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.

• Quality Steel Corporation vs Ch. Muhammad Tufail1984 CLC 2255 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16
  ejectment executionrent restrictionobjection petitionbar of separate suitcivil revisionexecution of decreeplaint rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil revision petitions involving the same parties and property, arising from execution proceedings of an ejectment order passed under the rent laws. The core legal questions concerned the competency of a civil revision against orders passed under the rent restriction law and whether an independent civil suit is barred under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure when an ejectment order is being executed by a Rent Controller. The Lahore High Court held that a civil revision is not competent against orders of the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority in view of the finality attached under the relevant rent legislation. Furthermore, following amendments empowering the Rent Controller to execute ejectment orders as decrees of a civil court, provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure apply, rendering an independent civil suit regarding questions of title, right, interest, or possession barred by Order XXI Rule 103. Consequently, both revision petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil revision is legally competent against an order passed by a Rent Controller or Appellate Authority under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Does an amendment empowering the Rent Controller to execute ejectment orders as civil decrees make the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to such executions?
  • Is an independent civil suit barred by Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of matters relating to title, right, interest, or possession arising during execution proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Can a plaint be lawfully rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the instituted suit is barred by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Sharif Hussain vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Others1984 CLC 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
• Qasim and Others vs Ghulam Muhammad and Others1984 CLC 2218 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• Qamar Din Ahmad & Co. vs Pakistan and Others1984 CLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-27Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs S.H.O., P.S. Kala,District D.G. Khan1984 MLD 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Ahmad vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another-BWP1984 PLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-27Read full judgment →
• Q a Maruddin Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3105 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province and Another vs Raja Hukam Dad Khan and Others1984 CLC 459 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Ghulam Rasool Zahid/BWP (/LHR)1984 PLC (C.S.) 448 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary,Irrigation and Power vs Ch.1984 MLD 232 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab1984 PLD Lahore 515 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-12
  pecuniary jurisdictionarbitration referencerevisional jurisdictionsubject-matter valueArbitration Act 1940appellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order passed by the District Judge in a revision petition arising from an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The core legal question concerned the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction for revisional proceedings under the Arbitration Act, specifically whether the District Judge was competent to hear a revision where the subject-matter of the arbitration reference exceeded Rs. 50,000. The High Court held that under Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act 1940, the term 'Court' is defined by the civil court having jurisdiction to decide the subject-matter of the reference as if it were a suit. Consequently, the value of the subject-matter of the reference determines the forum for both original applications and subsequent revisional proceedings. Since the claim value exceeded the pecuniary limit of the District Court's appellate jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The Court established that the pecuniary value of the arbitration reference governs the forum for all related judicial proceedings, rendering the District Judge's order without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • How is the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court determined for applications filed under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does the value of the subject-matter of an arbitration reference determine the forum for hearing a revision petition?
  • Is a District Judge competent to hear a revision petition where the value of the subject-matter of the arbitration reference exceeds Rs. 50,000?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and Others vs Mufti Muhammad Ishaq and Others1984 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationstatutory interpretationprotestpotentiality of landreference to courtwaiver
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns ten Regular First Appeals challenging a District Judge's award regarding land acquisition compensation. The core legal question was whether landowners, who accepted compensation payments after filing objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 but without explicitly endorsing 'under protest,' were barred from continuing their reference proceedings by the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act. Additionally, the court addressed whether the acquired land should be valued as agricultural or building (Sakni) land. The Court held that the appeals were meritless. It ruled that the statutory bar in Section 31(2) applies only to pre-reference acceptance of compensation; it does not invalidate references already validly instituted and pending before the court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that market value must reflect the land's potentiality, not merely its current agricultural use. The key principle laid down is that the competence of a reference under Section 18 is determined at the time of its institution, and subsequent receipt of compensation without formal protest does not extinguish the right to seek judicial determination of fair compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the receipt of compensation without formal protest after the filing of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 invalidate the reference?
  • Is the market value of acquired land to be determined solely by its current use or by its potentiality for future development?
  • Does the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply to compensation received during the pendency of court proceedings?
  • Can a court determine the jurisdiction of a reference based on events occurring after the reference was validly instituted?
  Read full judgment →
• Pirzada Amir Hassan and Others vs Mrs. Shamim Shah Nawaz and Others1984 CLC 3080 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20
  specific performanceclosing evidenceOrder XVII Rule 3Order XVII Rule 1(3)Order II Rule 2res judicatafrustration of contractcompulsory acquisitionmandatory injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal was filed by the defendants against a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, granting specific performance of an agreement to sell land to respondent No. 1. The appellants contended that the trial court erred in closing their evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code due to a pending suit for mandatory injunction, and that the contract was frustrated because the land was subsequently acquired by the Lahore Development Authority. The High Court held that although Order XVII Rule 3 was inapplicable because the adjournment was not granted at the appellants' request, the evidence closure was fully justified under Order XVII Rule 1(3) as introduced in Punjab, since the appellants failed to show sufficient cause or produce evidence after repeated opportunities. The Court also held that Order II Rule 2 did not bar the suit as the causes of action for mandatory injunction and specific performance were distinct and arose at different times. Finally, statutory acquisition of the property did not frustrate the contract to prevent a decree of specific performance. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court close a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the adjournment for producing evidence was not granted at that party's specific instance?
  • Does Order XVII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower the trial court to close a party's evidence and proceed with the suit when no sufficient cause for adjournment is shown?
  • Does Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit for specific performance when a prior suit for mandatory injunction based on a distinct cause of action is pending?
  • Does the dismissal of a suit for mandatory injunction as infructuous operate as res judicata against a simultaneously decided suit for specific performance?
  • Does the acquisition of land by a statutory authority frustrate an agreement to sell so as to preclude a decree for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Pira alias Phira and others vs The State1984 MLD 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
• Petitioners: Darsons Rubber Works Industries Ltd, Wazirabad AndPTCL 1984 (CL) 285 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Petitioner : M/s. Muhammad Boota And Two Other vs M/s. MuhammadPTCL 1984 (CL) 171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Pervez Akhtar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2483 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
• Pehlwan vs Ahmad Khan and 6 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1855 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
• Peera and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 565 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Western Railways Union vs National Industrial Relations1984 PLC 313 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Faz Alur Rehman and Others1984 PLC 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Abdul Majid Khokhar1984 PLC 281 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways and Others vs Muhammad Ashfaq and Others, .1984 PLC 1661 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Day Memorial Committee and Another vs Mian Abdul Khaliq &1984 CLC 3332 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-20
  restoration of appealdismissal for non-prosecutionsufficient causenegligence of counselabsence of appellantappellate court discretioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous petition sought the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution after the appellants and their counsel failed to appear at the appointed time on the fixed date of hearing. The core legal questions centered on whether an appeal can be decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, and whether sufficient cause was shown by the appellants and their counsel for their non-appearance to warrant the re-admission of the appeal under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that an appellate court has the discretion to dismiss an appeal in default or adjourn it when the appellant is absent, and cannot decide the appeal on merits in such absence. The Court further held that neither the appellants nor their counsel provided a sufficient and satisfactory explanation for their absence, and filing a restoration petition on the same day does not automatically entitle a party to restoration without establishing sufficient cause. The key principles laid down include that government bodies are not entitled to preferential treatment regarding procedural diligence, negligence of counsel without special circumstances does not excuse default, and the absence of both the party and counsel without cogent explanation precludes the restoration of a dismissed appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can decide an appeal on its merits in the absence of the appellant?
  • Does the filing of a restoration petition on the same day as the dismissal in default constitute a sufficient ground in itself for the restoration of the appeal?
  • Whether a government or public committee is entitled to preferential treatment in civil procedural matters regarding delays and default in appearance?
  • What constitutes sufficient cause for the non-appearance of a counsel engaged in inquiries before another forum at the time fixed for hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Pak American Fertilizers Ltd., Mianwali vs Am Ir Abdullah Khan and Another1984 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28
  export taxtaxing statute interpretationcorporate personalityparent and subsidiary companymanufacturer vs exporterOrder XVII Rule 3 CPCLand Revenue Act bar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was filed by Pak American Fertilizers Ltd. against a trial court decree ordering it to pay Rs. 3,25,270 with interest as arrears of export tax on fertilizers to a lessee of the Zila Council. The appellant argued that it was merely a manufacturer, while an independent corporate entity, National Fertilizer Marketing Ltd., handled marketing and export. The core legal questions were whether the appellant as a manufacturer could be held liable for tax imposed specifically on the exporter, and whether separate state-owned corporate entities could be treated as one for tax liability. The High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the decree. The Court held that taxing statutes must be strictly construed, and 'production' cannot be equated with 'export'. Furthermore, a parent company and its subsidiary (or distinct government-owned corporations) remain separate juristic entities, and the acts or tax liabilities of one cannot automatically be attributed to the other.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tax levied on the export of goods can be recovered from a manufacturer that does not export the goods?
  • Whether two separate government-owned corporate bodies can be treated as a single juristic entity to shift tax liability from one to the other?
  • Does Section 172(2)(xv) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 bar a civil suit for the recovery of taxes imposed by a local body?
  • Must a taxing statute or notification be strictly construed against the taxing authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Pahora vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) and Others1984 CLC 2230 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
• Packages Limited vs Muhammad Yousaf Chughtai and others1984 MLD 1488 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
• Obyar and Another vs The Federation of Pakistan, Rawalpindi and Another1984 PLD Lahore 162 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-30
  clemency powersArticle 45justiciabilityIslamic injunctionsmercy petitioncommutation of sentencemartial lawjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the President of Pakistan's rejection of a mercy petition seeking the commutation of death sentences awarded by a Special Military Court. The petitioners argued that the President, under Article 45 of the Constitution, was obligated to exercise clemency powers in accordance with the principles of Qur'an and Sunnah, specifically regarding the compoundability of offences following a compromise with the heirs of the deceased. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that the power of the President to grant pardon, reprieve, or commute sentences under Article 45 is unfettered and not justiciable. The Court emphasized that it cannot enforce Islamic injunctions as law until they are formally enacted by the legislature. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Federal Shariat Court's declaration regarding the repugnancy of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code was sub judice and suspended, thus not constituting the law of the land. Finally, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the President's official acts or to suspend sentences passed by Military Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Is the exercise of power by the President under Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 justiciable?
  • Can the High Court direct the President to exercise clemency powers based on principles of Qur'an and Sunnah before such principles are enacted as law?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to suspend the execution of a sentence passed by a Special Military Court?
  • Is the definition of 'law' in the Constitution confined to statute law?
  Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Parveen vs Muhammad Hanif1984 MLD 1136 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Parveen vs Muhammad Akram1984 MLD 498 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Noora and Others vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1984 CLC 267 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
• Noora alias Noor vs Tufail1984 MLD 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Samand vs Ismail and Others1984 CLC 2185 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1343 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Punjab Government1984 CLC 478 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Abdullah and 9 Others1984 CLC 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Ghulam Muhammad1984 CLC 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-09Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Deputy Commissioner/Controlling Authority,1984 PLD Lahore 15 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and others vs Fazla and others1984 MLD 93 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad alias Noora vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2028 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad alias Noor a vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Muham Mad vs District Judge, Bahawalpur and 2 of Hers1984 CLC 1446 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain and others vs Mst. Fatima and others1984 MLD 438 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• Noor Din and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2616 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Din and another vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 266 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Din And An Other vs The State.PTCL 1984 (CL) 266 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad and 3 others vs Kabir and 8 others1984 MLD 460 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din and 3 others vs Khan Muhammad1984 MLD 404 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 425 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs Ahmed Hassan1984 CLC 3140 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and 2 Others vs District Judge, Muzaffargarh and Others1984 CLC 2130 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21
  right to counselfair trialadjournmentstate-appointed counselcriminal proceduretransfer of casespeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, facing a murder trial, challenged the proceedings of the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who refused to grant adjournments when the petitioner's counsel fell ill and subsequently when his replacement counsel was busy elsewhere. The trial court proceeded to record all remaining prosecution evidence in a single day, appointing a counsel at State expense who had insufficient time to prepare. The core legal question was whether the trial court's haste in proceeding without affording the accused a reasonable opportunity to be defended by counsel of his choice violated statutory rights and judicial norms. The Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste, violating the accused's statutory right to be defended by counsel under Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the High Court Rules and Orders. The Court emphasized that speedy disposal cannot come at the cost of justice. Consequently, the proceedings were quashed, a fresh trial was ordered, and the case was transferred to an Additional Sessions Judge to ensure a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the appointment of a counsel at State expense on the day of trial, without sufficient time for preparation, violate the accused's right to a fair trial?
  • Is a trial court justified in refusing an adjournment when the accused's chosen counsel is unavailable due to illness or prior professional engagements?
  • What is the minimum time required for a State-appointed counsel to prepare a defense in a capital case?
  • Can a trial court's proceedings be quashed if the court acts with undue haste in recording evidence to the detriment of the accused's defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahm Ad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
• Niamat Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-16Read full judgment →
• Nazra and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• Nazir vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 509 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain Shah and 5 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2025 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
• Nazir and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3223 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir and 2 others vs The State1984 MLD 1582 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 Others1984 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Fiaz1984 PLD Lahore 149 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Mahmood Ahmad and others1984 CLC 2658 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
• Nazeer alias Jeera vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2455 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-09Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and Others vs Sami Khan and Others1984 CLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs Ghulam Din and Others1984 CLC 1523 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3089 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• National Police Foundation Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Board of Revenue, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 Others1984 PLD Lahore 191 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29
  land acquisitionwithdrawal from acquisitionBoard of Revenueex officio Secretarymala fidepleading requirementsnecessary partyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981 challenged a memorandum issued by the Member (Revenue and Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, withdrawing land acquisition proceedings initiated for the petitioner-Society under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioner argued that only the Provincial Government, not the Board of Revenue, possessed the authority to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act, and further alleged that the withdrawal order was passed mala fide under the influence of an interested official. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the Senior Member of the Board of Revenue was ex officio Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Revenue Department, the withdrawal order was validly passed on behalf of the Government under Section 48. The Court also rejected the allegations of mala fide due to a failure to name or implead the specific officer alleged to have exercised undue influence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of withdrawal from land acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is valid if passed by an ex officio Secretary to the Government acting in his capacity as Member, Board of Revenue?
  • Can a plea of mala fide against an official decision succeed without impleading the specific person alleged to have exerted undue influence?
  • Whether vague and indefinite allegations of mala fide are sufficient to warrant a judicial inquiry into Government files?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank Of Pakistan vs Taj MuhammadPTCL 1984 (CL) 330 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Assistant Registrar, Cooperative1984 CLC 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad vs Secretary, Ministry of Information_Chairman,Pakistan Broadcasting.Corporation and 2 Others1984 PLC (C. S.) 372 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazar Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3151 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
• Nasir A. Sheikh vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Lahore.PTCL 1984 (CL) 159 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
• Nasim Shah vs Muhammad Ali Batalvi1984 CLC 3157 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-07
  second appealejectmentpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantspecial attorneyburden of proofpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arises from an ejectment order concurrently passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court against the tenant on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement of the landlord. The core legal question is whether the personal requirement of the landlord can be validly proved through a special attorney when the landlord himself does not appear as a witness. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the bona fide personal requirement of the landlord are unassailable in second appeal, and that the testimony of the special attorney sufficiently established the requirement. The court also reiterated that parties cannot set up a case not pleaded in their written statement, in accordance with the principle of secundum allegata probatta.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the personal requirement of a landlord can be proved through a special attorney when the landlord fails to appear as a witness?
  • Is the High Court competent in second appeal to reverse concurrent findings of fact by re-assessing evidence?
  • Can a party be permitted to lead evidence on a fact not alleged in their written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasim Iqbal and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2060 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• Nasib Khan vs Muhammad Shaffi, S. H. 0.1984 P Cr. L J 933 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-08Read full judgment →
• Naseer Hussain vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 67 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad and 5 others vs The ST Ate1984 MLD 1461 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-24Read full judgment →
• Nasarullah vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2983 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
• Nasar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2541 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• Naimat Siddique vs Farooq Umar and Others1984 CLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-18
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentunregistered leasewater chargesstatutory tenancyconstitutional petitionurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an appellate order directing the petitioner's eviction from commercial premises. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent and water charges. The petitioner argued that the lease agreement, being unregistered, could not be relied upon to prove rent payment terms, and that the ejectment application was premature. The Court held that while the unregistered lease agreement expired, the tenancy continued under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Consequently, the rights and liabilities of the parties were governed by the Ordinance rather than the expired agreement. The Court determined that the tenant failed to pay rent within the statutory sixty-day period prescribed by the Ordinance and neglected to pay water charges for over thirty months. The Court affirmed that failure to pay water charges, which are deemed rent under the Ordinance, constitutes a valid ground for eviction. The petition was dismissed, upholding the finding of default. The judgment clarifies that after a lease expires, statutory provisions override expired contractual terms regarding rent payment timelines.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unregistered lease agreement for one year or more create enforceable rights or interests beyond the statutory period?
  • Are the rights and liabilities of a tenant governed by an expired lease agreement or by the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a tenant be evicted for default if water charges, which are deemed rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, remain unpaid for a significant period?
  • Does the failure to pay rent within the sixty-day statutory period prescribed by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 constitute a valid ground for eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Naik Muhammad vs Khan Muhammad and another1984 MLD 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• Naeem and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2548 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
• Nadir vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Nadhim K. Ahmad vs Quaidiazam University, Islamabad and 2 Others1984 CLC 57 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Tahir Bhatti vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1984 PLD Lahore 17 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Manzar Malik vs The Station House Officer, Police Station, a Division Sahiwal and 5 Others1984 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• Na Wa B vs The Punjab Local Councils Election Authority, Lahore and 3 Others1984 CLC 1564 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Muhammad Boota and two others vs National Construction CompanyPTCL 1984 (CL) 171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• M/s. Aftab Medical Store D. G. Khan vs Commissioner, Income-Tax, Lahore.PTCL 1984 (CL) 326 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muttal and 15 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 209 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mustaq Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2919 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muslim Insurance Ltd. vs DR. Muhammad Sharif Muttaqi1984 CLC 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and Another vs Muhammad Nawaz and 21984 PLC 275 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1984 MLD 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →