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.

• Kaura vs Mst Mans Ab Mai and Another1981 PLD Lahore 335 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12
  dissolution of marriageKhulahatred and aversionfamily courtappellate jurisdictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an appellate judgment by the Additional District Judge, which reversed a Family Court decision and granted a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula. The respondent had previously filed multiple unsuccessful suits for dissolution of marriage, and in the instant case, the Family Court dismissed her suit after deciding all issues against her. On appeal, the Additional District Judge granted the decree based on the existence of hatred and aversion, relying on precedent. However, the petitioner argued that the respondent had abandoned her specific allegations of cruelty, misappropriation of property, and false accusations of adultery during the appellate proceedings. The High Court held that the appellate court erred by granting Khula without any evidentiary basis. The Court emphasized that mere separation or the filing of multiple suits does not automatically establish the 'hatred and aversion' required for Khula. To obtain such a decree, the wife must provide sufficient material on record to prove that she cannot live within the limits of God, which was absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere filing of multiple suits for dissolution of marriage by a wife constitute sufficient proof of hatred and aversion to justify a decree of Khula?
  • Can an appellate court grant a decree of Khula based on hatred and aversion when the wife has abandoned her specific allegations of cruelty and misconduct?
  • Is a wife entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula if she has stayed away from her husband without proving a reasonable cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh and 6 Others vs Central Government and 6 Others1981 CLC 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Akbar and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1092 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-22Read full judgment →
• Kalay Khan vs Jamia Masjid Akse Jamil1981 CLC 921 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• Kala vs The State- Respondent1981 P Cr. L J 472 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
• Jehan Khan Etc. vs Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi1981 CLC 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-05
  land reformsgift mutationFederal Land Commissionsuo motu powersconstitutional petitionagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Federal Land Commission, invalidating a gift mutation of agricultural land made by the predecessor-in-interest in favour of his sons. The core legal question concerns whether the validity of a gift made in favour of heirs between 1-3-1967 and 19-12-1971 could be questioned by the Commission under paragraph 7(1)(b) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The Lahore High Court held that transfers by way of gift made in favour of heirs within the specified period are immune from having their bona fides determined by the Commission. The key principle laid down is that bona fide gifts made in favour of heirs prior to the cut-off date are protected under the provisos to paragraph 7(1)(b) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and cannot be declared void by the Federal Land Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the validity of a gift made in favour of heirs before 20-12-1971 could be questioned by the Commission under paragraph 7(1)(b) of Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
  • Are transfers of land by way of gift made in favour of heirs falling within the period 1-3-1967 to 19-3-1971 immune from having their bona fides determined by the Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmad and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 160 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
• Javaid Khan vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 756 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-04Read full judgment →
• Javaid Dastgir Mirza vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 246 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
• Jamshaid and Others vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1102 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
• James Ilyas Masih vs Punjab Local Councils Election Authority, Lahore and 3 Others1981 CLC 237 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jalal vs Ashfaq Etc1981 P Cr. L J 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-07Read full judgment →
• J. M. Effendi vs Pakistan Railway Board and Another, . (1981 PLC (C. S.) 568 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
• Islamuddin vs Deputy Director of Education1981 PLC (C. S.) 843 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah and Another vs Noor Ahmad1981 CLC 1845 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Etc. vs Member, Board of Revenue Etc.1981 CLC 823 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
• Hussain vs Rajab Ali1981 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-19
  summary suitleave to defendnegotiable instrumentconditional leavepresumption of considerationcivil revisiondiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit based on a pronote, where the defendant sought leave to defend, alleging the instrument lacked consideration and was executed as security for 'Watta' marriages. The trial court, while noting the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act, found the defense vague but nonetheless granted conditional leave to defend upon the deposit of Rs. 20,000. The petitioner challenged this condition as contradictory and excessive. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were indeed self-contradictory, as the defense lacked sufficient substance to warrant leave under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. However, the Court affirmed that once a trial court exercises its discretion to grant conditional leave, it possesses the jurisdiction to impose conditions, including the deposit of the suit amount. The Court emphasized that trial judges must strictly verify whether a case genuinely falls under the requirements of Order XXXVII, Rule 3 before granting leave to defend, and dismissed the revision petition as the petitioner had no valid grievance against a conditional concession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 apply to a suit based on a pronote?
  • Can a court impose conditions, such as a monetary deposit, when granting leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a revision petition competent against the exercise of judicial discretion in imposing conditions for leave to defend?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bakhsh vs Muhammad Arshad and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 1298 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Hayat Ali and Another vs Ghazan (Reprenented by His Heirs)1981 CLC 456 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07
  pre-emptiongift deeddisguised salepassing of considerationcircumstantial evidenceregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption filed by the appellants regarding land transferred by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 via a registered gift deed. The plaintiffs asserted that the transaction was fraudulently disguised as a gift to defeat their pre-emptive rights and was in reality a sale for consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the transaction to be a sale, but the District Judge reversed this judgment on appeal, holding that the appellants failed to establish the passing of monetary consideration. Re-evaluating the evidence and circumstantial factors, the Lahore High Court found no evidence of services rendered by the alleged donee to justify a gift. The Court held that in appropriate cases, courts can look at surrounding circumstances to determine the true nature of a transaction and hold a ostensible gift to be a sale, even without direct proof of monetary consideration passing. The appeal was accepted, restoring the trial court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court determine an ostensible gift to be a sale for the purpose of pre-emption based on surrounding circumstances without direct proof of passing of consideration?
  • Whether alleged past services form sufficient consideration to uphold a transaction as a valid gift against a claim of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Mahmood and Others vs Federal Land Commission1981 CLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
• Hashwani Hotels Ltd., Karachi vs Government of the Punjab and Another1981 PLD Lahore 211 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• Hasan Muhammad vs Jan Muhammad and 5 OtherPLD 1981. Lahore 132. · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs Taj Mehmud and Othfrs1981 CLC 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Afzal vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-03Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs Muhammad Amin and 2 Others1981 CLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Sikandar vs Khan Muhammad1981 CLC 1527 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Rani and 2 Others1981 CLC 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sarfaraz Ali vs Muhammad Ashraf and 3 Others1981 CLC 987 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ismail vs Judge, Family Court, Jhang and Another1981 CLC 243 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Faiz Ahmad and 9 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 628 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
• Haider vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 809 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Haider Hussain Mirza vs Government of Pakistan Ere.1981 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Mustajab Ahmad vs Mst. Aziz Fatima and Another1981 PLD Lahore 583 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
• Hafeezurrehman vs The Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt.1981 CLC 185 · Lahore High Court
  ejectmentAdditional Rent Controllerjurisdictionde facto doctrinepublic interest protectionwrit petitioncollateral attack
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a tenant's writ petition challenging concurrent orders of ejectment passed by the Additional Rent Controller and affirmed by the District Judge. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Additional Rent Controller appointed under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, in light of the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and whether the eviction of a government servant teacher would be detrimental to the public interest under section 22 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The court held that the Central Government is empowered to appoint an Additional Controller of rents, that the challenge to the officer's authority amounted to a collateral attack which cannot be entertained without impleading the government, and that the de facto doctrine protects official acts from collateral invalidation. Furthermore, the assessment of whether an eviction is detrimental to the public interest is a question of fact left to the courts below. The petition was accordingly dismissed, laying down principles regarding the de facto doctrine in collateral proceedings and the scope of writ jurisdiction over concurrent factual findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Central Government has the legal power to appoint an Additional Rent Controller under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Can the title or authority of a public officer be challenged collaterally in rent proceedings without impleading the government and through a writ of quo warranto?
  • Does the de facto doctrine validate official acts done under colour of right to prevent public inconvenience?
  • Whether the eviction of a government servant who is a teacher by profession constitutes an eviction detrimental to the public interest under section 22 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Muhammad Amjad and 4 Others1981 CLC 109 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqil Khan vs Falak Sher1981 CLC 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Sultan vs Allah Ditta Etc.1981 CLC 1715 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
• Gulistan vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 515 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
• Gulab Shah Appellant vs Ghulam Hussain Shah1981 CLC 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi, and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 468 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Shah and Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 830 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad vs Muhammad Shafi and 3 Others1981 CLC 389 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and 4 Other vs Abdullah and 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 364 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Chairman, Selection Board, Principal, King1981 CLC 274 · Lahore High Court
  medical college admissionN.C.C. training marksmerit determinationadministrative delayconstitutional petitionselection criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought admission to a medical college, claiming entitlement to 20 additional marks for National Cadet Corps (N.C.C.) training under the National Cadet Corps and Women Guards Act, 1973. Although the petitioner submitted an initial certificate with his application, authorities rejected his claim because the formal certificate was produced after the application deadline. The core legal question was whether a candidate should be penalized for the late issuance of a formal certificate when the underlying qualification was completed in time and evidence was produced before the final selection process. The Court held that merit must be determined based on facts existing at the relevant time of selection, not merely the date of application. It ruled that a candidate cannot be deprived of rights due to administrative delays in issuing certifications. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the authorities to grant the petitioner admission, noting that technicalities should not override substantive merit when the candidate has fulfilled the underlying requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Should merit for medical college admission be determined at the time of application or at the time of final selection?
  • Can a candidate be denied N.C.C. marks for late submission of a certificate if the training was completed before the deadline?
  • Does the late issuance of a formal certificate by authorities justify the exclusion of a candidate from admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Returning Officer, Kamoke and 2 Others1981 CLC 234 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-19
  quo warrantodisqualificationdepot-holderlocal government electionconstitutional jurisdictiondiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged the order of a learned Single Judge who allowed a writ petition and declared the appellant's election as a Member and Chairman of a Municipal Committee to be without lawful authority due to his disqualification as a depot-holder on the date of the election. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto when the appellant's temporary disqualification had been removed subsequent to the election via resignation, and an election petition was also pending. The Lahore High Court held that although the appellant was disqualified on the relevant date of election, the disqualification was temporary and had been removed prior to the challenge, and in light of relevant precedents and the need for consistency in judicial decisions, the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge was improper. The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the writ petition dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person disqualified as a depot-holder on the date of election can retain office if the disqualification is removed subsequent to the election by resignation?
  • Can a voter file a constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto against the election of a member when an election petition is also pending?
  • Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction to unseat a member whose temporary disqualification has been cured before the final determination of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Khan vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue and Others1981 CLC 804 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 634 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir and 6 Others vs Hidayat and 2 Others1981 CLC 3 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 173 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
• Feroze vs Lal and 3 Others1981 CLC 11 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-05Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan and 2 Others vs Muhammad Hanif1981 CLC 130 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15
  dismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of appealadministration of justicerevisional jurisdictionprocedural technicalitiesdecision on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution by the District Judge, Lahore. The petitioners had filed an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, which was dismissed after their counsel failed to appear on the scheduled date due to an inadvertent diary entry error. The petitioners' subsequent application for restoration under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was rejected by the District Judge. The core legal question was whether an appeal should be dismissed for default when the court could otherwise decide the matter on merits. The High Court held that procedural rules exist to facilitate the administration of justice, not to stifle it on technicalities. Emphasizing that the rendition of justice is a solemn duty rather than an act of grace, the Court ruled that where an appeal is ready for decision based on existing evidence, it should be decided on merits rather than dismissed for default. The revision was accepted, the dismissal order set aside, and the case remanded to the District Judge for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Should an appellate court dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution when the record is sufficient to decide the matter on merits?
  • Is an inadvertent failure to enter a hearing date in a diary a sufficient ground for the restoration of an appeal?
  • Are procedural rules in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 intended to be subordinate to the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 474 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ahmad (Represented by His Heirs) vs Custodian, Evacuee1981 CLC 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
• Faujdar and 16 Others vs Bata Shoe Co. Ltd., Lahore1981 CLC 769 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Ties State1981 PLD Lahore 403 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Khushhal Muhammad1981 CLC 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-24
  civil revisionfraudulent decreeretrospective operationprocedural statutejurisdictionbar of separate suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil revision against the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing his application to abate a separate suit filed by the respondent. The respondent had instituted the suit to challenge a previous consent decree on the ground of fraud, prior to the insertion of subsection (2) into section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that challenges to judgments on grounds of fraud must be made via an application to the same court rather than a separate suit. The core legal question was whether the procedural amendment regarding forum and remedy should be applied retroactively to pending suits. The Lahore High Court held that although procedural statutes generally operate retroactively, they will not be given retrospective effect if doing so causes inconvenience, injustice, or detriment to the parties, especially where significant headway has already been made in the pending suit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendment introducing subsection (2) to section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies retroactively to pending suits?
  • Will a procedural statute be given retrospective effect if it causes inconvenience or detriment to the parties involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 3 Other vs The StatePLD 1981 Lah.85 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and 37 Other vs Sh. Muhammad Rashid, Chairman, Federal Land Commission and Another1981 PLD Lahore 159 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-20
  Land Reforms Regulationsuo motu revisionjudicial biasstatutory interpretationvalidating ordinanceFederal Land Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order passed by the Chairman, Federal Land Commission, regarding land reforms. The petitioners contested the Chairman's jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional powers, alleged bias due to political speeches, argued that the Chairman could not sit singly under the notification authorizing "Chairman and Members," and contended that the order was not validated by subsequent legislation. The Court held that the Chairman validly exercised suo motu jurisdiction, as the information received justified the action. Regarding bias, the Court established that mere suspicion is insufficient; a "real likelihood" of bias must be proven, which was not established here. Furthermore, the Court interpreted the notification phrase "Chairman and Members" disjunctively as "Chairman or Members" to avoid absurdity, confirming the Chairman's authority to sit singly. Finally, the Court ruled that the impugned order was expressly validated by Ordinance XXIX of 1978. The key principle laid down is that statutory interpretation must avoid absurdity, and allegations of bias require proof of real likelihood rather than mere suspicion.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chairman of the Federal Land Commission exercise revisional powers suo motu?
  • Does the phrase 'Chairman and Members' in a notification authorize the Chairman to sit singly?
  • Is a mere suspicion of bias sufficient to disqualify a quasi-judicial authority from deciding a matter?
  • Can a validating ordinance cure orders that were allegedly passed without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Farid vs Nizam Din and 4 Others1981 CLC 810 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
• Farid Etc. vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 589 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-08Read full judgment →
• Farhat Abbas vs Muhammad Shah and 3 Others1981 CLC 188 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher and Another vs The State1981 PLD Lahore 143 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-10Read full judgment →
• Elahi and 5 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ehtashamul Haq vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 324 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-06Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad Shah vs Akbar Hussain Shah (Represented by Legal1981 CLC 783 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and 2 Other vs The State1981 PLD Lahore 633 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
• Dewan Ghulam Qutabuddin and 2 Other vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab and Another1981 PLD Lahore 722 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-19Read full judgment →
• Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Lahore vs A. R.1981 CLC 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-16
  locus standievacuee trust propertywrit jurisdictionrevenue recordaggrieved personconstitutional jurisdictiontrust creation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Federal Government in revisional jurisdiction under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, which set aside a finding that a specific property was evacuee trust property. The core legal questions concerned the locus standi of the Deputy Administrator to file a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether mere revenue record entries are sufficient to establish the existence of a trust. The Court held that the Deputy Administrator lacks locus standi as the Evacuee Trust Property Board is the statutory corporate body vested with control. Furthermore, the Court held that entries in the Record-of-Rights are not documents of title and are insufficient to prove a trust without evidence regarding the author, intention, purpose, property, and beneficiaries. Finally, the Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to correct mere errors of fact or law by a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Administrator have the locus standi to file a writ petition as an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a mere entry in the revenue record sufficient to establish the existence of a trust?
  • Can a court interfere in the decision of a tribunal acting within its jurisdiction merely because the decision contains an error of fact or law?
  Read full judgment →
• Cotton Trading Corporation (Pakistan), Faisalabad vs Rana Shabbir1981 PLC 984 · Lahore High Court
  workmanretrenchmentappellate jurisdictionclerical dutiesbeneficial constructionlabour dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an employer challenging the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that the respondent was a workman and that his services were terminated in violation of the principles of retrenchment. The petitioner raised two primary contentions: first, that the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the remedy under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 only incorporates Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 and not the right of appeal under Section 37; and second, that the respondent was not a workman as he was the highest officer in his unit. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that where two concurrent remedies are available, the one more beneficial to the aggrieved party—which includes the right of appeal—must be preferred. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the status of a 'workman' is determined by the actual nature of the duties performed (clerical tabulation of data) rather than the employee's designation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can avail the right of appeal under Section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 when seeking relief under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Should a more beneficial legal remedy that provides a right of appeal be preferred over a remedy that restricts or shuts out such an appeal?
  • Is the designation of an employee or the actual nature of their duties the determining factor in establishing whether they qualify as a 'workman'?
  Read full judgment →
• Chan Pir Shah vs Congothene Chemical Industries Ltd. Etc., .(1981 PLC 981 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-05
  industrial disputemisconductgo-slowdismissal from servicelabour unionwrit petitionextraneous considerations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, founder and President of a labour union, challenged his dismissal from service through a constitutional writ petition after his departmental appeals under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 were dismissed by the Junior Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Court. The petitioner faced three charges of misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and was dismissed upon all three being found proven. The core legal question was whether the specific allegations leveled against the petitioner constituted 'misconduct' under the relevant statutory provisions and whether a dismissal based partly on non-misconduct charges is sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that two of the three charges did not amount to misconduct under the law—one failing to satisfy the definition of habitual negligence and the other lacking proof of an actual 'go-slow' output reduction. Consequently, because extraneous and non-misconduct charges influenced the dismissal, the entire order was vitiated. The Court ruled that the dismissal was without lawful authority, declared the petitioner to still be in service, and set aside the lower tribunal orders.

  Questions settled

  • Does instigating workers without an actual reduction in normal output constitute 'go-slow' misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Whether a dismissal order based on multiple charges is vitiated when some of those charges do not amount to misconduct under the law?
  • Does an employee roaming about inside the workshop and offices while holding a union office amount to habitual negligence or neglect of work?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Qadir Bak HSH vs Accountant-General, Province of the Punjab1981 PLC (C. S.) 573 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hussain vs Election Tribunal and Other1981 PLD Lahore 374 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mehraj Din vs Msi. Zohra Begum (Represented by Her Heirs) and Other1981 PLD Lahore 451 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Khushi Muhammad vs Government of Punjab and Another1981 CLC 392 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Ali vs Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore1981 PLD Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-04
  arms licencecancellation of licencesecurity of public peaceexecutive discretionWest Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965alternative remedyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the District Magistrate, Sheikhupura, and affirmed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, cancelling the petitioner's arms licences for a revolver and shot-gun under Section 12(1)(a) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The cancellation was based on allegations of delayed renewal and alleged record tampering by a postal official, alongside a generalized assertion that keeping the weapons threatened public peace. The core legal questions were whether an arms licence can be cancelled on subjective assumptions without material connecting the holder's conduct to public peace risks, and whether the pendency of a departmental appeal precludes constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court declared the cancellation orders to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court held that while granting a licence is an executive privilege, its revocation imposes a penalty requiring strict adherence to statutory procedure. Executive discretion under Section 12 is not absolute; cancellation must be founded upon objective material demonstrably related to public peace security rather than arbitrary executive satisfaction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arms licence be cancelled under Section 12 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 without objective material showing a threat to public peace?
  • Does the revocation or cancellation of an existing licence constitute a penalty requiring strict compliance with statutory procedure?
  • Is the discretion vested in an executive authority to cancel a licence absolute or circumscribed by the statutory purpose?
  • Does the pendency of an administrative appeal preclude the High Court from exercising constitutional jurisdiction when the alternative remedy is ineffectual?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Atta Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 55 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• Capital Development Authority vs Ch. Abdul Majid Farooqi Em1981 PLD Lahore 341 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-29Read full judgment →
• Buland Khan vs Chiragh Din and 3 OTHERs1981 CLC 249 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-29Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and Another vs Akhtar Brothers1981 CLC 221 · Lahore High Court
  arbitration actstep in the proceedingsstay of suitrevision petitionconversion of revision to appealwritten statement
  Summary & questions settled

  A civil suit for recovery was filed against the petitioner, who subsequently applied under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings based on an arbitration agreement. The trial court dismissed the application, and the petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Judge, which was held to be not maintainable and dismissed on merits. The Lahore High Court examined whether the District Judge was justified in refusing to convert the revision petition into an appeal and whether obtaining an adjournment to file a written statement constituted a 'step in the proceedings' under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court held that while a revision petition filed within limitation and properly stamped should generally be allowed to be converted into an appeal, the petitioner had indeed taken a step in the proceedings by seeking time to file a written statement, which displayed an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit rather than arbitrate. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether obtaining an adjournment to file a written statement amounts to a step in the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Can a revision petition filed within the period of limitation for an appeal be permitted to be converted into an appeal?
  • What is the true test for determining whether an act constitutes a step in the proceedings in an arbitration matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Mussarat Shaukat Hayat Khan Appellant vs Maqbool Ahmad1981 CLC 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-06Read full judgment →
• Begum Anwar Sultana vs A. B. M. Associates Ltd., Faisalabad and 21981 PLD Lahore 322 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Muhammad Bashirmuhammad Nazir & Co.1981 CLC 689 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
• Basharat vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 627 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-18Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Etc. vs Muhammad Yaqub1981 CLC 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali and 3 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 274 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Barkaat Ahmad vs Said Akbar and 2 Others---1981 P Cr. L J 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
• Bakhsha and 5 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 523 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-22Read full judgment →
• Azmat vs The State----1981 P Cr. L J 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad and 2 Others vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 964 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain vs Chartered Bank, Faisalabad and 17 OTHERs1981 CLC 516 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-19
  civil revisionSpecial CourtBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinancerevisional jurisdictioninterlocutory orderssubordinate courtspecial lawCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision and two connected petitions challenge interlocutory orders passed by a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, while exercising civil jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the High Court can entertain a civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against interlocutory orders of a Special Court. The Lahore High Court held that a Special Court is a court of special jurisdiction and is not a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 3 and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the explicit provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance—read with section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure—bar any challenge to interlocutory orders and preclude the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that special laws governing tribunals with exclusive jurisdictions override general procedural provisions, and interlocutory orders of Special Courts cannot be subjected to revisional scrutiny by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders passed by a Special Court in view of sections 11 and 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Do the provisions of a special law override general procedural laws regarding the maintainability of civil revisions?
  • Are interlocutory orders of a Special Court open to challenge before any court prior to the final determination of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam S. Suhrawardy, Advocate vs M. H. Hanfi and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 1143 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-20Read full judgment →
• Attock Oil Company vs Senior Member, National Industrial Relations1981 PLC 865 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-08Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad and Another vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
• Athar Rehman vs Muhammad Latif Tahir Etc1981 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08
  quo warrantolocal government electiondepot holderdisqualificationlocus standilachespre-existing disqualificationthrown away votes
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition in the nature of quo warranto challenged the election of the respondent as a member of the Town Committee on the ground that he was a depot-holder and thus disqualified. The respondent argued that an alternate remedy existed under Section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, that the petitioner lacked locus standi, and that the petition was barred by laches. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition, holding that Section 29 applies only to post-election disqualifications and does not bar a writ of quo warranto for pre-existing disqualifications. The Court ruled that any resident of the relevant local area has locus standi to initiate quo warranto proceedings without demonstrating a personal interest, and that mere delay or the existence of an official election notification does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction. Confirming that depot-holders are disqualified under Section 21(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the Court declared the respondent's election void and ordered a fresh election, noting that votes cast for a disqualified candidate cannot be treated as thrown away.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-existing disqualification of an elected candidate can be challenged through a writ of quo warranto despite the statutory remedy under Section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a resident of a local area have locus standi to file a petition for quo warranto challenging a local government election without showing a personal interest?
  • Can a petition for quo warranto be dismissed solely on the ground of delay or laches?
  • Whether the votes cast in favor of a disqualified candidate are treated as thrown away, thereby allowing the runner-up to be declared elected?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs Mst. Sahib Khatoon and Another1981 CLC 565 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
• Aslam Khan Khattak and Others vs Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation and Others1981 CLC 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Maseeh and Another vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 656 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
• Asghar and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 387 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State1981 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →