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.

• Chief Administrator of Auqaf vs Ghulam Haider (through Legal Heirs)1982 CLC 1345 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sharif vs Fazal Ur Rehman Aslam and 2 Other1982 CLC 384 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Manzoor Ahmad vs The State and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 702 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mohammad Ikramul Haq vs Province of the Punjab and 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ch. Khalid Mahmood Shaheen, Advocate vs Punjab Bar Council and 21982 CLC 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Muhammad vs Mian Habib Ur Rahman and Other1982 PLD Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Barkat Ali and Another vs Assistant Commissioner, Ferozewala1982 PLD Lahore 83 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18
  no-confidence motionlocal governmentwrit jurisdictionrepresentative officestatutory interpretationdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging no-confidence motions against Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of local councils. The core legal questions were whether a requisition for a meeting constitutes "moving" a no-confidence motion, and whether Section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, requires that a first no-confidence motion be moved immediately after the initial six-month period or be deemed rejected. The Court held that a requisition for a meeting is distinct from moving a motion, and that the "deemed rejected" provision in Section 31(3) applies only to subsequent motions, not the first. Consequently, the first motion may be moved at any time after the initial six-month period. The Court further established the principle that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised to protect a representative office-holder who has lost the confidence of the electorate, as doing so would be contrary to public policy and the intent of the statute. The petitions were dismissed, affirming the validity of the motions and the democratic nature of the representative offices.

  Questions settled

  • Does a requisition for a meeting to consider a no-confidence motion constitute the 'moving' of such a motion?
  • Does the 'deemed rejected' provision in Section 31(3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, apply to the first motion of no-confidence?
  • Can a court exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to protect a representative office-holder who has lost the confidence of the electorate?
  • Is there a requirement that a first no-confidence motion must be moved immediately after the initial six-month period of office?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Allah Ditta vs Federation of Pakistan Etc.1982 CLC 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Allah Ditta vs Federation of Pakistan Etc1982 CLC 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdur Rehman, Advocate and 4 Others vs Additional Deputy1982 CLC 1415 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Ghani Grumman vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1982 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Ghani Ghumman vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1982 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
• Bundoo Khan vs Master Khair Din and 4 Other1982 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Bundoo Khan vs Master Kha1r Din and 4 Others1982 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Bhondu vs Sami Khan1982 CLC 316 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
• Bharamal Alias Bahadur Khan and Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Multan and Other1982 CLC 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-02Read full judgment →
• Bharamal alias Baba Dur Khan and Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Multan and Others1982 CLC 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-02Read full judgment →
• Bassa vs Ghulam Anwar1982 CLC 957 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• Bashira Bibi vs Muhammad Rafiq and 2 Others1982 CLC 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• Bashira Bibi vs Muhammad Rafiq and 2 Other1982 CLC 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 21 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Mst. Abida and Others1982 CLC 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Mst. Abida and Other1982 CLC 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs District Magistrate Sheikhupura1982 PLD Lahore 166 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Abdul Hamid and Another1982 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Etc. vs Mst. Sughra Etc1982 P Cr. L J 29 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1122 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Alias Bashira Etc. vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
• Bakhtawar vs Muhammad Ali and 3 Others1982 P Cr. L J 136 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
• Babu Mian vs Abdur Rehman1982 CLC 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-20Read full judgment →
• Babii vs Mst. Niaz Bibi1982 PLD Lahore 192 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08
  restoration of civil revisiondismissal in defaultsufficient causeinherent powerscounsel busy in Supreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision matter arose from an application for the restoration of a civil revision petition that had been dismissed in default by the Lahore High Court when the petitioner's counsel failed to appear. On the same day of dismissal, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration on the ground that counsel was engaged before the Supreme Court. The respondent opposed the restoration, contending that a revision petition dismissed in default could not be restored and that no sufficient cause was demonstrated. The Lahore High Court held that a civil revision petition dismissed in default can indeed be restored if sufficient cause is shown for the non-appearance. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court established that dismissal in default is not a final judgment or order precluding restoration under inherent powers. Assessing the explanation offered, the Court held that counsel's engagement before the Supreme Court, supported by uncontradicted affidavits and a prompt restoration application filed on the same day, constituted sufficient cause. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and restored the civil revision petition to its original number.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil revision petition dismissed in default can be restored by the High Court upon showing sufficient cause?
  • Whether counsel's engagement in proceedings before the Supreme Court constitutes sufficient cause for restoration of a case dismissed in default?
  • Whether an order dismissing a revision petition in default constitutes a final judgment precluding restoration?
  Read full judgment →
• Ba Sara vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad Rathore vs Punjab Province and Another1982 PLC (C. S.) 807 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-30Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali Khan vs Government of Punjab1982 CLC 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
• Atiq-Ur-Rehman (Minor) and 7 Other vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-26Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 906 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
• Asmat Ullah and Another vs Ghulam Ali1982 CLC 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• Asif Khayam vs Board of Intermediate. and Secondary Education, Punjab, Lahore1982 CLC 2101 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali and Others vs Sui Gas Authority1982 CLC 883 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Ali vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali Alvi vs Nazir1982 PLD Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31
  pre-emptionplaint amendmentlimitation periodurban immovable propertycause of actioncivil revisionsuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision concerns the rejection of plaints in suits for pre-emption regarding urban residential plots. The respondents initially claimed a superior right of pre-emption based on being khewatdar and yakjaddi, which are grounds applicable to agricultural land, not urban immovable property. After the limitation period expired and the defendants challenged the maintainability of the suits, the plaintiffs sought to amend their plaints to include the ground of contiguity. The trial court rejected the amendment and subsequently the plaints for failing to disclose a cause of action. The appellate court allowed the amendment and remanded the cases. The High Court, in revision, set aside the appellate order. The Court held that a pre-emptor cannot amend a plaint to introduce a new ground of superiority after the period of limitation has expired, as this fundamentally changes the character of the suit. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff must succeed on the grounds originally pleaded and cannot seek to rectify a legally deficient claim by introducing new grounds after the limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit amend the plaint to add a new ground of superiority after the expiry of the limitation period?
  • Does the introduction of a new ground of superiority in a pre-emption suit change the character of the suit?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the grounds pleaded are legally inapplicable to the subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mah Mood vs Muhammad Rafique and 4 Other1982 PLD Lahore 660 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
• Arshad Brothers vs Government of Pakistan and Others1982 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• Arshad Brothers vs Government of Pakistan and Other1982 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• Arshad and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Arshad Akram & Co. and 8 Other vs Divisional Superintendent, PakistanPLD ,1982 Lahore 109 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arif Nawaz Butt vs D.I-G. Police (Traffic) and Others1982 PLC (C. S.) 751 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 543 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
• Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. vs Mughal Ltd.1982 CLC 2393 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
• Anwar Shah vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan Khanzada and 3 Other vs Gulzar Ahmad and Another1982 PLD Lahore 72 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
• Anwar Hussain Shah vs Assistant Commissioner. Daska and Another1982 CLC 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
• Anwaar Muhammad and Another vs Sharifan1982 CLC 531(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Jamia Ahli Hadith vs Hafiz Abdul Qadir and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
• Amir Abdullah Khan vs Haq Na Waz Khan1982 CLC 1486 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Civil Judge, Lahore and Other1982 CLC 535 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs Petrocon Limited and Other1982 PLD Lahore 634 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-02Read full judgment →
• Amanat Khan vs Ghulam Sarwar1982 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29
  pre-emptiontenancy rightsghair mumkin landLand Reforms Regulationcivil revisionrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for possession of land through pre-emption filed by the petitioner, Amanat Khan, against the respondent, Ghulam Sarwar. The core legal question was whether land classified as 'ghair mumkin' (uncultivable) could be considered part of a 'tenancy' for the purposes of exercising the right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The trial court and the appellate court had previously dismissed the suit regarding the land occupied by the respondent, finding him to be a tenant. The High Court upheld these decisions, holding that the statutory right of pre-emption conferred on a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, extends to all land comprised in the tenancy, not merely land under actual cultivation. The Court reasoned that since the revenue record designated the respondent as the tenant of the disputed land, including the 'ghair mumkin' portion, it fell within the scope of his tenancy. Consequently, the respondent possessed the superior right of pre-emption, and the petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the right of pre-emption conferred on a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 extend to land that is not under actual cultivation?
  • Can 'ghair mumkin' land be considered part of a tenancy for the purpose of exercising pre-emption rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hassan Qureshi and Another vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
• Alriaz (Shalimar Town) Ltd. vs Muhammad Hassan Lodhi and Another1982 CLC 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 2 Another vs Labour Appellate1982 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan and Others vs Bashir Ahmad1982 CLC 2418 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 754 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Sadhu Masihother1982 CLC 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Sadhu Masih and Others1982 CLC 2352 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Lok and 2 Other vs Sardar Irshadul Hassan and 7 Other1982 PLD Lahore 831 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-28
  Jammu and Kashmir refugeestemporary allotmentcompensation poolwrit jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesland settlementestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling a temporary land allotment previously granted to the petitioners' predecessor, a Jammu and Kashmir refugee, for maintenance purposes. The core legal question was whether the Settlement authorities retained jurisdiction to cancel such temporary allotments under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, after the land had allegedly been transferred to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority. Relying on established precedent, the Court determined that all land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance had been sold to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in 1960, thereby excluding it from the compensation pool. Consequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner lost jurisdiction over this land and could not cancel the allotment to facilitate permanent settlement for other claimants. The Court affirmed that the land was no longer subject to the Settlement authorities' powers, and the petitioners were entitled to retain possession unless the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs acted as the rightful owner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner retain jurisdiction to cancel temporary land allotments of Jammu and Kashmir refugees after such land has been sold to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs?
  • Does the sale of land temporarily allotted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs exclude such land from the compensation pool?
  • Can a party be estopped from raising a plea in the High Court if they failed to raise it or took a contrary position before the Settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya and 3 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 266 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 875 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Salam Din, Etc1982 CLC 545 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs A. C./Collector1982 CLC 2671 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and Others vs Syed Mehdi and Others1982 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and Others vs Syed Mehdi and Other1982 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Dia vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and Others1982 CLC 1908 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Dia vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and Other1982 CLC 1908 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Bali vs Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement1982 CLC 658 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad Fazal Khan and Other1982 PLD Lahore 45 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Deputy Secretary (General), Food Department and 51982 PLD Lahore 575 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 360 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and 5 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 867 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-13Read full judgment →
• Alim-Ud-Din vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 141 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• Alif Khan and 6 Others vs The Assistant Commissioner, Ferozewala and Another1982 CLC 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 3 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs S. H. O., Burewala and OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1233 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and Others vs Muhammad Hayat and Other1982 CLC 2383 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs The State and Another-1982 P Cr. L J 415 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18
  criminal revisiontaking cognizanceexclusive jurisdiction of court of sessiondischarge of accusedfunctus officiopreliminary inquirydirect complaintpolice challan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from proceedings concerning a murder case registered under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, where one accused was placed in column No. 2 of the police challan as a suspect. The complainant subsequently filed a direct criminal complaint before the Sessions Judge, which went through various procedural transfers between the Sessions Court and a Magistrate. The core legal questions involved the competency of a Magistrate to conduct preliminary inquiries or discharge an accused in a case triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the propriety of a Sessions Judge soliciting a Magistrate's opinion on a prima facie case, and the validity of filing a complaint without proceeding. The Lahore High Court held that under section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session must send the case directly without recording evidence or holding preliminary inquiries under section 202, rendering the Magistrate's subsequent proceedings and discharge orders null and void. The Court laid down that a Magistrate becomes functus officio once a case is sent to the Court of Session, and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties. Consequently, the Additional Sessions Judge was directed to properly entertain and proceed with the direct complaint in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Was the Magistrate competent in law to proceed with the complaint and examine preliminary evidence in an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session?
  • Was it lawful or proper for the Additional Sessions Judge to solicit the opinion of the Magistrate as to whether a prima facie case was made out against the respondent?
  • Was the Magistrate competent in law to order the discharge of an accused from a case after having sent the challan to the Court of Session?
  • Is an order by an Additional Sessions Judge filing a criminal complaint without conducting proceedings warranted under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs Ramzan and 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 200 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
• Alhaj Abdul Hamid vs Custodian, Evacuee Property1982 CLC 1842 · Lahore High Court · 1966-05-04Read full judgment →
• Alauddin Akhtar vs Government of the Punjab and Another1982 CLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-15
  statutory tenurepremature terminationpublic interestdeputationofficiating appointmentestoppel against statuteBoard of Intermediate and Secondary EducationOrder I Rule 10 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was instituted by the Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, challenging the Government of the Punjab's threatened premature termination of his statutory four-year tenure. The Government contended that the petitioner held the post on an officiating basis on deputation and that his appointment was subject to early termination in the public interest under his terms of appointment. An applicant seeking impleadment as a nominated successor under Order I Rule 10 CPC was also heard. The High Court considered whether the executive could truncate a statutory tenure by inserting contractual conditions or invoking general public interest. The Court allowed the petition with costs, holding that under Section 14(2) of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Lahore Ordinance 1961, the Chairman's post carries a fixed statutory tenure of four years. Conditions stipulating 'officiating', 'deputation', or premature termination in the public interest are void surplusage inconsistent with the statute, and an appointee is not estopped from claiming the full statutory term.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Government reduce a fixed statutory tenure of office by inserting terms such as 'officiating', 'deputation', or 'reversion in public interest' in the appointment order?
  • Does an appointee's acceptance of an appointment order containing terms inconsistent with a statutory tenure estop him from claiming the full statutory term?
  • Is a prospective appointee whose uncommunicated appointment order is not yet finalized a necessary or proper party in a writ petition challenging the premature removal of the sitting officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Akram Sultan vs Commissioner Rawalpindi and 2 Other1982 CLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
• Akbar and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali (Represented by His Heirs) vs Lahore Development Authority1982 CLC 913 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali (Represented by .1118 Heirs)S vs Lahore Development1982 CLC 913 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
• Ajeet Singh vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 10 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-01
  plea of guiltymandatory proceduresupply of documentscommencement of trialcriminal procedurevitiated convictionretrialcustoms offence
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a foreign national, challenged his conviction under section 156(1), clause 8 read with section 178 of the Customs Act 1969, following a plea of guilty entered on the same day he was produced before the trial court. The core legal question was whether the trial court's failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—specifically the supply of documents to the accused at least seven days before the commencement of trial—vitiated the conviction, despite the appellant's plea of guilty. The Court held that the provisions of section 265-C are mandatory and essential for a fair trial, as they ensure the accused understands the prosecution's case before pleading. The Court ruled that the trial cannot legally commence until these documents are supplied, and a breach of this provision cannot be cured by the consent or waiver of the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to supply copies of documents to an accused under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate a conviction based on a plea of guilty?
  • Can an accused waive the mandatory requirement of being supplied with prosecution documents under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does a trial legally commence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the supply of documents to the accused?
  • Can a conviction based on a plea of guilty be challenged on grounds other than the legality or extent of the sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Ali vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Health1982 CLC 2144 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 74 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan Khan vs Muhammad Arshad1982 CLC 223 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs Muhammad Aslam1982 CLC 425 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Aziz Zia vs Muhammad Siddique and Another1982 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19
  ejectmentprinting pressjurisdictionnon-residential buildingcomposite leasemachinery leaseRent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from an ejectment application filed by the petitioner/landlord seeking the eviction of the respondent/tenant from premises known as East India Press, which comprised a shop building along with printing machinery and equipment leased at a monthly rent of Rs. 500. The Rent Controller initially ordered eviction, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision on appeal, holding that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction because the lease was for both the building and the machinery. The core legal question was whether a tenancy created in respect of a building along with the machinery installed therein falls within the definition of a 'non-residential building' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether such a tenancy is regulated by the said Ordinance. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where a tenancy is created for both a building and the machinery installed therein, the relationship is not regulated by the Ordinance. The Court laid down the principle that the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction in cases where the lease is for the use of machinery permanently fixed in defined premises rather than the premises simpliciter.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenancy created in respect of a building along with the machinery installed therein fall within the regulatory ambit of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Whether a lease of a printing press comprising both a shop and printing machinery qualifies as a lease of a 'non-residential building' under Section 2(d) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction to entertain an ejectment petition where the subject matter of the lease is both the premises and the manufacturing machinery?
  Read full judgment →