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.

• Ghulam Rasool vs District Judge and Others1983 CLC 3162 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Addl. Commr. (Revenue) and Others1983 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-28
  election petitionballot boxesalphabetical ordervoter confusionconstitutional jurisdictionvoid electionlocal government election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981, challenging the order of the Election Tribunal/Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, which declared the election for Seat No. 13 of Union Council No. 90 (presently No. 92) void as a whole. The respondent candidate had challenged the election on grounds of illegal practices and procedural irregularities, specifically that the ballot boxes were not placed in alphabetical order and were mixed up with those of the District Council elections, causing voter confusion and a high number of rejected votes. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the factual findings of the Tribunal were supported by evidence and could not be reappraised in constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that placing the ballot box of a candidate whose name begins with 'Saddar Din' (starting with the Urdu letter 'Seen') at the very end violated Rule 31(d) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979, which requires placement in Urdu alphabetical order. This failure by the Presiding Officer was sufficient to declare the election void.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction reappraise the evidence or the weight attached to it by an Election Tribunal?
  • Does the placement of ballot boxes out of Urdu alphabetical order constitute a violation of Rule 31(d) of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979?
  • Whether a failure by the Presiding Officer to comply with ballot box placement rules is sufficient on its own to declare an election void as a whole?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qamar and Others vs Ghulam Rasool and Others1983 CLC 2961 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Mst. Chattal1983 CLC 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Jehangir and 3 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2159 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1983 PLD Lahore 186 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Syed Muhammad Ishaq Shah1983 CLC 2814 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Settlement Department and Others1983 CLC 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Rashida Bii31 and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-03
  dissolution of marriageKhulares judicatarecurring cause of actionfamily courtconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from a constitutional challenge to an appellate court judgment that decreed the dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula in favour of respondent No. 1. The petitioner husband contended that previous dismissals of similar suits operated as res judicata. The core legal question was whether the principle of res judicata bars a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage on the plea of Khula when earlier suits were dismissed, and whether Khula constitutes a recurring cause of action. The Lahore High Court held that the plea of Khula is a recurring cause of action because a wife may develop hatred or dislike towards her husband under changing circumstances, and therefore such a plea is not barred by res judicata under section 17 of the Family Courts Act. The key principle laid down is that the principle of res judicata does not apply to the plea of Khula in matrimonial matters, enabling a wife to seek dissolution on this ground regardless of previous unsuccessful attempts, provided she satisfies the court's conscience.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of Khula in a suit for dissolution of marriage is barred by the principle of res judicata due to the dismissal of previous suits?
  • Does the plea of Khula constitute a recurring cause of action under family law?
  • Can a wife seek dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula in a subsequent suit despite earlier unsuccessful suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Kh. Nazamuddin and Another1983 CLC 117 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Ijaz Ahmad1983 CLC 103 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Khan and Others vs Muhammad Ashraf and Others1983 CLC 3037 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Chahal vs Rao Muhammad Amir Khan and OHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Others vs Karam Dad and Others1983 PLD Lahore 231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs Muhammad Feroze and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 164 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27
  pre-emption suitminor defendantguardian ad litemlimitation periodappointment of guardianCode of Civil Procedureplaint amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that an application to appoint a guardian for minor defendants was filed after the limitation period had expired. The core legal question was whether a suit against a minor defendant is barred by limitation if the application for the appointment of a guardian ad litem is made after the expiry of the limitation period. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit. The Court clarified that the institution of a suit is complete upon the filing of the plaint, which saves limitation regardless of whether a guardian application is simultaneously filed. Under Order XXXII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the duty to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant rests with the court, which may direct the plaintiff to provide a list of suitable persons. The court held that the suit remains valid, and the proceedings should be stayed until a guardian is appointed, rather than dismissing the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant at the time of filing the plaint render the suit barred by limitation?
  • Is the court obligated to appoint a guardian for a minor defendant even if the plaintiff fails to identify the defendant as a minor in the plaint?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a suit solely because an application for the appointment of a guardian for a minor defendant was filed after the limitation period expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2382 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Settlement Commissioner, Multan and Others1983 CLC 2972 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs M. Riazuddin1983 CLC 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Hassan B1bi1983 CLC 2420 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Election Tribunal and Others1983 CLC 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and Others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies)1983 CLC 3121 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs D. C.Dera Ghazi Khan and Others1983 CLC 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider and Others vs Muhammad Hanif and Others1983 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ghaus vs The State1983 PCr. LJ 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2228 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The S Tate and OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 777 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 196 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and 4 Others vs Muhammad Shafi and 2 Others1983 CLC 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-19
  constitutional petitionejectmentbona fide personal needmisreading of evidencerent restrictionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority dismissing the petitioners' ejectment application filed under section 13 of the West Pakistan (Punjab) Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the landlord's bona fide personal need for the shop in dispute, thereby failing to follow settled case law. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate authority's findings suffered from material misreading of evidence and failure to follow the principle that a landlord's assertion on oath regarding personal need, if consistent with pleadings and unshaken in cross-examination, must be accepted as bona fide. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, declared the impugned judgments to be without lawful authority, and remanded the case to the appellate authority for a fresh decision according to law. The key principle laid down is that High Courts under writ jurisdiction may interfere with concurrent findings in rent matters if they suffer from material misreading of evidence or disregard of established case law regarding bona fide personal need.

  Questions settled

  • When can a High Court interfere with findings of fact rendered by rent authorities under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a landlord's un-shaken assertion on oath regarding personal need sufficient to prove bona fide requirement under the rent laws?
  • What is the effect of material misreading of evidence by an appellate rent authority on its final judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad Khan and Others vs Azmat Kamal Khan and Others1983 CLC 584 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and Others vs Faqir Hussain1983 CLC 99 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18
  pre-emptionminor appellantcompromise decreeguardian ad litemcourt-feecivil appealspecial oath
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent-pre-emptor. During the appellate proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise based on a special oath taken by one of the appellants, leading the lower appellate court to pass a decree accordingly. The appellants challenged this appellate order, contending that one of the appellants, Ghulam Abbas, was a minor, and the lower appellate court failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of obtaining court leave for the compromise, as required by law. The core legal question was whether a compromise decree involving a minor appellant is valid without the court's express consideration of the minor's interest. The Court held that the failure to comply with the statutory requirement to protect the minor's interest rendered the compromise void. Consequently, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for lawful disposal. The Court affirmed the principle that any compromise involving a minor must be sanctioned by the court after ensuring it is for the minor's benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a compromise decree involving a minor appellant valid if the court fails to record that the compromise is for the minor's benefit?
  • Does the abandonment of an issue by a guardian ad litem constitute a compromise requiring court sanction under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a first appeal against an order recording a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent?
  • Does Article 12 of Schedule I of the Court-Fees Act 1870 apply to a first appeal against an order recording a compromise?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghufran Ahmad Siddiqi and 8 Others vs Subhan Sheikh and 7 Others1983 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• Ghiasuddin vs Station House Officer, Police Station Pindibhattian1983 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Hussain vs The State and Another--1983 P Cr. LJ 2000 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• Gaman vs The State--1983 P Cr. L J 2221 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Firdaus Oil Mills vs WAPDA and Another1983 CLC 3315 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20
  electricitydetection billtheft of electricitydisconnection of supplynatural justicewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two identical writ petitions challenging detection bills issued by WAPDA to electricity consumers for alleged theft of electric energy, followed by the disconnection of electricity supply upon non-payment. The core legal question concerns the legality of issuing exorbitant detection bills and disconnecting electricity supply without affording a prior opportunity of hearing or serving the mandatory notice to the consumers. The Lahore High Court held that under clause (vi) of the Schedule to the Electricity Act, as well as the principles of natural justice, it was incumbent upon the licensee to serve a notice and afford the consumers an opportunity to meet the charge of theft before billing them and discontinuing the supply. Since no such notice was served, the demands were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with directions to restore the electric supply while permitting the licensee to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether electricity supply can be disconnected for non-payment of a detection bill without serving prior notice?
  • Is it necessary to afford the consumer an opportunity to meet the charge of theft before billing them for allegedly stolen electric energy?
  • Are detection bills issued without observing statutory notice requirements and principles of naturaljustice without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroz Muhammad Shah and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1944 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad vs Superintending Engineer, L. C. C. (West), Faisalabad1983 CLC 782 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad and 13 Others vs Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation1983 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• Fazal Karim vs Mst. Shabbiran and Others1983 CLC 2877 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-01Read full judgment →
• Fazal Karim and Another vs Muhammad Ashiq and 2 Others1983 CLC 272 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Fazal Din vs Mst. Robeena Aurangzeb and 2 Others1983 CLC 1280 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-11
  revision petitiontemporary injunctionprima facie caselandlord and tenantjurisdictional errorcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is directed against the appellate judgment whereby the order granting a temporary injunction to the petitioner-plaintiff regarding a disputed shop was set aside. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction, given the absence of record substantiating his possession as a tenant. The Lahore High Court held that interference with the appellate court's order was not called for as no jurisdictional error was pointed out, affirming that a temporary injunction cannot be allowed as a matter of course where evidence must still be produced to establish a prima facie case. The key principle laid down is that temporary injunctions are not granted as a matter of course when a party fails to establish a prima facie case at the preliminary stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary injunction be granted as a matter of course where evidence has to be produced to establish a prima facie case?
  • Whether long and old possession entitles a petitioner to a temporary injunction irrespective of whether the possession is authorized or unauthorized?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court interfere in revision against an appellate order regarding a temporary injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Din and Others vs Additional District Judge and Another1983 CLC 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
• Fazal Din & Sons vs Chairman. Evacuee Trust Property Board1983 CLC 2504 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ahmad and Others vs Rana Warris Ali Khan1983 CLC 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ghani and 2 Others vs The State1983 PCr.LJ 781 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Alias Manna H vs The State1983 PCr. L J 2164 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
• Fatima vs Muhammad Din1983 CLC 226 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-20Read full judgment →
• Fateh Shah vs Muhammad Hassan and 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1893 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-12
  cancellation of bailmurder caseirregular procedureSection 164 CrPCjudicial proprietytransfer of trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of bail granted to two respondents in a murder case. The respondents were initially granted bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, primarily relying on statements purportedly made by eye-witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which exonerated them, and a police report claiming their innocence. The petitioner challenged this, alleging the statements were not genuine and that the police report was factually incorrect regarding the respondents' culpability. The High Court observed that the Magistrate in Jhang acted irregularly by recording statements for an occurrence in Sargodha. Furthermore, the Court criticized the Additional Sessions Judge for departing from standard procedure by requesting the case be transferred to his file. Finding that the investigating agencies had actually implicated the respondents and noting the presence of multiple injuries attributed to them, the Court held that the bail was improperly granted. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, ordered the respondents into custody, and directed that the trial be conducted by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate record statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for an occurrence outside their territorial jurisdiction?
  • Is it procedurally proper for an Additional Sessions Judge to request the transfer of a specific case to their file for trial?
  • Does the existence of conflicting affidavits regarding statements made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a ground for cancellation of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Provincial Government1983 CLC 485 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 793 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 398 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
• Fareed vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others1983 CLC 2178 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Biont Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 607 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and Another vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 542 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
• Faqir Hussain and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1263 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Faqir Hussain and 2 Others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab1983 CLC 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 756 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1312 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and 4 Others vs Ghias Uddin1983 PLD Lahore 238 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
• Fakhar-Ud-Din vs Assistant Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-05Read full judgment →
• Faizul Haque and Others vs Jamila Begum and Others1983 CLC 454 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 697 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-26Read full judgment →
• Faiz Bakhsh vs District Judge, Multan and Others1983 CLC 2437 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-22
  constitutional petitionclosing of evidenceadjournmentpre-emption suitcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, challenging the orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioner's evidence as a defendant in a pre-emption suit was closed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question was whether it is a mandatory requirement for the application of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. that the immediately preceding adjournment must have been granted specifically at the request of the party against whom the provision is invoked. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that once a case has been adjourned at the request or instance of a party at any prior stage, the court is legally competent to close the evidence on a subsequent default date, and it is not a legal requirement that every preceding adjournment must be at that party's request or expressly recorded as such if circumstances indicate otherwise.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the application of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires that the immediately preceding adjournment must be granted at the request of the defaulting party?
  • Is it legally necessary for a court to explicitly write in its order that an adjournment is granted at the request of a particular party for the purpose of closing evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz and 2 OTHERSContractss vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 602 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs THB State1983 P Cr. L J 11 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Mahmood vs Mst. Humaira and Another1983 CLC 3305 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-20
  Constitutional PetitionFamily CourtPlaint amendmentDeferred dowerInterlocutory orderMultiplicity of suitsDivorce effectivenessWaiver of claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged an interlocutory order of a Family Court allowing the amendment of a plaint to include a claim for deferred dower. The petitioner argued that the Code of Civil Procedure was inapplicable, thus no amendment could be allowed, that it introduced a fresh cause of action, and that the claim for deferred dower had been waived. The High Court held that while the Code of Civil Procedure is not strictly applicable, Family Courts can adopt any procedure not expressly barred, including allowing amendments necessary for the final disposal of a suit, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It clarified that a divorce becomes effective 90 days after notice to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, and therefore, a suit for prompt dower filed before the divorce became effective did not constitute a waiver of deferred dower. The Court also found the Family Court's order to be a speaking order. Crucially, the High Court ruled that a Constitutional Petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order when an alternative remedy by way of appeal is available. Consequently, the Constitutional Petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court allow amendment of a plaint even if the Code of Civil Procedure is not strictly applicable?
  • Is an amendment to include a claim for deferred dower permissible in a suit for prompt dower if the cause of action for deferred dower accrues during the pendency of the suit?
  • Does filing a suit for prompt dower before a divorce becomes effective constitute a waiver of the claim for deferred dower?
  • Is a Constitutional Petition maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Family Court when an appeal remedy is available?
  • When does a 'Talaq' become effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Mahmood vs Mst. Humaira and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 615 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ali vs Additional District Judge and Others1983 CLC 2414 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Beg and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 921 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-19Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaystatutory right to bailinterpretation of statutesdelay in trialmandatory bailcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment provides the detailed reasons for a short order previously issued granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner sought bail on the ground that he had been detained for an offence punishable with death for a continuous period exceeding two years without the conclusion of his trial. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the two-year period should be extended by excluding an adjournment caused by an application filed by the petitioner due to the sudden illness of his counsel. The court held that the phrase 'act or omission of the accused' in the third proviso refers to wrongful acts causing avoidable delay, and does not include innocent, bona fide, or justifiable acts or delays—such as an adjournment due to sudden counsel sickness accepted by the court as genuine. Consequently, such periods cannot be deducted from the statutory two-year period. The court affirmed that the mandatory right to bail accrues once the continuous period expires, successfully advancing the remedy intended by the Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mandatory right to bail under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arises upon the expiry of the continuous period of detention without conclusion of the trial?
  • Does a bona fide adjournment caused by the sudden illness of an accused person's counsel constitute an act or omission of the accused that should be deducted when calculating the statutory detention period for bail?
  • How should the expression 'act or omission of the accused' in the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be interpreted in relation to trial delays?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Sher Dil Batra vs Abdul Rehman Wahla1983 PLD Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1824(2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Rafiq vs District Judge, Lahore and Others1983 CLC 2547 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-26Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Rafiq Chaudhry vs WAPDA and Others1983 CLC 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16
  electricity chargesdetection billshow-cause noticeconstitutional jurisdictionWAPDAmeter slownessdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a demand notice issued by WAPDA to the petitioner for electricity charges amounting to Rs. 53,425.84, based on an alleged 55.787 percent slowness of the electricity meter. The petitioner contended that the meter was replaced without notice, no show-cause opportunity was provided, the period of alleged slowness was unspecified, and the charges were levied without due process. The core legal question was whether WAPDA could unilaterally impose detection charges for alleged meter defects without providing the consumer an opportunity to be heard or specifying the relevant period of defect. The Court held that the impugned demand was unlawful, declaring the action to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court established that under the Electricity Act, 1910, a licensee must serve a show-cause notice and provide an opportunity for the consumer to be heard before creating a charge for unaccounted energy. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that statutory bars on court jurisdiction cannot override the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a licensee required to serve a show-cause notice to a consumer before raising a detection bill for alleged meter slowness?
  • Can a statutory provision barring court jurisdiction override the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does an occupier of premises have locus standi to challenge an electricity bill if they are not the registered consumer but are the actual user of the electricity?
  • Must a licensee indicate the specific period for which electricity charges are being claimed when alleging meter tampering or defect?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Nasim Javed vs Lahore Cantonment Housing Society1983 PLD Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court
  land acquisitionpublic purposecooperative housing societyLand Acquisition Actconstitutional petitionSection 4 notificationSection 17 notificationinquiry under Section 40mala fidejudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses multiple writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings for the Lahore Cantonment Housing Society. The petitioners contended that the acquisition was not for a 'public purpose' under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing the society was a commercial entity and the land would benefit private individuals. Other challenges included the vagueness of the Section 4 notification, non-compliance with inquiry requirements under Section 40, invalidity of Section 17 notifications due to alleged procedural non-compliance, violation of Martial Law Instructions and presidential directives, and mala fide intent. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that providing residential accommodation for defence and civilian personnel through a cooperative housing society constitutes a public purpose. It clarified that the term 'public purpose' has a wide meaning and includes schemes easing housing shortages. The Court found no material irregularities in the acquisition process, upheld the validity of the notifications, and rejected claims of mala fide, emphasizing the presumption of regularity for official acts.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquisition of land for a cooperative housing society to provide residential accommodation for defence and civilian personnel constitute a 'public purpose' under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be deemed vague if it provides district, tehsil, locality, direction, boundaries, and area, but not Khasra numbers, for urban land?
  • Is a proper inquiry under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 a pre-condition to validate acquisition proceedings for a company, and do landowners have a right to notice in such an inquiry?
  • Can a notification under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be invalidated for non-compliance with government circulars regarding emergency justification, inquiry into land excessiveness, cost certificates, or private negotiation attempts?
  • Is the acquisition of agricultural land for a public purpose subject to judicial review based on a presidential directive advising against such acquisition 'as far as possible'?
  • Can acquisition proceedings be annulled solely due to delay in issuing notifications under Sections 6 and 17 beyond one year of the Section 4 notification, especially when petitioners agitated against the acquisition?
  • Can an allegation of mala fide in land acquisition proceedings be sustained without concrete evidence, merely on bald assertions, and is the presumption of regularity attached to official acts?
  • Does the term 'work' in Section 40(1)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 encompass the construction of residential houses by a cooperative society?
  • Is a cooperative housing society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 considered a commercial organization, thereby precluding its land acquisition from being for a public purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Bashir vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-25Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Akram Khan vs Mian Abdul Qayyum and Another1983 CLC 904 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
• DR. Jamil Ahmad Khan vs Maseel Ahmad and 8 Others1983 CLC 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
• DR. Hassan vs Additional District Judge1983 CLC 2446 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• DR. Ghulam Mustafa vs Punjab Government1983 PLC (C. S.) 47 · Lahore High Court · 1974-01-21Read full judgment →
• DR. Bashir Ahmad vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1983 CLC 2378 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 633 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Dona vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2434 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
• Divisional, Superintendent Pakistan 1Ailways, Multan vs Punjab Labour1983 PLC 103 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
• Ditto vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 143 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
• Des vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2193 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
• Conforce Ltd. vs K. U. Naeem Malik1983 CLC 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. vs Sales Tax Officer, Companies1983 PLD Lahore 631 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Co-Operative Textile Mills Ltd. Khanewal vs Sultan Textile Mills1983 CLC 452 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Din vs Border Area Committee and Others1983 CLC 216 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam and Another vs Federation of Pakistan1983 CLC 1678 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-06Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Mehr Din vs West Pakistan Enemy Property Management1983 CLC 2363 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Walayat Khan vs Assistant Commissioner, Saddar, Gujrat1983 CLC 743 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Khan and Another vs Ghulam Hassan1983 CLC 800 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →