered, is irrevocable. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Is a written gift deed compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act 1908?
- Can a donor revoke a gift after the delivery of possession to a donee who is within the prohibited degrees of relationship?
- Is a plaintiff required to invoke Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge a decree if their own declaratory suit regarding the same property is already pending?
- Do concurrent findings of fact by lower courts warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction absent a showing of material irregularity or misreading of evidence?
- Allah Bachaya vs The State1990 PLD Lahore 499 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-18Read full judgment →
- Ali Sher vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
- Ali Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Anwar and others1990 P Cr. L J 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to an F.I.R. The petitioners had successfully obtained a civil decree for property possession, which was formally executed by a court bailiff. Subsequently, the complainant, related to the judgment-debtor, filed an F.I.R. alleging illegal dispossession and theft. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings initiated maliciously to circumvent a civil court decree and harass the successful party should be allowed to continue. The Court held that the prosecution was clearly mala fide, intended to avenge defeat in civil litigation, and constituted an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intent to harass or circumvent civil court orders constitute an abuse of the process of the court, justifying the exercise of the High Court's constitutional and inherent powers to quash such proceedings, regardless of the availability of alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intent to circumvent a civil court decree?
- Does the availability of a remedy under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction to quash mala fide criminal proceedings?
- Is a criminal prosecution initiated to harass a party after they have successfully executed a civil decree considered an abuse of the process of the court?
- Ali Hassan and 2 others vs Sardar Khan and others1990 PLD Lahore 216 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-15Read full judgment →
- Ali alias Wali and 2 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
- Aleemuddin vs Muhammad Yaseen1990 PLD Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a first appeal under Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, challenging the dismissal of an ejectment petition by the Additional Rent Controller. The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on grounds of rent default, personal need, and subletting. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, finding no default, no bona fide personal need, and no subletting. The High Court held that the Rent Controller’s order was legally deficient, being laconic and failing to properly discuss the evidence. Upon re-evaluating the evidence, the Court found the respondent had failed to prove payment of rent after the landlord denied receipt, shifting the burden of proof to the tenant. Furthermore, the Court held that the landlord’s personal need for the premises was established and unrebutted. The Court set aside the Rent Controller's order and accepted the ejectment petition. The key principle laid down is that once a landlord denies receipt of rent on oath, the burden of proof shifts to the tenant to affirmatively prove payment through cogent evidence.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the tenant to prove payment of rent once the landlord denies receipt on oath?
- Is a Rent Controller under an obligation to provide a reasoned order discussing the evidence led by the parties?
- Can a tenant adjust unauthorized renovation costs against arrears of rent without prior permission from the landlord or Rent Controller?
- Does the personal need of a landlord for business purposes constitute a valid ground for eviction under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Al-Badar Corporation and another vs Federation of Pakistan and others1990 PTD 565 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
- Al Badar Corporation. And Mian Akhtar And Company vs Federation Of PakistanPTCL 1990 CL. 558 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Hussain and others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1963 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-21Read full judgment →