Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Anwar Rahat vs Water and Power Development Authority1983 CLC 3076 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 281 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Advocate vs Ali Khan and Another1983 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Bashir Ahmad1983 P Cr. L J 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2388 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ameen and Another vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aman vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2092 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Naziran Bibi and 3 Others1983 CLC 298 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala and Another1983 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Aslam and Another1983 P Cr. L J 251 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and Another vs Maryam Bibi and Another1983 CLC 228 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Syed Nasir Ali Shah and OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khan vs The Authority under Payment of Wages1983 CLC 213 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1782 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 Others vs The State1983P Cr. L J 17 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The State1983 PCr. L J 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and 3 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1355 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and 2 Others s1983 CLC 387 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Jam Abdul Hamid and Another1983 CLC 107 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 3 Others vs The State1983 PCr. L J 2215 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afz Al vs Surkhroo Khan Malik and Others1983 CLC 232 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2242 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The S. D. M./a, C., Toba Tek Singh1983 P Cr. L J 266 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad (through His Legal Representatives) vs Mst. Zainab and Another1983 CLC 2853 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhamma Hussain vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Amin1983 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab vs Chief Engineer, Electricity, WAPDA and 2 Others s1983 CLC 3314 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ume Hanif vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and Another1983 CLC 2142 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umari and Another vs Faqir Muhammad and Another1983 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-23
  civil revisionadditional evidenceappellate jurisdictionprocedural irregularityOrder XLI Rule 27Code of Civil Procedureremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arose from a civil revision challenging an appellate court's judgment, which dismissed an appeal without adjudicating upon a pending application filed by the petitioners under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the production of additional evidence. The core legal question was whether the power to admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 is strictly suo motu, or whether a party has a right to file an application that the court is bound to decide. The High Court held that the application was competent and that the appellate court was under a mandatory legal obligation to decide it before disposing of the main appeal. Failure to address the application constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction and a material irregularity. The key principle laid down is that while an appellate court may exercise its power to admit additional evidence suo motu, the provision does not exclude the right of a party to move the court for such relief, and the court must judicially determine such applications.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power of an appellate court to admit additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 limited to suo motu exercise?
  • Does a party to an appeal have the legal right to file an application for the production of additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure of an appellate court to decide a pending application for additional evidence constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Alias Baddison vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 702 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughra Kalsoom vs Additional District Judge, Multan and 21983 CLC 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shedan and 2 Others vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akbar vs University of the Punjab and Others1983 CLC 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum and Others vs Muhammad Ilyas and Others1983 CLC 1570 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-01
  pre-emptionagricultural landowner in the estateJammu & Kashmir refugeevested right of appealmunicipal limitsevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal challenges the dismissal of a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether land transferred to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee is pre-emptible; whether agricultural land within municipal limits requires proof of custom for pre-emption; whether a vendee’s purchase of non-agricultural land confers the status of 'owner in the estate' to defeat a pre-emptor's superior right; and whether the appeal was competent given valuation changes. The Court held that land permanently transferred to Jammu & Kashmir refugees is pre-emptible. It further held that agricultural land assessed to land revenue remains pre-emptible under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, even within municipal limits, without requiring proof of custom. Regarding the vendee's status, the Court ruled that ownership of non-agricultural land does not constitute being an 'owner in the estate' for pre-emption purposes. The Court established that the right of appeal is a substantive vested right determined by the law at the time of the suit's institution. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the pre-emption suit was decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the sale of agricultural land by a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, who received a permanent transfer, subject to the right of pre-emption?
  • Does agricultural land located within municipal limits require proof of custom to be subject to pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
  • Can a person who purchases non-agricultural land be considered an 'owner in the estate' for the purpose of defeating a pre-emption claim?
  • Is the right of appeal governed by the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit or at the time of the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Alias Jia vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1269 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Hussain vs Qazi Aslam Hussain and 8 Others1983 PLD Lahore 687 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-28
  civil revisionconcurrent findings of factproof of Willburden of proofhandwriting expertpartition suitrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate court's dismissal of a suit for declaration of title based on an alleged Will. The petitioner claimed ownership of property through a Will executed by her deceased father-in-law, which she purportedly discovered twelve years after his death, during which time a partition suit had already proceeded against her husband. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found the Will to be fabricated, noting the suspicious silence of the alleged marginal witness, the lack of disclosure by the deceased, and inconsistencies in the handwriting expert's report and the physical condition of the document. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the Will's validity. The High Court held that the lower courts correctly evaluated the evidence and that there was no misreading or misappreciation of facts. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings, ruling that no grounds existed for interference under revisional jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition in limine, reinforcing the principle that civil revision does not permit the re-appraisal of evidence where concurrent findings of fact are sound.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere in civil revision where there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?
  • Does the failure of a defendant to produce evidence relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving the validity of a Will?
  • Is a document's physical condition and the circumstances of its discovery relevant to determining the genuineness of a Will?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum vs Muhammad Javed1983 CLC 3225 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rash1dan vs Bashir Ahmad and 2Other1983 PLD Lahore 549 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-07
  Khuladissolution of marriageextreme hatredfamily courtwrit petitionhateful union
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner wife challenging the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing her suit and appeal for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula'. The core legal question was whether a wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' must prove specific external facts and circumstances to establish hatred, or whether her firm and categorical statement that she would rather be shot dead than live with her husband is sufficient for the court to conclude that the parties cannot live within the limits prescribed by God. The High Court held that where a wife makes a firm and categorical statement of extreme aversion and willingness to forego her financial claims, it satisfies the conscience of the court that forcing her to live with the husband would result in a hateful union, obviating the need for elaborate proof of specific facts. The writ petition was accepted, the lower court orders were set aside as illegal, and the matter was remanded to the District Judge for disposal in light of these observations.

  Questions settled

  • Is a wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula' required to prove specific facts and circumstances beyond a firm and categorical statement of aversion to establish extreme hatred?
  • Does forcing a woman to cohabit with a husband she vehemently rejects amount to a hateful union contrary to Islamic law?
  • Are the judgments of lower courts dismissing a suit for Khula' open to constitutional interference when they fail to consider the entire circumstances and the wife's categorical statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rajjan vs S. H. O., Saddar Police Station, Vehari and OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 1884 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rajan and 2 Others vs Mst. Ghulam Sakina and Another1983 CLC 2261 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rahila vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1880 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1464 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazir Begum and 5 Others vs Additional District Judge and 21983 CLC 2045 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawabzadi Aisha Sultan and Another vs Attaullah Qureshi1983 CLC 15 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawab Begum vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 2150 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen and Others vs S. H. O., Pattoki and OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 1936 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1990 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Ghulam Nabi and 5 Others1983 P Cr. L J 967 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs Safia Begum and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. LJ 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mubarik Bibi vs Commissioner Lahore Division and Others1983 CLC 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahira Parveen vs The Assistant Commissioner and Another1983 CLC 2537 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lalan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1858 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom vs Rehmat Ali and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Bibi vs Dildar and 2 Others1983 CLC 3309 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kapuri vs Border Area Committee1983 CLC 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom vs Muhammad Aslam and 2 Others1983 CLC 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T vs Sharu and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Imtiaz Bibi and Another vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1983 CLC 2542 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussain BIBIs vs Ch. Anwarul Haq1983 CLC 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hafizan Mohsan Atta and 4 Others vs Custodian of Enemy1983 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-25
  enemy propertyprovisional transfer orderstatutory interpretationrehabilitation authoritiessettlement departmentcustodian of enemy propertytransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the disposal of enemy property formerly owned by the Punjab Co-operative Bank, which vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property. The core legal question was the interpretation of the term 'existing allottees' used in the Central Government’s 1972 policy directive regarding the disposal of such properties. The petitioners, holding Provisional Transfer Orders (PTOs) from the Settlement Department, contested the rights of respondents who claimed status as original allottees from the Rehabilitation Authorities. The Court held that the term 'existing allottees' in the government policy must be interpreted as 'transferees' (PTO holders) to give effect to the manifest intention of the government, as the policy explicitly referenced evaluations made by the Settlement Department. The Court emphasized that when the literal meaning of a statutory instrument leads to absurdity or contradicts its apparent purpose, courts are empowered to modify the language to reflect the true intent. Consequently, the Court declared the petitioners entitled to the transfer of the disputed property, setting aside the sale deeds executed in favor of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'existing allottees' in the Central Government's 1972 policy regarding enemy property refer to original allottees from the Rehabilitation Authorities or transferees from the Settlement Department?
  • Can a court modify the language of a statutory instrument to give effect to the manifest intention of the legislature?
  • Are Provisional Transfer Orders (PTOs) issued by the Settlement Department valid for the purpose of transferring enemy property under the 1972 policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs The State- Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs and 2 Others1983 CLC 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fooran vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1983 CLC 3134 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Bibi vs Mst. Maryam Bibi1983 CLC 805 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Begum vs Muhammad Din1983 CLC 993 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Begum vs Bah Adur Khan and Another1983 PLD Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-25
  constitutional petitionadditional evidencerevisional jurisdictioncase decidedinterlocutory orderpublic documentspre-emption suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed against an order of the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, which had set aside a trial court's order allowing the petitioner to produce additional evidence. The petitioner, in a pre-emption suit, sought to produce certified copies of public records (a mutation of inheritance and a Fard Badar) that were already on the record but not formally exhibited due to inadvertence. The trial court allowed the application, but the revisional court reversed it on technical grounds. The High Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It held that an interlocutory order permitting the admission of documents does not amount to a 'case decided' under Section 115 and is therefore not revisable. Furthermore, discretionary orders of subordinate courts should not be interfered with in revision unless they are fanciful or arbitrary. The High Court accepted the petition, declaring the revisional order to be without lawful authority and quashing it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order permitting the admission of additional documents amounts to a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a revisional court interfere with a discretionary order of a subordinate court regarding the production of additional evidence where no jurisdictional defect is shown?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable against a revisional order that illegally shuts out evidence by exceeding its jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Begum and Another vs Municipal Corporation, Lahore and 5 Others1983 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24
  WaqfdedicationMuhammadan Lawlimitationdeclaratory suitrecord of rightsownershippossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for declaration challenging a 1917-18 record-of-rights entry designating the appellants' property as 'Waqf'. The core legal questions were whether the property was validly dedicated as Waqf and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court held that the respondents failed to prove any dedication or intent by the original owner to create a Waqf. The court emphasized that under Muhammadan Law, while a Waqf can be established by immemorial user, such user must be preceded by an owner's clear intention to dedicate, which was absent here. Furthermore, the court held that admissions by third parties regarding the property's status were not conclusive and could be explained away. Regarding limitation, the court ruled that because the appellants remained in possession of the property, they were not compelled to sue upon every denial of title, rendering the suit within time. Consequently, the appellate court's findings were set aside, and the appellants' suit was decreed, affirming their ownership and possession of the disputed property.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Waqf be created solely by user without proof of the owner's intention to dedicate?
  • Is a suit for declaration regarding title barred by limitation if the plaintiff remains in possession of the property?
  • Are admissions made by a stranger to a suit conclusive regarding the status of property?
  • Does the diversion of income by a non-owner for religious purposes constitute a valid dedication of property as Waqf?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farrah Naz vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2195 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi vs Hussain Bakhsh Alias Hussain a1983 P Cr. L J 141 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bhag Bhari vs Muhammad Anwar and 4 Others1983 CLC 2551 · Lahore High Court · 1968-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asmat Bibi and Others vs Inayatullah1983 P Cr. LJ 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Rakhi vs Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mst Shehr Bano and Others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Lahore and Others1983 CLC 2005 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mst Azizan Bibi and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 1970 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst . Amatul Rashid Bhatti vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary Housing and Physical Planning Department and Another1983 CLC 2322 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• MRS. Betty Alice Girza vs The State and 2 Others1983 CLC 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• MRS. Akhtar Mansoor and Others vs Punjab Government and Others1983 CLC 2765 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
• Motiullah vs Ch. Rustam Ali, Adaocvte1983 CLC 3181 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mohyuddin vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2274 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
• Mohabbat Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2305 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mohabbat Ali and Others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 2527 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
• Miss Rukhsana Rashid vs Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and Others1983 CLC 2461 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mirza Yousaf Beg vs Mst. Nusrat Malik1983 CLC 223 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Bashir vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2315 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
• Mirza Khan and Another vs Sub. Naseer Ahmad and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 207 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mirza Khaliq Hussain vs Muhammad Shah Walt Khan and 3Others1983 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mirza Bashir Muhammad vs Muhammad Ali and Others1983 CLC 2453 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mirza Bashir Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1899 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
• Miran Bakhsh and Others vs Muhammad Hussain and Others1983 CLC 3085 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• Miraj Din vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 91 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-22Read full judgment →
• Miraj Din and Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1951 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mian Nazir Ahmad vs Magistrate (Section 30), Jhelum and Others1983 P Cr. L J 2428 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Munir vs WAPDA and Others1983 CLC 211 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-27
  electricity meterdetection billElectric Inspectorstatutory dutyWAPDAmeter defectaverage consumption
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the legality of detection bills issued by WAPDA to a consumer for alleged electricity meter slowness. The petitioner challenged the issuance of multiple detection bills without the meter being tested by an Electric Inspector or the charges being based on past average consumption. The core legal question was whether WAPDA could unilaterally impose detection bills for alleged meter defects without following the statutory procedure prescribed for determining such defects. The Court held that the respondents acted without lawful authority by failing to adhere to the requirements of the Electricity Act. The Court emphasized that when a meter is suspected of being defective, the utility provider is legally obligated to either replace the meter and have it tested by an Electric Inspector or calculate charges based on past average consumption. By failing to do so, the respondents acted as judges in their own cause, violating the petitioner's rights. Consequently, the impugned bills were declared void, and the Court directed the immediate referral of the meter to the Electric Inspector for a formal determination.

  Questions settled

  • Is a utility provider authorized to issue detection bills for a defective meter without referring the matter to an Electric Inspector?
  • Can a utility provider unilaterally determine the slowness of a meter and charge a consumer without following the procedure under the Electricity Act 1910?
  • What are the legal obligations of a utility provider when a consumer's electricity meter is suspected of being defective?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Masud Ahmad vs Assistant Commissioner, Kharian1983 PLD Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13
  no-confidence motionunion council chairmanmandatory rulesnotice periodwritten explanationconstitutional petitionprejudice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the removal of the petitioner from the office of Chairman of a Union Council via a no-confidence motion. The core legal questions involve whether the mandatory procedural requirements regarding a seven days' notice, affixing notice on the notice board, and circulating the written explanation of the chairman under the relevant local council rules were violated, and whether such non-compliance caused prejudice to the petitioner. The Lahore High Court held that the failure to provide the mandatory seven days' notice and to circulate the petitioner's written explanation caused material prejudice to him, rendering the no-confidence proceedings unlawful. The Court laid down the principle that while non-compliance with directory procedural rules may not always be fatal, any deviation that substantially deprives a person of the time and rights allowed by law to arrange their defense causes legal prejudice and vitiates the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to provide a seven days' notice for a no-confidence meeting under the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980 causes legal prejudice to the chairman?
  • Does the non-circulation of the written personal explanation of a chairman against whom a no-confidence motion is moved vitiate the proceedings?
  • Are the procedural provisions regarding notice and explanation in no-confidence matters mandatory or directory?
  • Can a no-confidence resolution passed in violation of mandatory procedural safeguards be sustained on the ground that the chairman lost the majority's confidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Inayat and Another vs Haji Ghulam Nabi1983 CLC 944 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad and Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1983 CLC 2375 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• Mian Inam Karim and Others vs Mirza Israrul Qadir and Others1983 CLC 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Mustafa vs Mst. Arifa Qayyum and Others1983 CLC 2152 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →