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.

• Anjumane Hussainia (Regd.), Samberial vs District Magistrate, Sialkot1981 PLD Lahore 757 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-17Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Insarul Islam vs Ghulam Qadir Etc.1981 PLD Lahore 737 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• Amir Etc. vs The State----1981 P Cr. L J 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-05Read full judgment →
• Amir Begum vs Rab Nawaz and Another1981 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
• Amin Abdullar vs Commissioner, Sargodha Division Etc.1981 CLC 680 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-23Read full judgment →
• Ameeruddin vs Ahmad1981 CLC 610 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 100 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-10Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain and Another vs Ghulam Muhammad1981 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State1981 PLD Lahore 651 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and 7 Others vs Tehsildar/A. C. 1st Grade. Khanpur Etc.1981 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-12
  pre-emption decreesanction of mutationlimitation for executionvesting of titlepre-emption money depositconstitutional petitionalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by a Tehsildar/Assistant Collector First Grade rejecting applications for sanction of revenue mutations based on pre-emption decrees. The Revenue Officer refused sanction on the ground that the petitioners had not filed execution applications within the period of limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act 1908 read with Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court addressed whether the expiry of limitation for executing a pre-emption decree extinguishes the decree-holder's title or prevents sanctioning of revenue mutation. Accepting the petition, the High Court held that under Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, title in the pre-empted property vests in the decree-holder upon timely deposit of the pre-emption money. The court declared that Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only to suits for possession, not execution applications. Consequently, non-execution within limitation does not deprive a validly deposited pre-emption decree of its utility or extinguish ownership rights, making the Revenue Officer's refusal illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the title in pre-empted property vest in a decree-holder upon timely deposit of pre-emption money under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the expiry of the limitation period for executing a pre-emption decree extinguish the owner's title under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a Revenue Officer refuse to sanction a revenue mutation based on a pre-emption decree solely because the decree was not executed within the limitation period?
  • Does the existence of an statutory appeal under the Land Revenue Act bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction if the remedy is not equally convenient or effective?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Aslam Etc.1981 P Cr. L J 803 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Aziz Din1981 PLD Lahore 508 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-11
  dismissal in defaultrestoration of suitdate of hearingadministrative ordernotice pairvivoid ab initioremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose out of a pre-emption suit where the trial Court dismissed the suit for default of plaintiff's appearance under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Following an interlocutory appeal before the District Judge, the record had returned to the trial Court, which issued a 'notice pairvi' for the defendant and counsel to appear on 8th September 1973. On that date, plaintiff failed to appear and the suit was dismissed in default, with subsequent restoration applications and appeals being unsuccessful. The core question was whether a suit can be dismissed for default under Order IX on a date that was fixed merely for administrative purposes to determine future progress rather than for regular hearing. The Lahore High Court held that 'hearing' involves the investigation of a controversy. Since the date was fixed merely to pass administrative orders for scheduling future proceedings, the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the suit in default. The dismissal order was declared void ab initio and a nullity, and the suit was remanded for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court has jurisdiction under Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to dismiss a suit in default on a date fixed solely for administrative steps or future progress rather than for hearing?
  • What constitutes a 'hearing' of a suit for the purposes of invoking default dismissal provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an order dismissing a suit for non-appearance on a date not fixed for hearing void ab initio and a nullity in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Muhammad Bakhsh1981 CLC 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad and 4 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 46 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Muhammad Hanif1981 PLD Lahore 502 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Raider vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-04
  retracted confessioncircumstantial evidencefire-arms expert reportcriminal appealmurder convictionrecovery evidenceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellant was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of a retracted confession and the reliability of circumstantial evidence, specifically the recovery of a weapon and the subsequent forensic report. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the retracted confession uncorroborated and the recovery of the weapon suspicious, particularly noting the delay and procedural irregularities in sending the weapon and bullet to the Fire-arms Expert. The court acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that while the law allows expert reports to be admitted as evidence without the expert's personal testimony, such reports, when unsupported by reasons, cannot satisfy the judicial conscience. The key principle laid down is that the court may refuse to rely on an expert's opinion if it is unsupported by reasoning, especially when the guilt of the accused turns entirely on that analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confession be acted upon without corroboration from other circumstances of the case?
  • Does the court have the discretion to disregard an expert report admitted under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it lacks supporting reasoning?
  • Is the recovery of an incriminating weapon reliable when the investigating officer delays sending the weapon and the crime bullet to the expert?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State----1981 P Cr. L J 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and Another vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 470 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar Hussain Shah and Others vs Pehlwan Shah and Another1981 CLC 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-05Read full judgment →
• Alamgir and 8 Others vs Nasir Ali and 8 Others1981 CLC 375 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• Al3DUL Sattar vs Muhammad Khan Etc.1981 CLC 791 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-04Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Iqbal vs Government of Punjab Etc.1981 CLC 916 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Superintendent of Police, Sargodha and 3 Others , .1981 PLC 529 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Ahangoo Khan Etc.1981 CLC 971 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 505 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali Sheikh and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 937 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-05Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs District Judge, Sargodha and 2 Others1981 CLC 539 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
• Akbar and 3 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 850 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Zaman Khan vs Settlement Commissioner, Multan Etc.1981 CLC 1641 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmadullah vs Mst. Hafeez Akhtar1981 CLC 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar and Another vs Muhammad Aslam1981 CLC 527 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-01
  pre-emptiongift deeddelivery of possessionimprovement of statusdevice versus disguiserevisional jurisdictionlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought revision of an appellate court judgment that had decreed pre-emption suits against them. The petitioners had purchased land and, prior to the institution of the pre-emption suit, acquired one kanal of land via a registered gift deed from their brother-in-law to improve their status and defeat the pre-emptor. The appellate court had set aside the trial court's dismissal of the suits, holding the gift was actually a sale due to non-delivery of possession. The High Court first converted the regular second appeal into a revision petition under Section 102(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the suit value was below the statutory threshold. On the merits, the High Court held that a stranger to a gift transaction lacks locus standi to challenge its validity on the ground of non-delivery of possession when the donor supports the gift. Furthermore, the Court distinguished between a disguise and a device, ruling that adopting a legitimate legal device to defeat a pre-emptor's right is permissible. The revision petitions were accepted, and the trial court's dismissal was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a stranger to a gift transaction challenge its validity on the ground of non-delivery of possession when the donor supports the gift?
  • What is the legal distinction between a disguise and a device used to defeat a pre-emptor's right?
  • Is a second appeal competent under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the jurisdictional value of the suit property is below the statutory threshold?
  • Can a vendee legitimately improve their status to defeat a pre-emptor's right prior to the institution of a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 210 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs Mst. Fateh Etc.1981 CLC 43 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11
  ancestral propertycustomary lawlimitation periodvoid vs voidable alienationdeclaratory suitreversionary rightspossession suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for possession of ancestral land, originally filed by the appellants challenging a gift made by a widow, Mst. Bakhan, to her daughters. The trial court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court dismissed it, ruling the claim time-barred under the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920. The core legal question is whether the suit, filed for possession without seeking a prior declaration, was governed by the general law of limitation following the repeal of the Punjab Act I of 1920, and whether the alienation by the widow was void or voidable. The Court held that while the general law of limitation applies after the repeal of the Punjab Act I of 1920, the alienation by the widow was voidable, not void. Consequently, the appellant was required to seek a declaration of rights within the statutory period. Having failed to do so, the suit for possession was time-barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The principle established is that a suit for possession involving a voidable alienation requires a prior declaratory suit to remove the cloud on the title.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act 1920 render the general law of limitation applicable to pending suits?
  • Is an alienation of ancestral property by a widow under custom void or voidable?
  • Can a plaintiff sue for possession of property without first seeking a declaration to set aside a voidable alienation?
  • Does the law of limitation in force at the time of the institution of a suit govern the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Shafqat Hussain and Others vs The State and Others---1981 P Cr. L J 572 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdus Samad and Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 622 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The Judge, Family Court, Gujranwala and Another1981 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-19
  khuladissolution of marriagereturn of benefitsdowercrueltyfamily courtwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a writ petition filed by a husband challenging a decree of dissolution of marriage granted on the ground of khula by the Family Court. The husband contended that no proper ground for khula was established and that the Family Court failed to order the return of benefits received by the wife. The Lahore High Court held that a wife is entitled to khula as a right if she satisfies the conscience of the court that a hateful union would otherwise be forced upon her, and she is not required to prove objective or reasonable causes for her aversion. Regarding the return of benefits, the court ruled that it is the duty of the court to ascertain from the evidence what benefits were conferred by the husband in consideration of the marriage, but since the husband failed to plead or prove specific benefits conferred by him, and the wife relinquished her claim for maintenance and dower, the decree of the Family Court was legally sound. The petition was consequently dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula is required to establish objective reasons or reasonable cause for her aversion?
  • Is it mandatory for the Family Court to ascertain and order the return of benefits received by the wife in consideration of marriage when granting khula?
  • Can a husband demand more than the return of dower in a case of separation by khula?
  • What constitutes sufficient compensation to the husband when a decree for khula is granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Sh. Abdur Rashid1981 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Abdur Rashid Alias Arshad and Another1981 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahman vs Ghulam Farid1981 PLD Lahore 348 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 8 Other vs Bashiran Bibi and 4 Other1981 PLD Lahore 336 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-24
  specific performanceOrder XXIII Rule 1withdrawal of suitbona fide purchasersecond appealconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of agricultural land filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The vendor defendant had sold the disputed land to the appellants, who claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed the decision. Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the suit was barred under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because the plaintiff had previously instituted another suit on the same cause of action which was withdrawn without court permission. They also challenged the concurrent findings of fact regarding their status as bona fide purchasers. The High Court held that Order XXIII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies only to suits instituted after the withdrawal or abandonment of a previous suit, and does not bar a suit instituted prior to such withdrawal. Further, as the concurrent finding of fact regarding bona fide purchase was not shown to suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a second suit if it was instituted before the previously filed suit was withdrawn without court permission?
  • Can a concurrent finding of fact on whether a party is a bona fide purchaser for value be disturbed in a second appeal without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakur and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs The State-Responder1981 P Cr. L J 243 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Kareem Bakhsh1981 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1107 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Khan vs Election Tribunal/District and Sessions Judge,1981 CLC 1047 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Allah Ditta1981 P Cr. L J 294 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and 7 Others vs Muhammad Aslam1981 CLC 20 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-29
  rent restrictionejectmentreconstructionbona fide requirementadmissibility of evidencesanctioned building planpublic documentquasi-judicial proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by landlords against a tenant for the reconstruction of shops. The core legal question is whether a building plan sanctioned by a municipal authority is admissible in evidence in proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the landlords established a bona fide requirement for reconstruction. The Rent Controller and the lower appellate court had dismissed the application, holding that the sanctioned plan was not proved in accordance with law. The High Court held that proceedings before a Rent Controller are in the nature of an inquiry where the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Evidence Act, 1872, do not apply in strict sense, and the Rent Controller does not act as a court. Consequently, the strict rules of evidence do not apply to the production of a sanctioned building plan, which is a public document. The court further held that the landlords demonstrated good faith by keeping other shops vacant to facilitate the reconstruction project. The court set aside the lower orders and directed the tenant to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Do the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Evidence Act, 1872, apply in strict sense to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Is a building plan sanctioned by a Municipal Committee or Corporation considered a public document?
  • Does a Rent Controller act as a court while performing functions under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a landlord's requirement for reconstruction be considered bona fide if they have kept other portions of the same property vacant for that purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 227 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Dar vs Maryam Zamani and Others1981 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Muhammad Afsar and 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 480 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs The Collector, Faisalabad and Another1981 CLC 26 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid and 2 Arms vs Mst. Khurshid Bibi1981 PLD Lahore 500 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Sultan Ali and 4 OTHERSs1981 P Cr. L J 868 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi vs Mst. Nayara Siddiqi1981 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Rana Rehmat Ali Khan and Others1981 CLC 1710 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Etc vs Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rahimyarkhan and1981 PLD Lahore 457 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul and 4 Other vs Khushi Muhammad and 4 Other1981 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. Rahimyar Khan vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Multan And' Another1981 CLC 56 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-18Read full judgment →
• Abbas vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 541 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
• Zulqarnain Malik vs Province of Punjab and Others1980 CLC 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ziaul Hassan and 3 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 531 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
• Zahoorulhaq and Another vs Syed Hazoor Shah and Others1980 CLC 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed Qureshi vs Syed Ijaz Ali Rizvi Etc.1980 CLC 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
• Zahid Mahmood and Another vs Mst. Rehana1980 CLC 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
• Yaqub and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 556 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14
  murderocular testimonymitigating circumstancesbenefit of doubtinterested witnesscapital punishmentfalsus in uno falsus in omnibus
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the convictions and sentences of three appellants for the murder of Amir Khan under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had sentenced two appellants to death and one to life imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from interested witnesses and the appropriate sentencing in cases involving retaliatory killings. The Lahore High Court held that the testimony of closely related witnesses required independent corroboration, which was absent, leading to their exclusion. However, the court relied on the testimony of an independent witness to uphold the convictions of two appellants. The court acquitted the third appellant, finding his presence doubtful. Regarding sentencing, the court applied the principle that avenging a father's murder constitutes a mitigating circumstance, thereby reducing the death sentences of the two convicted appellants to imprisonment for life. The judgment reaffirmed that the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable, and courts must sift the grain from the chaff to determine the truth.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Is the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' applicable in Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  • Does the act of avenging a father's murder constitute a mitigating circumstance for the reduction of a death sentence?
  • Should a court acquit an accused if their presence at the scene of the crime is doubtful despite being implicated by an eyewitness?
  Read full judgment →
• Ya Qoob vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 704 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-20Read full judgment →
• War1s Ali and 2 Others vs Ghulam Rasool and Another1980 CLC 728 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
• Waheed Akhtar vs Superintendent, Camp Jail, Lahore and Another1980 PLD Lahore 131 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-27Read full judgment →
• W Ali Muhammad vs Shabbir Ahmad1980 CLC 835 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab vs Perfect Electric Concern1980 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-26
  arbitration agreementsole arbitratorrefusal to actappointment of arbitratorarbitration clausefilling vacancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute regarding an electrification contract between the University of the Punjab and Perfect Electric Concern, where the appellant rescinded the contract and withheld payments. Clause 49 of the contract referred all disputes to the Chancellor of the University as a sole arbitrator. When the Chancellor did not enter upon the reference, the respondent filed an application under sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of a new arbitrator. The trial court answered in the affirmative, holding that the named arbitrator had declined to act and that the vacancy could be filled. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the refusal of an arbitrator designated by virtue of his office does not frustrate the arbitration agreement unless the contract expressly intends that the vacancy should not be supplied. The Court laid down that the appointment of an arbitrator by official designation stands on the same footing as a named individual, and the court retains the power to appoint a substitute arbitrator under the Arbitration Act when the named or designated arbitrator refuses to act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court has jurisdiction to appoint a sole arbitrator when the arbitrator named in the agreement by virtue of his office has refused to act?
  • Does the refusal of an arbitrator designated by official status frustrate the arbitration agreement so that the vacancy cannot be supplied?
  • Whether an arbitration agreement can be ordered to be filed in court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act when the original document is not physically produced but its terms are admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mohammad Sadiq and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 964 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Fateh Muhammad and 5 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-07Read full judgment →
• The State vs Barkat Ali and 4 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Majeed and 4 Others1980 P Cr. L J 950 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Association Club Lahore vs Major Ejaz Ahmad Khan and Another1980 PLD Lahore 675 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-09Read full judgment →
• The Gujranwala Cooperative Marketing & Supply Society Ltd., Gujranwala vs The Rural Supply Cooperative Corporation Ltd., Lahore1980 CLC 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
• Talib Khan vs Provincial Government through Collector, Sahiwal1980 CLC 723 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 413 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-02Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and 6 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 927 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Najmul Hassan and Others vs Shah Sawar and OTHERs1980 CLC 1866 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-25
  amendment of pleadingsappellate stageinconsistent pleassuccessioncivil procedurede novo inquirydiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Additional District Judge allowing the respondents to amend their plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 during the appellate stage. The original suit, concerning succession to landed property, had been dismissed by the trial court after a seven-year trial. The respondents sought to introduce a new plea contradicting their original pleadings regarding the status of a defendant as the daughter of the deceased. The core legal question was whether an appellate court may permit an amendment that introduces a new, inconsistent case and necessitates a de novo inquiry. The High Court held that while the power to allow amendments is wide and should be exercised liberally to advance justice, it must be refused when the amendment introduces a totally different, new, and inconsistent case or substitutes a new cause of action. Consequently, the court set aside the order allowing the amendment, ruling that a defeated litigant cannot be permitted to evade the consequences of a judgment by devising a new case at the appellate stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court allow an amendment to a plaint that introduces a new and inconsistent case?
  • Should an amendment to pleadings be allowed if it necessitates a de novo inquiry into the case?
  • Is a party entitled to amend their plaint to contradict admissions made in the original pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Murtaza Shah vs Ziarat Ali1980 CLC 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Murtaza Shah vs MAMufti Nazar Muhammad and 3 Others1980 CLC 138 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Mukhtar Ali and Another vs Giiulam Rasool Chaudhary and 21980 PLD Lahore 623 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Ikram Gardezi vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 295 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-29Read full judgment →
• Surraya Mi vs Akhlaq Ahmad1980 CLC 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
• Surraya Bibi vs Abdur Rashid1980 CLC 785 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-04
  custody of minorMuslim LawGuardians and Wardswelfare of the minorpaternal custodyage of seven
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Guardian Judge, Sialkot, granting custody of a minor son, Ghulam Farid, to his father, the respondent, Abdur Rashid. The appellant, the mother, argued that the father had failed to provide maintenance for seven years, demonstrating a lack of interest in the minor's welfare, and that the child's long-standing intimacy with the mother made a change in custody detrimental. The Court observed that the parties had previously agreed, during the dissolution of their marriage, that the mother would hand over the minor to the father upon the child reaching seven years of age. The Court held that under Muslim Law, a father is entitled to the custody of a male child after the age of seven, as the child then requires the father's guidance, education, and supervision to prevent juvenile delinquency. The Court affirmed that the father's past failure to provide maintenance was excused by the mother's own statement, and the child's prior association with the mother did not override the father's legal right to custody upon the child reaching the age of seven.

  Questions settled

  • Does a father have the right to the custody of a male child under Muslim Law once the child has attained the age of seven years?
  • Can a mother's previous agreement to hand over custody of a minor to the father upon the child reaching a certain age be enforced?
  • Is the long-standing association of a minor with the mother a sufficient ground to deny the father's legal right to custody after the child reaches the age of seven?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs Additional District Judge, Kasur and 5 Others1980 CLC 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
• Suba Khan vs Rehmat Din and 2 Others1980 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-19
  pre-emption suitpecuniary jurisdictionreview jurisdictionzare-e-panjamvaluation of suiterror apparent on the face of the recordrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the trial court initially dismissed the plaint for failure to deposit the required 'zare-e-panjam'. Subsequently, the trial court reviewed and set aside this dismissal, acknowledging that the initial deposit calculation was erroneous because it was based on the entire property rather than the specific portion in dispute. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court possessed the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction and whether it could validly review its own order of rejection. The Court held that the trial court possessed the necessary pecuniary jurisdiction, as the actual valuation, calculated based on land revenue rules, fell within its limits. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the trial court's exercise of review jurisdiction, ruling that the initial calculation error constituted an error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court established that a party's valuation of a suit cannot confer or divest a court of jurisdiction if the law dictates otherwise; the court must independently determine jurisdiction based on the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party's valuation of a suit confer or deprive a court of pecuniary jurisdiction if the law dictates otherwise?
  • Is a trial court empowered to review an order of rejection of a plaint if the initial deposit calculation was based on an error apparent on the face of the record?
  • How is the jurisdictional value of a suit determined when land revenue is payable?
  Read full judgment →
• Sub. Nawab Khan vs Data Etc.1980 CLC 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Ghaus and Another1980 P Cr. L J 914 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-23Read full judgment →
• Siddique Shah vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Salim Ali vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 509 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-23Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Akhtar Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 Others42 TAX 47 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Anwar and Another vs Martial Law Administrator, Punjab1980 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-22Read full judgment →
• Sharafuddin Etc. vs Ghulam Sabri Etc.1980 CLC 108 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-14Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ali Khan vs Majorgeneral Sher Ali Khan and 13 Others1980 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →