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.

• Mst. Karim Khatoon vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1984 CLC 430 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna Tan vs Ch. Abdul Hamid, Additional District Judge and 21984 CLC 345 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10
  custody of minorwelfare of minorHizanatremarriage of motherappellate jurisdictionGuardian and Wards Actconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge, Jhang, which granted the custody of a minor girl to her father. The core legal questions were whether the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the lower courts correctly determined the welfare of the minor, particularly regarding the mother's remarriage. The High Court held that the appellate court possessed the requisite jurisdiction under the Guardian and Wards (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, as the order appealed against was passed after the Ordinance's commencement. Regarding custody, the Court set aside the lower courts' findings, ruling that they misread the evidence by placing undue emphasis on the mother's remarriage as a disqualification. The Court emphasized that the paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the minor. Given the father's circumstances as a domestic servant without female relatives and the mother's ability to provide care and education, the Court concluded that the minor's welfare is best served by remaining in the mother's custody.

  Questions settled

  • Does the remarriage of a mother to a person not related to the minor automatically disqualify her from the custody of the minor?
  • Does the Guardian and Wards (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 confer appellate jurisdiction on the District Court for orders passed by the Guardian Judge after its commencement?
  • Is the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in determining custody disputes under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janat Bibi vs Hafiz Maula Bakhsh and Others;1984 CLC 368 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hidayat Bibi vs Noor Muhamma D1984 P Cr. L J 3088 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hashmat Bibi vs Mst. Amina Bibi and Others1984 CLC 1623 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gullan vs Allah DITTARespon dent1984 P Cr. L J 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-28
  habeas corpuscustody of minorillegal detentionrestoration of custodyFamily Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed an application alleging that the respondent had forcibly taken her minor daughter, Bilquis, from her custody. Upon the production of the minor in court, she expressed a clear desire to live with her mother and testified that she had been forcibly removed by the respondent with police assistance. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore custody when a minor has been removed through illegal means, despite the existence of Family Courts for custody disputes. The Court held that when custody is obtained in an illegal and improper manner without recourse to due process, the High Court is competent to intervene under its habeas corpus jurisdiction to restore the minor to the petitioner. The principle laid down is that while the ultimate determination of permanent custody rights remains the domain of the Family Court, the High Court may exercise its jurisdiction to rectify illegal detention and restore the status quo ante pending formal legal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore a minor to a parent when the minor was forcibly removed?
  • Does the existence of Family Courts preclude the High Court from intervening in cases of illegal detention of a minor?
  • Is the restoration of a minor to a parent by the High Court under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considered a final adjudication of permanent custody rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Mst. Sat Bhara1 and Others1984 CLC 869 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farida Khanum vs Ehsan Elahi and 2 others1984 MLD 116 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faiz Ilahi and Anoher vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1857 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida Perveen vs Muhammad Ibrahim and Another1984 P Cr. L J 2977 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Daulan and Another vs Noora and 3 Others1984 CLC 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bivi vs Ghulam Rasool and 2 others1984 MLD 458 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bhag N vs Muhammad Younus1984 CLC 3151 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran vs Sultan1984 CLC 2306 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Barkat Bibi vs West Pakistan Province and Others1984 CLC 2314 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-14
  land acquisitionillegal dispossessionownership prooflimitationmesne profitsregular first appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenges the dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant's suit for possession, mesne profits, and compensation regarding land taken into possession by the Canal Department in 1952 following a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, without any subsequent notification under section 6. The core legal questions involve whether the appellant proved her ownership and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the appellant's ownership was sufficiently established through sale-deeds, admissions by the respondents' own witness, and inter partes judgments, and that the suit was within limitation as continuing negotiations extended the cause of action. The court set aside the trial court's judgment, decreed the suit for possession, awarded mesne profits and compensation for digging, and established that public authorities cannot unlawfully retain citizen property and defeat claims through technical pleas of limitation and unproved ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff's ownership of land is established when the acquiring department admits possession and negotiates compensation without claiming independent title?
  • Does the limitation period for a suit for possession and mesne profits start from the date of initial dispossession or from the date when settlement negotiations finally fail?
  • Whether civil courts retain jurisdiction in land disputes where acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated but never completed with a section 6 notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bark at Jan vs Zaroo Khan1984 CLC 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aziz Begum vs Abdul Majeed1984 CLC 3503 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azeeman vs Allah Ditta1984 CLC 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad an War and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2067 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
• MRS. Bushra Aitzaz Ahsan, Lecturer, Lahore College for Women, Lahore— vs The Registrar, University of the Punjab, Lahore and Another—1984 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
• Miss Shahida Parveen vs The Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore and another1984 MLD 444 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
• Miss Adeeba Zakiyah vs Deputy Director of Personna L Service, Naval1984 CLC 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Misbah Munir vs Election Authority, Punjab, Lahore and 12 Others1984 CLC 543 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad an War vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1399 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mirza Farzand Beg . vs Muhammad Amin Khan and Others1984 CLC 934 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mirza Abdul Salam vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 Others1984 CLC 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Miro Khan and 3 Others vs Province of Punjab and Others1984 CLC 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
• Miran Bakhsh vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1620 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mir Hassan Rind and 31 others vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and 19 others1984 MLD 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad Shah vs Pakistan and 2 Others1984 CLC 897 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mian Ziauddin vs Punjab Local Government Election Tribunal, Lahore1984 CLC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16
  election petitionconstitutional jurisdictionmaterially affecteddirectory provisionsdisqualificationcorrupt practiceselection irregularitiesfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent to the Lahore Municipal Corporation, alleging the respondent was disqualified due to his association with a defunct political party and that the election process was flawed due to the failure to record National Identity Card numbers on ballot counterfoils as per administrative instructions. The core legal questions were whether the non-compliance with administrative instructions regarding identity card recording rendered the election void under the Election Petition Rules, 1979, and whether the Election Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the respondent's disqualification and alleged corrupt practices were subject to interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the election could not be declared void absent proof that the result was materially affected by the alleged irregularities. It further held that administrative instructions are directory, not mandatory, and that mere irregularities do not invalidate an election. The Court affirmed that findings of fact by the Election Tribunal, based on evidence, cannot be re-appraised in constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing that election results should not be overturned for minor irregularities absent proof of material impact.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to record National Identity Card numbers on ballot counterfoils, as required by administrative instructions, automatically render an election void?
  • Can a High Court re-appraise findings of fact made by an Election Tribunal while exercising constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is an election liable to be declared void under the Election Petition Rules, 1979, without proof that the result was materially affected by irregularities?
  • Can newspaper reports and uncorroborated statements be relied upon as legal evidence to prove a candidate's disqualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Waheed-Ud-Din vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan1984 MLD 481 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mian Sardar alias Mian Safdar and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
• Mian Khuda Bux and Others vs Tahir Pervaiz, Civil Judge, 1sT Class, Vehrri and Others1984 CLC 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mia N Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1846 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mirza Hassan Akhtar Baig vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3013 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Spencer & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Messrs National Agencies1984 CLC 3432 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Service Industries, Lahore and Another vs Munawar Sultana1984 CLC 3011 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Moghal Films Corporation vs Central Board of Film Censors, Islamabad through Itschairman and 2 Others1984 CLC 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mansoor Textile Mills Ltd. and Others vs Assistant1984 P Cr. L J 1021 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Karim Industries vs Messrs Nahan Foundry1984 CLC 648 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Esskay Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan1984 PTD 142 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3209 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Baba Farid Sugar Mills Ltd., Okara vs Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 OTHERs1984 CLC 1943 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ally Brothers & Co. vs Dr. Muhammad Daood Khan1984 MLD 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
• Mehrban Khan vs Mst. Fayyaz Begum and Others1984 PLD Lahore 202 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-03
  ex parte decreelimitationultra viressubordinate legislationfamily suitmaintenancereasonable time
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a suit for maintenance where an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner, who was residing abroad. The petitioner's subsequent application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the Family Court as time-barred under Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, which prescribes a 30-day limitation period. This dismissal was upheld in revision. The core legal question before the High Court was whether Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965, which restricts the limitation period to 30 days, is ultra vires of Section 9(6) of the parent Act, the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which allows such applications to be filed within a 'reasonable time'. The High Court held that in case of conflict between principal and subordinate legislation, the principal legislation prevails. Consequently, Rule 13 is ultra vires of Section 9(6) of the Act. The Court accepted the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the matter to the Family Court to determine whether the application was filed within a reasonable time under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules 1965 is ultra vires of Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Which provision prevails in the event of a conflict between principal legislation and subordinate rules regarding the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  • How should a Family Court determine the limitation period for an application to set aside an ex parte decree under Section 9(6) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehr Rehan Khan and Anothers vs Tehsildar, Shorkot and 3 Others1984 CLC 2946 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mehr Muhammad, S.I., S.H.O., P.S. Miani, District Sargodha and 5 others vs The State1984 MLD 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mehr Lal Kabir vs Tehsildar, Shorkot and 3 Others1984 CLC 2978 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mehfooz Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3004 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Khan vs Zulfiqar and Others1984 P Cr. L J 1666 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Khan and others vs The ST Ate1984 MLD 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mazh Ar and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2666 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-21Read full judgment →
• Maulana Shah Ahmad Noorani vs Government of the Punjab1984 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-16
  externment orderdetention orderpublic ordervagueness of groundsstatutory representationconstitutional jurisdictionvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three writ petitions challenging separate externment and detention orders passed against the petitioners under Section 5(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960. The impugned orders directed one petitioner to remove himself from the Province of the Punjab and restricted the movements of the other two within the Lahore Municipal Corporation limits for three months. The petitioners contended that they only addressed religious conferences and challenged the orders primarily on the ground of vagueness. The High Court held that under Section 5 of the Ordinance, the grounds for such restrictive orders must be adequately particularized to enable the restrictee to make an effective statutory representation. In the absence of specific details regarding the speeches, their substance, or the exact language used, the grounds were held to be vague. The Court further ruled that subsequent clarifications in the Government's reply or press reports cannot cure this initial vagueness, and a departure from the mandatory provisions of Section 5 renders the orders void ab initio, allowing direct recourse to constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal test to determine whether the grounds of an externment or restriction order under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 are vague?
  • Can the vagueness of grounds in a preventive restriction order be cured subsequently by details provided in the Government's reply or comments during court proceedings?
  • Does the failure of a petitioner to file a statutory representation before the Government bar them from invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court if the impugned order is void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Mat I Urrehm a N vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2959 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
• Master Yusuf Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2230 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• Massan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
• Massa N vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
• Masood Hussain Zahidi vs Aziz Ahmad Khan1984 CLC 941 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmad Dogar vs The State1984 MLD 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmad alias Sooda vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2462 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mas. Nargis Khatoon vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and Others1984 PLC (C. S.) 238 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• Maqsoodul Hassan Shah vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2536 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Javed vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2923 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and Others vs Mumtaz Ali1984 CLC 948 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Manzur alias Mami and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2562 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The State1984 MLD 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-26Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State1984 MLD 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Settlement Commissioner and 2 Others1984 CLC 979 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Board of Arbitrators, Market1984 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Construction Co, Ltd. vs University of Engineering &1984 CLC 3347 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-13
  arbitration agreementreference to arbitrationcoercion and duresswaiver and relinquishmentarbitrator jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionearnest money refund
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Lahore, declining to order the filing of an arbitration agreement upon an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appellant-firm had been awarded a construction contract by the respondent University, which was later abandoned. The appellant sought the release of its earnest money and submitted an undertaking not to prefer any claim for work done, after which it invoked the arbitration clause for various claims including losses and unpaid work. The trial court dismissed the application holding that the undertaking barred any further dispute. The core legal question was whether the undertaking given by the contractor constituted a sufficient cause under section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to bar reference to arbitration, or whether the validity and effect of such an undertaking was a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Lahore High Court held that the existence of a dispute regarding the validity of the undertaking, allegedly obtained under coercion, and its legal effect on the claims are matters for the arbitrator to decide as a judge of both fact and law. The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the appeal, directing the agreement to be filed and the matter referred to arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an undertaking given by a contractor not to prefer claims acts as a bar to filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can an arbitrator decide the legal validity and effect of an undertaking or admission claimed to have been obtained under coercion or duress?
  • Does the question of whether an undertaking was procured under duress fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator as a judge of fact and law?
  • Whether the existence of an arbitration clause in a contract excludes the necessity of filing a separate civil suit to challenge an incidental undertaking?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2272 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2780 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Bhatti vs General Muhammad Ziaul Haq and Others1984 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mansha vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2480 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
• Maman Khan and others vs Ghulam Muhammad and others1984 MLD 500 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad vs Electric Equipment Manufacturing Company Ltd.1984 PLC 166 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ramzan vs Messrs General Iron Stores, Sargodha1984 CLC 2418 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-07
  ejectment petitionbona fide personal needgood faithsuppression of material factsconstitutional jurisdictionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment order sought by the petitioner against the respondent on the grounds of default and bona fide personal need. The Rent Controller accepted the petition, but the Appellate Authority set aside the order and dismissed the petition, concluding that the landlord failed to prove the bona fide and good faith of his requirement, having suppressed the material fact that he owned other commercial premises and was running flour chakkis. The Lahore High Court upheld the appellate decision, holding that while a landlord is not strictly required to specify the exact nature of the intended business in the ejectment petition, he must approach the court with clean hands and discharge the initial onus of proving the good faith of his requirement without suppressing material facts. Consequently, finding no jurisdictional error, the High Court dismissed the constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need must establish the good faith of his requirement as a matter of fact?
  • Does the suppression of material facts regarding other commercial properties owned by the landlord adversely affect the bona fides of an ejectment claim?
  • Is it mandatory for a landlord to specify in the ejectment petition the exact nature of the business intended to be conducted in the disputed premises?
  • When does the burden of proof shift to the tenant in an ejectment petition based on personal need?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nawaz vs Town Committee, Ghakhar and Others1984 CLC 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Javid Akbar vs Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and 41984 CLC 153 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3192 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Aziz Din and 3 others vs The ST Ate1984 MLD 1285 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Akbar Din vs Returning Officer and 5 Others1984 CLC 278 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Muhammad Yusuf Baig vs Mst. Saeeda Parveen1984 CLC 668 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05
  ex parte decreesubstituted serviceservice of summonslimitation perioddowry articlescivil revisiondate of knowledge
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte decree for the recovery of dowry articles or money. The core legal question was whether substituted service by publication was validly ordered without first exhausting ordinary service, and whether the limitation period for setting aside the ex parte decree ran from the date of the decree or the date of knowledge. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in ordering substituted service without sufficient grounds showing the defendant was avoiding service, rendering the publication ineffective. Consequently, under Article 164 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908, time ran from the date the petitioner acquired knowledge of the decree. The High Court laid down the principle that substituted service cannot be ordered lightly without satisfying statutory prerequisites, and in the absence of valid service, limitation begins from the date of actual knowledge of the ex parte decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can substituted service be ordered without first attempting ordinary service and without recording satisfaction that the defendant is avoiding service?
  • What is the starting point of limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree when the defendant was not duly served?
  • Does an unserved process and absence of proof of avoidance invalidate an order for substituted service by publication?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Khalilurrehman vs Overseas Pakistanis1984 CLC 2168 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-14
  writ jurisdictioncontractual employmentmaintainability of petitiontermination of serviceremedy for breach of contractOverseas Pakistanis Foundation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's services as a Training Officer (General) by the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation. The petitioner alleged the termination was illegal, mala fide, and arbitrary. The respondents contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner's employment was purely contractual, involving no statutory or constitutional safeguards, and that the writ jurisdiction could not be invoked to enforce private contractual rights. The Court examined the appointment terms, which permitted termination upon one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Court held that the respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1913, and the employment relationship was contractual in nature. Consequently, the Court determined that the writ jurisdiction under the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, could not be invoked to enforce contractual obligations or liabilities. The Court ruled that the petitioner's remedy, if any, lay in a civil suit for damages rather than a constitutional petition, and accordingly dismissed the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable for the enforcement of individual rights arising out of a purely contractual relationship?
  • Can a constitutional petition be used to enforce contractual obligations and liabilities against a company registered under the Companies Act 1913?
  • Does the termination of a contractual employee in accordance with the terms of their appointment letter provide grounds for a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmoona and Others vs Ilam Din and 6 Others1984 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-10
  constitutional petitionland reformsMartial Law Regulation No. 115locus standiaggrieved persontenants' rightscivil servant land ceilingresumption of landchoice of retention
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by petitioners claiming to be tenants of agricultural land owned by respondent No. 1, a civil servant, challenging orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, and the Member, Federal Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 (Land Reforms Regulation, 1972). The Land Commission authorities had accepted the respondent's revision, excluding certain land from his ceiling calculation under paragraph 10, setting aside the resumption of excess land, and dismissing the petitioners' review petition. The core issue before the High Court was whether the petitioners, as sitting tenants, had locus standi as aggrieved persons to challenge the Land Commission's orders before excess land was surrendered and resumed. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under paragraphs 8, 10, 11, 13, and 18 of MLR 115, a declarant's right to exercise choice of retention precedes resumption. A tenant's interest is purely contingent, remote, and uncertain until the land is finally resumed and vested in the Land Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether tenants have locus standi as aggrieved persons to challenge land ceiling determination orders under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 before land is finally surrendered and resumed?
  • Does a declarant's statutory right under Paragraph 11 of MLR 115 to choose which land to retain or surrender take precedence over prospective tenant rights under Paragraph 18?
  • At what point in time does a tenant acquire a vested right in excess agricultural land under Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115)?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-30
  Special Judgedisqualificationremoval from servicepremature retirementreinstatementjurisdictionanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 163 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected State revision regarding the disposal of confiscated property. The core legal question is whether a Special Judge who was previously prematurely retired for a cause under Martial Law Regulation No. 114 and subsequently reinstated suffers from a statutory disqualification under section 3(2)(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958, rendering him incompetent to try the case. The Lahore High Court accepted the appeal, holding that premature retirement for a cause amounts to 'removal' from service under section 3(2)(b), and the phrase 'at any time' means that a subsequent reinstatement does not wipe out the disqualification. Consequently, the trial conducted by the disqualified Special Judge was without jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence. The key principle laid down is that the disqualification attaching to a government servant who has at any time been removed or dismissed—including premature retirement for cause—survives subsequent reinstatement and permanently bars appointment as a Special Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether premature retirement for a cause amounts to removal or dismissal from service under section 3(2)(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
  • Does the subsequent reinstatement of a government servant who was previously removed or dismissed wash off the disqualification to be appointed as a Special Judge?
  • What is the legal effect of the words 'at any time' in section 3(2)(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 regarding past removal or dismissal?
  • Does a Special Judge who suffers from a statutory disqualification under section 3(2) lack jurisdiction to try a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 382 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ali and Others vs Mst. Sharifan Bibi and Others1984 PLD Lahore 287 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mahammad Khushnood vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 260 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ma Ktaba Ishaateadab and Another vs The Muslim Commercial Bank1984 CLC 374 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
• M.Sharif vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2315 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
• M.Shar If vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2315 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
• M. A. Niazi vs President Cantonment Board Multan1984 CLC 2652 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
• M Uhammad Yousaf & Co. vs Messrs United Vegetable Ghee Mills and Others1984 CLC 360 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
• Lyallpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societiesand Others1984 CLC 944 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
• LT.Col. Mahmood Khan Durrani vs Syed Noshab Ali1984 CLC 620 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →