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.

• Agha Muhammad Hussain vs Meraj Din and Another1982 CLC 698 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-23Read full judgment →
• Agha Abdul Qayyum, Etc. vs Mst. Naseem Begum and Another1982 CLC 547 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• Afzal Ali Gil vs Thal Development Authority1982 PLD Lahore 727 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 804 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
• Adnan Afzal vs Col...(RTD.) Sher Afzal and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 755 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-12
  maintenanceex parte orderFamily Court jurisdictionabuse of processlimitation periodconstitutional petitionexecution proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge/Judge Family Court, Sialkot, which stayed execution proceedings of a maintenance order granted in 1969. The petitioner, having obtained an ex parte maintenance order under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, faced repeated attempts by the respondent to reopen the matter through various applications, including requests to set aside the ex parte order and stay execution, filed over a decade later. The core legal question was whether a Family Court, acting under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, could entertain applications to set aside an ex parte maintenance order or stay execution after such significant delays, and whether the specific limitation period in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applied. The Court held that the Family Court acted without lawful authority. It affirmed that proceedings under Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are governed by the specific limitation period of three months provided therein for setting aside ex parte orders. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s repeated applications constituted an abuse of process and that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain time-barred applications.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte maintenance order under Section 488(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Can a Family Court entertain an application to set aside an ex parte maintenance order filed years after the statutory limitation period has expired?
  • Is an order staying execution proceedings in a maintenance case considered a 'decision' appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with interlocutory orders of a Family Court if the order was passed without lawful authority or jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Thal Development- Authority vs Mahboob Ali Khan1982 PLC (C. S.) 753 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-26Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Etc. vs Settlement Commissioner Etc.1982 CLC 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 871 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local1982 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rasheed vs Messrs Nippon Robbin Company (Pakistan) Ltd. and 61982 PLD Lah. 103 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs Haji Pir Bukhsh and Others1982 CLC 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs Haji Pir Bukhsh and Other1982 CLC 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 288 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 734 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Abbasi vs Mst. Rafique Begum and 7 Others1982 CLC 837 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Abbasi vs Mst. Rafique Begum and 7 Other1982 CLC 837 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim.1982 CLC 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim1982 CLC 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 221 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasihd vs Mst. Nargis Parveen and 5 Others1982 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Others1982 CLC 1835 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Other1982 CLC 1835 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Chaudhary and 10 Others vs Mohammad Umar and 21982 CLC 735 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Chaudhary and 10 Others vs Mohammad Umar and 21982 CLC 735 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
• Brag vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Appellant vs Mst. Adila Musarrat1982 CLC 149 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-16
  ejectionpersonal usenon-residential buildinglandlord and tenantbona fide requirementPunjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an eviction proceeding initiated by the respondent landlady against the appellant tenant regarding a shop in Kasur on the grounds of subletting, personal use of the husband, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller rejected the eviction application, but the District Judge reversed the finding on the personal use ground and ordered eviction, holding that the landlady required the shop bona fide for the business of her husband. The appellant contended that a non-residential building cannot be sought for the husband's personal use under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the expression 'own use' in respect of non-residential buildings has a wide connotation that includes the beneficial enjoyment and use by the landlord through her husband as the economic sustainer of the family. The Court further upheld the lower appellate court's finding on the bona fide requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlady can seek eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building for the personal use of her husband under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the phrase 'own use' for a non-residential building under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 include the business requirement of the husband of the landlady?
  • Can a finding of fact regarding the bona fide requirement of a premises recorded by the first appellate court be interfered with in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 10 Others vs Maj. Zia Ul Hassan and Another1982 CLC 239 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 457 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim and Others vs Muhammad Akram1982 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim and Others vs Muhammad Akr Am1982 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudus vs District Judge, Sialkot and Others1982 CLC 2355 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudus vs District Judge, Sialkot and Other1982 CLC 2355 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Quddus vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and Another vs Zubaida Khanum and 4 Other1982 CLC 700 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Tan StateP L D1982 Lahore 551 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan vs Secretary to the Government of the Punjab and Other1982 PLD Lahore 525 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Administrator, Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi and Another1982 CLC 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 466 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Sheikh Mazhar Ul Haque and Other1982 CLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Mian Muhammad Akhtar and 4 Other1982 CLC 556 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 949 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim and Another vs Mst. Began1982 CLC 1670 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem vs Rehman and Another.1982 CLC 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem vs Rehman and Another1982 CLC 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 154 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and 7 Others vs Collector (5 Marla Scheme), District1982 CLC 2639 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and 13 Others vs Land Acquisition Collector, L. D. A.1982 CLC 818 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and Another vs Saghir Khan (Minor)1982 CLC 347 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
• Abbas vs Muhammad Yaqoob Etc1982 CLC 16 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
• Aas Muhammad vs Sakina Bibi and Others1982 CLC 2295 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
• Aas Muhammad vs Sakina Bibi and Other1982 CLC 2295 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
• A. Nasim Qureshi and Another vs Kh. Maqsoodul Hassan Arts1982 CLC 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
• (Colony) Thal Textile Mills Ltd., Mianwali vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 364 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-12Read full judgment →
• Zakauddin Alias Billa vs Muhammad Ismail1981 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
• Zahir Ahmed vs Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad and 12 Others1981 CLC 876 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
• Zahid Shehzad and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 844 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
• Wazir Muhammad and 3 Others vs Abdul Aziz and Another1981 CLC 814 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority vs Syed Aftab Ali and Another1981 CLC 579 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waryam and Others vs Mst. Sardar Begum and Others1981 CLC 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 533 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-16Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 764 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
• United Tanneries Ltd., Sahiwal vs United Bank Ltd., Karachi1981 PLD Lahore 478 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Lyallpur Bus Service Etc.1981 CLC 786 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Tariq EMs1981 P Cr. L J 226 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhamiviad Arif and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-08Read full judgment →
• The Chief Administrator, Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore vs Sh.1981 CLC 886 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Warcha Salt Mines vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court1981 PLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and Another vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Taj Din vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Sarwar Hussain vs The Panjab University and 2 Others1981 CLC 839 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Sardar Shah vs Muhammad Habib and Others1981 P Cr. L J 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Riaz Hussain Zaidi vs Muhammad Iqbal and Another1981 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-10
  constitutional petitionejectmentpersonal needRent Controllerrecasting issuesquasi-judicial tribunalremand orderalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from an ejectment application filed by a landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on the ground of personal need for himself and his son. The Rent Controller decided the matter in favor of the landlord. On appeal, the District Judge recast the issues to include personal need of the son and contractual grounds, and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller. The landlord challenged this remand order before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  The High Court examined whether a Rent Controller is bound by strict procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding issue framing, and whether an order recasting issues without supporting material on record is amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that a Rent Controller acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and is not strictly bound by C.P.C. procedure to frame issues. It held that orders passed without supporting evidence or material on record are without lawful authority, and the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where such remedy causes unnecessary delay and expense.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller bound by the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the framing of issues?
  • Can an appellate authority recast issues and remand a case when there is no supporting material or evidence on record for such issues?
  • Does an order passed without any supporting evidence on record constitute an order passed without lawful authority under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the availability of an alternative remand proceeding bar a constitutional petition if it causes unnecessary expense and delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Anwar Shohrat Bokhari vs Federation of Pakistan1981 PLD Lahore 742 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Abbas vs Sub-Martial Law Administrator, Faisalabad1981 PLC (C. S.) 841 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Latif Hussain Shah, Advocate vs District Magistrate, Gujranwala and Another1981 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-24
  constitutional petitionexecutive discretiondiscriminatory orderpublic safety and conveniencetraffic regulationwrit jurisdictionarbitrary action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order issued by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, under Section 33-A(1)(m) of the Police (Amendment) Act, 1956, which restricted the entry of private buses into the city. The petitioner contended that the order was arbitrary, discriminatory, and lacked legal justification, as it exempted government transport and long vehicles while causing public inconvenience. The core legal question was whether the District Magistrate’s exercise of discretion under the Act was reasonable, fair, and based on valid public safety and convenience grounds. The Court held that the statutory requirement of 'public safety and convenience' must be construed conjunctively, necessitating both elements to be satisfied. Finding the order discriminatory against private transporters without rational justification and noting the lack of consultation with the Regional Transport Authority, the Court ruled the order was arbitrary and lacked lawful authority. The judgment establishes that executive discretion, even when conferred for public purposes, must be exercised reasonably, equitably, and without discriminatory application, and that the High Court retains jurisdiction to correct improper exercises of such discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Must the requirements of 'public safety' and 'convenience' be satisfied conjunctively for an order under Section 33-A of the Police (Amendment) Act, 1956?
  • Can an executive order that discriminates between private and government transport be sustained on the grounds of public safety?
  • Is the discretion vested in a District Magistrate to regulate traffic absolute and beyond judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Asadur Rehman Bokhari vs Government of Punjab and Another1981 PLD Lahore 275 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza and 15 Others vs The State----1981 P Cr. L J 1080 · Lahore High Court · -
  post-arrest bailaffidavits of eye-witnessescross-version fightmutual injuriesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition for bail filed by Syed Ali Raza and 15 others against the State, registered under sections 302, 307, 325, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Lodhran, District Multan. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to post-arrest bail in view of land disputes, mutual injuries sustained during the fight, and subsequent affidavits filed by injured eye-witnesses absolving the petitioners. The Lahore High Court held that since the injured eye-witnesses filed sworn affidavits stating that the petitioners were not the assailants and that a different group of persons was involved, the petitioners are entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that where injured eye-witnesses resile from their initial stance through affidavits presenting a different version of the occurrence, further inquiry into the guilt of the accused is warranted under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail without delving deep into the merits of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when injured eye-witnesses file affidavits stating that the accused persons were not the assailants?
  • Does a dispute regarding land and a fight involving injuries on both sides warrant further inquiry under criminal procedure?
  • What is the effect of statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 versus subsequent affidavits by eye-witnesses at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Akhtar Hussain vs Wali Bahadur and 3 Others1981 PLD Lahore 326 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22
  ejectmentgood faithbona fide requirementlandlord and tenantrent restrictionpersonal useburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arose from an ejectment order passed against a tenant under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the landlords' claim that they required the rented premises in "good faith" for their own occupation was genuine, given the tenant's allegations of mala fides and prior demands for increased rent. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellate order was sound. The court affirmed that a landlord's statement on oath, if consistent with the pleadings and not shaken during cross-examination, is generally sufficient to establish bona fides. The court further held that a prior demand for enhanced rent does not automatically invalidate an ejectment application if the personal requirement is independently established. The judgment clarified that the Ordinance provides specific statutory safeguards against dishonest evictions, and the burden shifts to the tenant to prove mala fides once the landlord has asserted the personal need. Consequently, the court found no merit in the challenge, confirming the tenant must vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's prior demand for increased rent automatically invalidate an application for ejectment based on personal requirement?
  • Is a landlord's statement on oath sufficient to establish the 'good faith' requirement for personal use of rented premises?
  • What is the effect of a landlord's failure to examine a witness on the presumption of evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872?
  • Under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, what safeguards exist to prevent a landlord from obtaining possession of a rented building on false grounds of personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abul Hassan vs Chief Settlement Commissioner Etc.1981 PLD Lahore 271 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shah Etc vs Jalal Din Etc.1981 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood and Another vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-06Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs Muhammad Anwar1981 CLC 270 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 602 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
• Subedar (RTD.) Abdul Rehman and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 61 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-22
  pre-arrest bailnon-appearancedismissal of bail applicationbail on meritsbail bonds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a pre-arrest bail application summarily due to the petitioners' non-appearance on the date of hearing. The core legal question is whether a court can dismiss a bail application summarily solely on account of the accused's non-appearance without deciding it on merits, and whether personal attendance is mandatory upon the confirmation or otherwise of pre-arrest bail. The High Court held that once a bail application has been admitted to regular hearing, it must be decided on merits even in the absence of the petitioners, and personal attendance at the confirmation stage is not mandatory unless specifically insisted upon or directed by the court. The court laid down the principle that the non-appearance of an accused on a date of hearing does not empower the court to dismiss a bail application summarily; at most, bail bonds may be forfeited or appearance insisted upon for a subsequent date, but the application itself must be adjudicated on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bail application can be rejected summarily solely on account of the non-appearance of the accused?
  • Is it obligatory for a person to be present in court on the date of confirmation or otherwise of their pre-arrest bail?
  • What is the legal course available to a court when an accused fails to appear on a date of hearing during pre-arrest bail proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Mukhtar Ahmad1981 P Cr. L J 1335 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-21Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Afzal and 3 Others1981 P Cr. L J 696 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
• State vs Mansab Khan1981 P Cr. L J 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sohara vs Rashid Ahmad and Other1981 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-19
  pre-emptiondeficient court-feelimitationOrder VII Rule 11 CPCSection 149 CPCmala fidescontumacydiscretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of a regular second appeal and a civil revision arising out of two pre-emption suits, both instituted on the last day of limitation with deficient court-fees. The core legal question concerns the harmonious interpretation and interplay between Order VII, Rule 11(c) and Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the court's obligation or discretion to grant time to make up deficient court-fees, and the effect of such extension on the plea of limitation. The Lahore High Court held that Order VII, Rule 11(c) and Section 149 must be read together. While the court is normally bound to grant time to rectify court-fee deficiencies, this indulgence and the saving of limitation cannot be extended in cases marked by contumacy, positive mala fides, dishonesty, or higher degrees of negligence (such as deliberately paying a ridiculously low court-fee merely to gain time). Applying this principle, the court found the plaintiffs' conduct in both cases to be mala fide and lacking in bona fides. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the pre-emption suit in the revision petition and upheld the dismissal of the suit in the second appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order VII, rule 11(c) and section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are to be read together when granting time to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
  • Is a court bound to grant time to a plaintiff to make good a deficient court-fee under Order VII, rule 11(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in cases of contumacy or positive mala fides?
  • Does the payment of a ridiculously low court-fee on the last day of limitation raise a presumption of lack of bona fides and mala fide conduct on the part of the plaintiff?
  • Can a plaintiff claim the benefit of section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to save limitation where the initial institution of the suit was tainted by negligence of a greater degree or dishonesty?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1138 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din and ANOTHERs vs Muhammad Ishaq1981 CLC 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Khan and Makhu vs Barkhurdar and 3 Others1981 CLC 183 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
• Siddique vs The State----1981 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 285 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Asif vs Mst. Khurshid Begum and 2 Others1981 CLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-09
  ejectmentpersonal requirementresidential buildingnon-residential useconstitutional petitionconversion of building
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate court, directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement of the landlady for her family. The core legal question revolved around whether a residential building, having been rented out for non-residential purposes (a bakery), loses its residential character and whether the landlady could seek its eviction for residential use. The Lahore High Court held that putting a residential building to non-residential use without the written permission of the Rent Controller under the relevant rent restriction law or the prior sanction of municipal authorities does not change its structural or legal character as a residential building. Consequently, the landlady was legally entitled to seek ejectment for her family's residential needs. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of a residential building for a non-residential purpose with the agreement of the landlord have the effect of converting it into a non-residential building under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a residential building be converted into a non-residential building without the permission in writing of the Controller?
  • Is a landlord entitled to seek the ejectment of a tenant from a structurally residential building for personal residential requirements even if it was initially let out for business purposes without statutory conversion permission?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Javed Rashid vs Mu Central Government of Pakistan and Another1981 PLD Lahore 515 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →