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.

• Sheikh Israr Ahmad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 703 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Hamid vs Muhammad Siddique1981 PLD Lahore 42 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-13
  ejectment applicationrent controllernatural justicefair trialcross-examinationprejudiceremandprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals arising from separate eviction applications filed by a landlord against two different tenants. The Rent Controller recorded evidence in one case and mechanically copied it into the other, denying the respondents an independent trial and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in their respective cases. The core legal question was whether this procedure, which effectively bypassed separate trials, was legally sustainable. The High Court held that the procedure was illegal and violated the principles of natural justice, as well as the statutory requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to provide tenants a reasonable opportunity to show cause against eviction. The court affirmed that every proceeding must be decided on the material recorded within that specific proceeding, and evidence from one case cannot be imported into another without independent examination. Consequently, the court upheld the appellate authority's decision to set aside the eviction orders and remanded the cases for a fresh, independent trial, emphasizing that the mechanical copying of evidence caused grave prejudice to the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible for a Rent Controller to record evidence in one case and copy it verbatim into another case without independent examination?
  • Does the mechanical copying of evidence from one case into another without allowing separate cross-examination constitute a violation of natural justice?
  • Can a Rent Controller decide an eviction application based on evidence recorded in a separate proceeding?
  • Does the failure to provide a tenant a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in an eviction proceeding vitiate the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-23Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain vs Zulfiqar Ahmad and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 13 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-19
  illegal search and seizureCustoms Actconstitutional petitionstatutory compliancerestoration of goodssearch warrantprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the legality of a police raid, search, and seizure of goods from the petitioners' shops under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the search complied with the mandatory statutory requirements of Sections 162, 163, and 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the presence of a Magistrate during the raid cured any procedural non-compliance. The Court held that the search was illegal because the authorities failed to obtain a search warrant, record the grounds for belief, or provide the required notice to the occupiers. It further ruled that the presence of a Magistrate, acting merely as a witness rather than in a judicial capacity, did not validate the search. Consequently, the Court declared the search, seizure, and all subsequent departmental and judicial proceedings to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that strict adherence to statutory search conditions is mandatory, and failure to comply vitiates the entire process, requiring the immediate restoration of seized property to the aggrieved party.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a Magistrate during a police raid validate a search conducted without a warrant under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the illegality of a search and seizure vitiate all subsequent departmental and judicial proceedings?
  • Are the procedural requirements for search and seizure under the Customs Act, 1969, mandatory or merely technical?
  • Can a police officer conduct a search under Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, without recording the grounds for their belief?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hayat and Others vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-27Read full judgment →
• Shamad and 147 Others vs Secretary, Government of Punjab Etc.1981 CLC 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Wali Khan vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Khushal Muhammad and 3 Others1981 CLC 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
• Shafqat Hussain vs Asif Naveed Etc.1981 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad Khan vs The State------1981 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Provincial Local Government vs Board, Punjab Etc1981 PLC 301 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-06Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Education, Government of Punjab and 3 Others vs Rent1981 CLC 1369 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sayyed Saeed Hussain Shah vs Province of Punjab Etc.1981 PLC 297 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Etc. vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 597 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
• Sardaran Bibi and 4 Others vs S. Wali Hussain1981 CLC 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-15Read full judgment →
• Sardara vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1277 (1) · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sardar Shafiq Hyder Khan Leghari vs Member (Abdul Qayyum), Federal1981 PLD Lahore 356 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 230 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
• Saleem Mumtaz Syed vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1981 CLC 280 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Salahuddin vs Hafiz Muhammad Alam1981 CLC 59 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Butt vs Khawaja Muhammad Tariq1981 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-28
  evictionrent restrictiondefault in rentstriking off defenseadjustment of rentspecial lawRent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an eviction application filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit arrears of rent, including rent for a month not yet due, and subsequently struck off the tenant's defense for failing to deposit the specific arrears for the earliest month. The appellate court set aside this order, finding the Controller's inclusion of future rent as arrears was defective and allowed for the adjustment of rent paid early. The core legal questions were whether a defective order under the Ordinance invalidates the entire direction, and whether Section 59 of the Contract Act, 1872, applies to proceedings under the Ordinance. The Court held that the Ordinance is a self-contained special law, rendering Section 59 of the Contract Act inapplicable. Furthermore, a defective order under the Ordinance does not invalidate the entire direction; it remains valid for the portion that was legally recoverable. Since the tenant had deposited the total amount legally due by the deadline, no default occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of future rent as arrears in an order under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, invalidate the entire order?
  • Are the provisions of Section 59 of the Contract Act, 1872, applicable to proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a tenant avoid the consequences of default by adjusting rent deposited in advance against arrears of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Saiful Latif Etc. vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1238 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
• Said Muhammad vs Ali Hussain Etc.1981 CLC 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
• Said Ahmad vs Haji Ghulam Mahmood and Another1981 CLC 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-03Read full judgment →
• Safdar Baig vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1240 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Saeed Nawaz vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and Another1981 PLD Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-16
  constitutional petitiondomestic tribunalnatural justiceexamination malpracticedisqualificationboard of intermediate and secondary education
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Discipline Committee and the Committee of Appeal of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, disqualifying the petitioner for four examinations due to alleged disturbance and misbehavior in the examination hall. The core legal questions involved whether the domestic tribunal proceedings vitiated due to minor clerical errors in the charge-sheet, non-compliance with procedural instructions like filling Form S. F. 8, and whether adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in accordance with natural justice. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that domestic tribunals are not bound by strict judicial procedures, and as long as fair opportunity is provided to the delinquent to rebut adverse material, the proceedings are valid. The key principle laid down is that domestic tribunals must act in good faith and provide a fair opportunity to correct or contradict prejudicial statements, adhering to the elementary principles of natural justice as established by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether domestic tribunals acting in examination malpractice cases are required to follow the strict and intricate procedures of a judicial trial?
  • Does a clerical error regarding the paper name in a charge-sheet vitiate the disciplinary proceedings against a candidate?
  • Whether the omission to fill Form S. F. 8 causes prejudice to a candidate when the Centre Superintendent owns the report in the presence of the candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadiq vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 256 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Saboor Khan vs District Magistrate, Gujranwala.1981 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
• S. Mohammad Ilyas & Sons Ltd., Lahore vs Abu Ahmad Khan and 21981 CLC 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-21
  constitutional petitioncompromise agreementinquiry into compromiserent restriction ordinancejurisdiction of High Courtejectment appealsummary rejectionnon-exercise of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an Additional District Judge's decision to summarily reject an application for an inquiry into an alleged out-of-court compromise between parties in an ejectment appeal. The petitioners claimed a compromise had been reached, increasing rent and requiring the respondent to withdraw proceedings, which the respondent denied. The Additional District Judge dismissed the application, holding that an unadmitted compromise outside court was inconsequential, and proceeded to dismiss the appeal on merits. The High Court held that the finality clause in Section 15(7) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance does not bar the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It further ruled that under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where a compromise is disputed, the court is obligated to conduct a regular inquiry by taking evidence to determine if a lawful agreement was reached. The summary rejection of the application without such an inquiry constituted a non-exercise of jurisdiction. The petition was allowed, the Additional District Judge's order set aside, and the case remanded for an inquiry into the alleged compromise.

  Questions settled

  • Does the finality clause in Section 15(7) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance bar the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Is a court required to hold an inquiry into an alleged out-of-court compromise when one party denies its existence?
  • Can an agreement of compromise outside the court be summarily dismissed if not affirmed by the other party in court?
  • What is the proper procedure for a court to follow when a compromise is filed but repudiated by one of the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• S. M. Sharif vs Federation of Pakistan1981 PLD Lahore 74 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-23Read full judgment →
• S. Ahtramullah vs Pakistan Television Corporation, ,(1981 PLC (C. S.) 726 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
• S. Abid Hussain vs Financial Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways and Another ,1981 PLC 559 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
• Rustom F. Cowasjee and 5 Other vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Another1981 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1938-06-05Read full judgment →
• Rustam Cycle Factory Mazdoor Union vs Rustam & Sohrab Cycle1981 PLC 414 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ruqayya Shaheen vs Muhammad Younus1981 CLC 1735 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
• Rohil Akhtar vs Gulistan Khan1981 CLC 548 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
• Riyasat Ali vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-20Read full judgment →
• Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan vs Khushi Muhammad and 2121981 PLC 416 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah Etc. vs Pakistan through Secretary, Rehabilitation and Settlement1981 CLC 630 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Muhammad Shafi1981 PLD Lahore 759 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Saidullah and 7 OTHERSs1981 P Cr. L J 264 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Abdul Aziz1981 CLC 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-25Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali and Another vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-26Read full judgment →
• Raza Ahmad Khan vs Ahmad Raza1981 CLC 441 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs The State---1981 P C r. L J 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Sarwar vs Mst. Misri Jan1981 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux Etc. vs The State----1981 P Cr. L J 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-09Read full judgment →
• Qazi Zahooruddin vs Mir Shahabuddin1981 PLD Lahore 289 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
• Qamar-Uz-Zaman and Anarneles+D8876 vs THB State1981 PLD Lahore 543 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab vs Ghulam Yasin1981 CLC 135 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-16Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Government of Punjab, Home Department and Another vs Muhammad Saeed1981 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and Another vs Mst. Noor Bibi and 3 Others1981 CLC 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
• Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd., Lahore vs Mian Sheih1981 CLC 1326 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pir Manzoor Ali vs Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 505 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
• Phulla and 3 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
• Phool Muhammad vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore and 21981 CLC 179 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through General Manager, Rafi, Lahore vs Agro Marketing1981 CLC 443 · Lahore High Court
  consolidation of suitsinherent powersrevision petitionstay of suitbreach of contractconflicting judgmentscivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore, declining to consolidate two cross-suits arising from a contract for the import and local formulation of pesticides. The core legal question was whether the two suits, involving the same transaction and cross-claims of breach of contract, warranted consolidation under the inherent powers of the court. The Lahore High Court held that while the strict conditions for consolidation were rendered impracticable because one suit had already reached the final arguments stage due to an earlier expedited administrative order, the interests of justice and the need to avoid conflicting judgments justified invoking inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court laid down the principle that to prevent contradictory adjudications and abuse of process, where suits arise from the same transaction, a court may direct simultaneous announcement of judgments by expediting the lagging suit, thereby balancing procedural constraints with substantive justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court consolidate two separate suits in the absence of a specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Does section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure bar the institution of a subsequent suit or merely stay its trial?
  • Is complete identity of all facts and questions of law a strict prerequisite for exercising inherent powers to consolidate or coordinate related suits?
  • Can a court direct the simultaneous announcement of judgments in two related suits arising from the same transaction when they are at different stages of trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Chairman, Pakistan Railway Board,Lahore vs Maqsood Ali and 82 Others, .(1981 PLC 307 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-31
  revisional jurisdictionappellate authoritypayment of wagesrailway employeeslabour courtlabour appellate tribunalwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of seven consolidated writ petitions concerning whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has revisional jurisdiction over appellate decisions of the Labour Court. The dispute originated from claims filed by Railway Guards for recovery of arrears of wages and allowances under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The Authority under the Act accepted the claims, and on appeal, the Punjab Labour Court modified the reliefs. Revision petitions were subsequently filed before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The core legal question was whether a revision petition is competent before the Tribunal from a decision of a Labour Court acting as an appellate authority under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The High Court held that the Labour Court, when acting under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, acts under the powers and procedure of that special Act and its rules, not under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Consequently, such proceedings do not constitute a 'case or proceedings under this Ordinance' within the meaning of Section 38(3-a). The Court concluded that the Tribunal lacks revisional jurisdiction, thereby allowing the petitions of the Pakistan Railways and dismissing those of the employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 over an appellate order passed by a Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
  • Does an appeal decided by a Labour Court under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 constitute a 'case or proceedings under this Ordinance' within the meaning of Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does the finality attached to an appellate decision under Section 17(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 preclude further revision under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Thorugh Chairman Pakistan Railway Board, Lahore vs Ghulam Qadir1981 PLD Lahore 580 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. vs M. Babar Zaman1981 PLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-01
  delegatus non potest delegaresub-delegation of powerdisciplinary proceedingsindustrial employmentessential servicesstatutory rulesworkman definitionmisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Intra Court Appeals challenging the validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Pakistan Television Corporation against its employees. The core legal question was whether the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited Employees' Service Rules, framed by a Member of the National Industrial Relations Commission, effectively ousted the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby allowing the employer to bypass the Ordinance's strict timelines for initiating misconduct proceedings. The Court held that the Service Rules were invalid because the power to regulate service conditions, delegated by the Federal Government to the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, could not be further sub-delegated to a Member of the Commission. Consequently, the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, remained applicable. The key principle laid down is the doctrine of delegatus non potest delegare: a delegate cannot further sub-delegate statutory powers unless expressly authorized by the legislature, and administrative rules made through unauthorized sub-delegation are void and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority empowered to make rules further delegate that power to a subordinate unless expressly authorized by the statute?
  • Does the definition of 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, exclude employees who perform skilled work that is neither strictly manual nor clerical?
  • Are disciplinary proceedings initiated after the one-month limitation period prescribed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, legally sustainable?
  • Can rules framed by a sub-delegate of a specified authority override the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Mst. Safooran1981 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Promotors Ltd.. vs Punjab Employees' Social1981 PLC 465 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-27
  social security contributionstatutory complaint procedurecompetency of appealWest Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinanceadministrative dispute resolutiondemand notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Social Security Court, which dismissed the appellant's challenge to a demand notice for social security contributions as incompetent. The core legal question was whether correspondence addressed to local directors of the Social Security Institution constitutes a valid complaint under Section 57 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, thereby creating a decision appealable under Section 59. The High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the appeal was incompetent. The Court held that letters addressed to local directors do not satisfy the statutory requirement of filing a complaint before the Commissioner, as mandated by the Ordinance and the Punjab Social Security (Determination of manner and time for deciding complaints and disputes and review of decisions) Regulations, 1973. The key principle established is that statutory dispute resolution procedures must be strictly followed; an appeal under Section 59 is only maintainable against a formal decision of the Institution or Commissioner, not against preliminary notices issued by subordinate officers.

  Questions settled

  • Does correspondence addressed to a local director of the Social Security Institution constitute a valid complaint under Section 57 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Is an appeal under Section 59 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 maintainable against a demand notice issued by a subordinate officer of the Institution?
  • Must a complaint under Section 57 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 be filed specifically before the Commissioner to be considered valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd., Lahore vs Mst. Shahan Nasim Akbar1981 CLC 119 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nosherkhan. vs Punjab Province and Another1981 PLD Lah. 661 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs S. H. O., Qadirpur (Jhang) Etc1981 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-12
  quashment of FIRmala fideabuse of processcriminal investigationconstitutional petitiondouble jeopardy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeks the quashment of police investigation proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to First Information Report No. 53, registered at Police Station Qadirpur. The core legal question was whether the registration of a second criminal case against the petitioner, concerning the same subject matter as a previously cancelled case, was initiated with mala fide intent by the complainant. The Court held that the initiation of the second case was indeed mala fide, as the complainant had concealed material facts, including the prior registration and subsequent cancellation of an earlier case regarding the same allegations. The Court observed that the police had previously investigated the matter and found the allegations baseless. Consequently, the Court quashed the investigation proceedings. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal case is registered with mala fide intent, involving the suppression of material facts and the re-agitation of matters already concluded by a prior police investigation, the High Court possesses the authority to quash such proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash police investigation proceedings initiated with mala fide intent?
  • Does the concealment of material facts by a complainant in a subsequent FIR constitute grounds for quashment?
  • Is it permissible to initiate a second criminal case on the same subject matter after a previous case has been investigated and cancelled by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and Another vs Tim State1981 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-05
  curative provisionstrial procedurerecording of evidenceillegality versus irregularityvitiated trialretrialcopying evidencefailure of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three criminal appeals and allied murder references arising from two separate sessions trials where the Additional Sessions Judge verbatim copied and imported portions of witness statements from the record of one case into the other. The core legal question was whether the mechanical reproduction of evidence across separate trials constitutes a mere procedural irregularity curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or a fundamental illegality that vitiates the proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the deliberate departure from the mandatory statutory mode of recording evidence faithfully and fully for each individual trial is an absolute illegality rather than a technical oversight, and cannot be cured by the curative provisions of section 537 regardless of whether prejudice or failure of justice is shown. The court laid down the principle that a substantial and conscious transgression of mandatory procedural requirements for conducting trials vitiates the proceedings entirely, setting aside the convictions and sentences and ordering a retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether copying portions of witness statements from the record of one trial into another constitutes a curable irregularity under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a substantial and conscious departure from the mandatory procedure for recording evidence vitiate a criminal trial entirely?
  • Is the question of prejudice or failure of justice relevant when a trial court adopts a mode of trial not authorised by law?
  • Do the curative provisions of section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to absolute illegalities arising from a willful disregard of statutory trial procedures?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Akbar vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1233 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 476 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and 4 Others1981 CLC 1644 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-23Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Abdul Waheed and 2 Others1981 CLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-31Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 3 Others vs Muhammad Shafi1981 P Cr. L J 788 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-11Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-28Read full judgment →
• Nazar Ali Etc. vs Haveli Khan Etc.1981 CLC 1717 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
• Nawab Bibi vs Muhammad Din1981 CLC 1634 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-04Read full judgment →
• Naurang vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
• Nasir Javaid and Another vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 920 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ali--Appellant vs Sarwar Ali Haider1981 CLC 118 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ali vs Sarwar Ali Haideri, Advocate1981 CLC 118 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1178 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 942 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
• N. A. Shahriyar vs Conforce Ltd., Lahore and Another1981 CLC 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11Workmen's Compensation Actsummary dismissallimitationcause of actioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court judgment that dismissed a suit for damages for physical disability and mental shock without allowing the parties to lead evidence. The core legal questions were whether the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on external evidence, and whether the suit was barred by the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 and the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that when considering the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, the court must rely solely on the averments in the plaint, presuming them to be true, rather than considering external documents or evidence provided by the defendant. Furthermore, the Court established that issues of fact, such as whether the plaintiff qualifies as a workman or whether a suit is barred by limitation, require the parties to be given a fair opportunity to lead evidence. Consequently, the trial court's summary dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded for proper adjudication after evidence is recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court consider external evidence or documents provided by the defendant when deciding whether to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is it permissible for a court to dismiss a suit on the ground of limitation without framing a specific issue regarding it?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 allow a court to dismiss a suit without affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence on disputed factual issues?
  Read full judgment →
• N. A. Shahr.Yar vs Conforce Ltd., .(1981 PLC 607 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Karachi vs National Industrial1981 PLC 538 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mushtaqurrehman and 4 Others vs Muhammad Akbar and 5 Others1981 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-12
  local commissionerrefereecivil revisionbinding reportconsent decreecode of civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding ownership and possession of a property, which was dismissed by the trial court and the appellate court based on a report submitted by a Naib Tehsildar. The core legal question is whether a person appointed ostensibly as a Local Commissioner under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 acts as a referee when the parties have explicitly agreed to be bound by his findings, and whether such a report can form the basis of a binding decision without formal objections. The court held that where parties voluntarily agree to be bound by the findings of a person, that person functions as a referee rather than a mere Local Commissioner, and the resulting contract, once acted upon, is fully enforceable and cannot be retracted from after the report is submitted. The key principle laid down is that the legal character of an investigator appointed by a court is determined by the binding nature of the agreement between the parties, and a report made pursuant to an agreement to be bound is treated as a referee's verdict.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person appointed as a Local Commissioner acts as a referee when the parties agree to be bound by their findings?
  • Can a party retract from an agreement to abide by the report of a referee after the report has been submitted and acted upon?
  • Is a trial court competent to dismiss a suit based on the report of a referee agreed upon by the counsel and parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq and Another vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 989 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and Another vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1206 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Murree Brewery Co. Ltd., Rawalpindi vs Province of West Pakistan And 4 Others1981 PLD Lahore 640 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain vs Muhammad Shafi and Another1981 CLC 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-04
  lis pendenspre-emptiondeclaratory decreeconfession of judgmenttransfer of propertypending suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal and a civil revision arising from conflicting decrees regarding land ownership and pre-emption rights. The core legal question was whether a declaratory decree, obtained by the appellants through a confession of judgment by the vendee during the pendency of a pre-emption suit, was void under the doctrine of lis pendens. The court held that the declaratory decree was indeed hit by the principle of lis pendens as codified in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court reasoned that by confessing judgment in the declaratory suit, the vendee had 'dealt with' the property in a manner that adversely affected the pre-emption rights of the respondent, thereby attempting to defeat the pre-emption claim. The court affirmed that the doctrine of lis pendens applies not only to transfers of property but to any dealing with the property that prejudices the rights of a party to a pending suit. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and revision, upholding the lower appellate court's decision to strike down the declaratory decree as legally ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to a confession of judgment that adversely affects a pending pre-emption suit?
  • Can a declaratory decree obtained during the pendency of a pre-emption suit be considered void if it defeats the pre-emptive rights of the plaintiff?
  • Does the term 'dealt with' in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 extend beyond the physical transfer of property?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Another1981 PLD Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-10Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 906 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 974 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muktada Karim and Other vs Government of Pakista1rnd Another1981 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Begum vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Hussain vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1245 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAIAKRAM's vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 219 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar vs Mst. Kamal Fatima and Another1981 PLD Lahore 732 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusaf and 3 Others vs Hakim Ali and Another1981 CLC 200 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-16Read full judgment →
• Naeem Ahmad vs Mst. Nuzhat Almas and 2 Others1981 CLC 195 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03
  family court jurisdictionnon-muslim dowernikahnamadower recoveryconstitutional petitionquestion of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition against the judgment and decree of the Family Court directing him to pay a dower amount of Rs. 20,000 to respondent No. 1. The core legal questions involved whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 applies to non-Muslims such as Qadianis, and whether oral evidence is admissible to contradict the dower amount expressly stated in an admitted Nikahnama. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 applies equally to Muslims and non-Muslims, and that once the execution of the Nikahnama is admitted, no evidence contrary to its written terms regarding the dower amount can be led. The court laid down the principle that Family Courts possess jurisdiction over non-Muslim family disputes unless expressly barred, and that documentary evidence of dower in an admitted Nikahnama cannot be altered by oral testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is applicable to non-Muslims?
  • Does a Family Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate family suits involving Qadianis declared as non-Muslims?
  • Can oral evidence be led to contradict the dower amount recorded in an admitted Nikahnama?
  • Can a finding of fact regarding the fixation of dower be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →