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.

• Shahzad Hussain and Another vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 54 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13
  bail cancellationnatural justicerevisional jurisdictioninherent powerssupervisory jurisdictionSuppression of Terrorist Activities Actdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an order by a Special Court, constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, which cancelled the petitioners' bail without prior notice or legal representation. The core legal questions concerned whether the Act excluded the High Court’s revisional and inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the High Court could exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the Act does not impliedly bar the High Court's revisional or inherent powers regarding interlocutory orders, nor does it restrict the High Court's constitutional supervisory authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the bail cancellation order, ruling that it violated fundamental principles of natural justice by denying the accused sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard through counsel. The judgment establishes that bail cannot be cancelled without adequate notice, and that the High Court retains its supervisory and inherent jurisdiction over subordinate courts unless such powers are explicitly and clearly excluded by statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 exclude the High Court's revisional powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases pending before a Special Court?
  • Is a bail cancellation order valid if passed without providing the accused sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 empower the High Court to correct orders passed by a subordinate court in violation of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahu and Another vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 568 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-21Read full judgment →
• Shahida Perveen vs Muhammad Inayat and Another1980 PLD Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-02
  constitutional jurisdictioncustody of minordisputed questions of facthabeas corpusabductionDarul Amanjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, regarding the custody of the petitioner, a minor female. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should interfere with a lower court's custody order when the petitioner's age and the validity of her marriage are disputed facts. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Sessions Judge’s order was lawful and not subject to interference. The Court determined that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to resolve disputed questions of fact, such as the petitioner's age or the authenticity of a Nikah document. The Court established that where a girl is a minor and the credentials of her alleged husband are the subject of a pending criminal trial, it is improper to grant custody to the husband as it would prejudice the trial. Consequently, placing the minor in the custody of her father is a lawful exercise of judicial discretion when the alternative is indeterminate detention in a shelter home.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of fact regarding a person's age?
  • Is it appropriate to grant custody of a minor to an alleged husband when the legality of the marriage is the subject of a pending criminal trial?
  • Does a Sessions Judge act with lawful authority when ordering a minor to be placed in a shelter home pending the resolution of custody disputes?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahida Parveen vs District Judge, Sialkot and Another1980 PLD Lahore 7 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-05
  habeas corpuscustody of minorabductionconstitutional jurisdictionmatrimonial disputesui jurisage determination
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition concerning the custody of a minor girl, Mst. Shahida Parveen, who had been allegedly abducted and married. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, should determine the disputed age and marital status of an alleged abductee to grant her custody to her alleged husband, or whether she should remain in the custody of her father pending criminal trial. The Court held that the determination of age and the validity of marriage are complex questions of fact unsuitable for resolution in constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that where a criminal case for abduction is pending, it is safer to grant custody to the father to avoid potential legal complications regarding the validity of the marriage, legitimacy of offspring, and potential charges of zina should the marriage be later declared void. The principle laid down is that the High Court should refrain from exercising constitutional jurisdiction to determine disputed facts in matrimonial matters when alternative, adequate remedies exist in ordinary courts, such as family courts or criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Should the High Court determine disputed questions of fact regarding an abductee's age in a constitutional writ petition?
  • Is it appropriate to grant custody of an alleged abductee to an alleged husband when the validity of the marriage is the subject of a pending criminal trial?
  • Can the High Court refuse to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available in ordinary courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Javid Malik vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1980 PLD Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-20
  natural justiceunfair meanseducational boardpersonal hearingright of appealconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the punitive action taken by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education against a candidate accused of using unfair means in an Intermediate Examination. The petitioner was charged under board rules for possessing unauthorized material, refusing to obey the superintendent, and copying. He denied the allegations and offered a counter-version involving the supervisor. The Discipline Committee penalized him, and the Jury of Appeal dismissed his subsequent appeal without granting a personal hearing. The core legal questions involve the observance of natural justice, the right to cross-examination, and the interpretation of rules governing personal hearings in administrative appeals. The Lahore High Court held that the rules of natural justice were violated because the Discipline Committee failed to examine the superintendent in the presence of the petitioner, and misleading notes on the charge-sheet deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity for a personal hearing before the appellate authority. The court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter to the Jury of Appeal for a fresh decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal appearance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a discipline committee to examine the superintendent in the presence of a candidate accused of using unfair means violates natural justice?
  • Does the right to a personal hearing in an administrative appeal get waived if the candidate fails to explicitly request it due to misleading instructions on the charge-sheet?
  • Whether an appellate authority in examination malpractice cases has the power to remand the matter for fresh decision after granting a personal hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Oil, Traders vs Imdad Ali Shah and 2 Others1980 CLC 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-04
  evictionsub-lettingpersonal requirementdamage to propertyrent controltenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an eviction order against the appellants from a commercial property. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellants were sub-tenants, whether the property had been damaged to impair its value, and whether the landlords' claim for personal use was bona fide. The court held that the finding of sub-letting could not be sustained as there was no evidence of rent payment by the appellants to the original tenant, but upheld the eviction order on the grounds of damage to the property and the landlords' bona fide personal requirement. The court established that even if the appellants were not sub-tenants, they were liable for eviction if the property was damaged or if the landlord established a bona fide personal need for the premises. Furthermore, the court affirmed that a tenant or occupant is liable to eviction if the property is damaged to impair its value, regardless of the specific nature of the tenancy, provided the occupant has been given a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue.

  Questions settled

  • Can an inference of sub-tenancy be drawn in the absence of evidence showing rent payment by the alleged sub-tenant to the original tenant?
  • Is an eviction order sustainable against occupants even if they are not classified as sub-tenants, provided the grounds for eviction such as property damage or personal requirement are established?
  • Does the construction of an oil tank without landlord permission constitute damage to property with a view to impair its value?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahamad Baig vs Munawar Sultana1980 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 257 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-04Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad (Represented by Legal Heirs) and Another vs Mst.1980 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan Khan vs The Chairman, Punjab Local Council Election1980 CLC 544 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Khan. vs Province of Punjab1980 CLC 2123 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Rashid vs Mst. Zarnigar Qaiser Sheikh1980 PLD Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07
  guardianshipcustody of minorsordinary residenceterritorial jurisdictionguardian and wardsremoval of minorsdual nationality
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil revision petition challenging the order of the Guardian Judge, Lahore, returning an application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for presentation to a competent court due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of 'where the minor ordinarily resides' under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act when minors are removed from Pakistan to England by their mother. The Lahore High Court held that although fraudulent removal by a guardian can rebut the presumption of a minor's ordinary residence, if the minors have subsequently settled down in a foreign jurisdiction and established actual residence there, the domestic court lacks territorial jurisdiction under section 9. The court laid down the principle that ordinary residence is a question of fact rather than legal domicile or nationality, and once minors have settled abroad, local courts cannot assume jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Guardian Judge has jurisdiction under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act when minors are removed to and settled in a foreign country?
  • Does the fraudulent or deceitful removal of minors from the jurisdiction of a court permanently fix their ordinary residence at the place of removal?
  • Can legal domicile or dual nationality override the actual factual ordinary residence of minors for the purpose of determining court jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act?
  • Does the High Court have the power under the Letters Patent to transfer and decide a guardianship matter over which the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Rafiq vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Food, Lahore and 4 Others1980 PLD Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Ayyub vs Nazir Ahmad Shami Etc.1980 CLC 895 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-28Read full judgment →
• Sh. Fazal Elahi vs Muhammad Saddiq and 7 Others1980 PLD Lahore 489 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
• Sh. Bashir Ahmed vs Nisar Ahmad and Another1980 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-26
  eviction petitionrent defaultadvance rent adjustmentsublettingstriking off defenceUrban Rent Restriction Ordinancecause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an eviction petition filed by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default and subletting. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, without accounting for a prior advance payment of Rs. 2,000 intended for rent adjustment. Consequently, the tenant’s defence was struck off for non-compliance. The Additional District Judge reversed this order, holding that the advance payment should have been adjusted, rendering the deposit order unjustified, and further ruled that subletting occurring after the petition's filing could not be adjudicated within the existing proceedings. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, affirming that advance payments adjustable towards rent must be considered when passing Section 13(6) orders. Furthermore, the Court established that a fresh cause of action, such as a new instance of subletting arising during the pendency of an eviction petition, cannot be incorporated into the existing petition and necessitates a separate, fresh application. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Should an advance payment intended for rent adjustment be considered when passing an order under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a ground for eviction, such as subletting, that arises after the filing of an eviction petition be adjudicated within the existing proceedings?
  • Is a tenant liable for default if the court's order for rent deposit under Section 13(6) fails to account for adjustable advance payments?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ata Muhammad vs Major Zubair Mahmood Khan and 7 Others1980 CLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-26
  writ jurisdictionlis pendensallotment cancellationSatellite Town Schemediscretionary relieflachesco-operative society
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Development), Government of Punjab, which restored a plot of land to the original allottees after a compromise, effectively cancelling the subsequent allotment made to the petitioner by a Co-operative Society. The core legal questions were whether the Co-operative Society had the authority to cancel the original allotment, whether the petitioner had a vested legal right to the plot, and whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the restoration order. The Court held that the land vested in the Government, not the Society, and the Society lacked the authority to cancel the original allotment. The petitioner’s allotment was subject to the doctrine of lis pendens as it occurred during pending litigation. The Court ruled that it would not exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 to perpetuate an illegal act or to assist a party whose claim was based on an unauthorized cancellation, especially where the petitioner had no enforceable legal right.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Co-operative Society have the authority to cancel an allotment of land that vests in the Provincial Government?
  • Can a petitioner invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce an allotment made during the pendency of litigation regarding the same property?
  • Is the High Court bound to issue a writ if doing so would perpetuate an illegal act or result in manifest injustice?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to an allotment made by a society when the property is already subject to pending litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Musarrat Begum and Another1980 CLC 781 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 40 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs S. H.O, Warburton1980 P Cr. L J 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Gill vs Mst. Elveena1980 PLD Lahore 668 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-19Read full judgment →
• Sana Ullah and 2 Others vs Mst. Allah Rakhi and Another1980 CLC 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
• Samiuddin Qureshi vs Finance Member, Railway Board, Lahore1980 PLC (C. S.) 207 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
• Samanad Khan vs Saroo1980 CLC 1600 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 127 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-04
  post-arrest bailmurderprivate defensesuccessive bail applicationremandprocedural irregularityjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second application for post-arrest bail filed by two brothers accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that they acted in self-defense and that the incident fell under Exception IV to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Additionally, the petitioners argued that their continued detention was unlawful due to procedural irregularities regarding their absence during remand proceedings before the Sessions Judge. The Court held that a previous rejection of a bail application does not bar a subsequent application, as bail orders are not judgments under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the merits, the Court ruled that the presence of minor injuries on the accused does not automatically establish a right of private defense at the bail stage, as this requires evidence at trial. Finally, the Court determined that a technical defect in remand proceedings, such as the absence of the accused, does not override the merits of a capital charge. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rejection of a previous bail application bar a subsequent application for bail?
  • Does the presence of minor injuries on an accused person create a presumption of self-defense sufficient to grant bail in a murder case?
  • Does the absence of an accused person during a remand order by a Sessions Judge render their detention illegal and entitle them to bail?
  • Is an order granting or cancelling bail a judgment within the meaning of Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin Bhatti and 3 Others vs Habib Bank Lid., Lahore and 31980 PLD Lahore 173 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Muhammad vs Deputy Commissioner/Election Tribunal, Jhelum1980 CLC 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Muhammad vs Ahmad Khan and 3 Others1980 CLC 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-14
  inheritanceMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceShariat Application Actlife estatepre-deceased daughtersuccessioncustomary law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge setting aside a civil judge's decree in a declaratory suit regarding land inheritance. The core legal question is whether, under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, the son of a pre-deceased daughter is entitled to a share in inheritance upon the reopening of succession under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, when the original owner died before the promulgation of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that Section 4 applies to deaths occurring before or after the Ordinance, provided the succession opens after its promulgation, thereby entitling the pre-deceased daughter's son to inherit. The key principle laid down is that beneficial and remedial legislation such as Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, must be construed justly and liberally to alleviate the sufferings of orphaned grandchildren, making its provisions applicable whenever succession opens after the law comes into force.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 apply when the death of the propositus occurred before the promulgation of the Ordinance?
  • Is the son of a pre-deceased daughter entitled to inheritance upon the reopening of succession under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
  • What is the scope and interpretation of the phrase 'in the event of death of any son or daughter of propositus before the opening of succession' under Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Safia Begum vs Abdul Razzak1980 CLC 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
• Sadiq and Another vs Inayatullah Khan and 6 Others1980 CLC 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
• S. I. H. Zaidi vs M. Shujahat Usmani1980 PLD Lahore 158 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-12Read full judgment →
• Riaz Mahmood Khan Mazari vs Salahuddin Zafar and 4 Others1980 PLD Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs Fazal Muhammad Etc.1980 CLC 839 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Javid Akhtar and 6 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Din alias Rehman Din vs Mst. Wilayat Jan1980 CLC 1967 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali and 6 Others vs Zafar Ali and 4 Others1980 CLC 718 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ale and Another vs Noor Muhammad1980 CLC 972 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-01Read full judgment →
• Rana Ziaul Haque vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
• Rana Tufail Muhammad vs Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore and 21980 P Cr. L J 721 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
• Rahim Dad vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 500 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-14
  cross casescounter complaintpreliminary inquiryissue of processcurable irregularitycognizance by Sessions Courtquashment of complaintcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision and quashment petition arose from a private complaint under Sections 323, 325, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, filed by the respondent as a counter-case to an earlier police challan and private complaint pending before the Sessions Court regarding the same incident. The Ilaqa Magistrate transferred the counter-complaint to the Sessions Court without examining the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge subsequently issued process to the accused without conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. The High Court considered whether a Sessions Court can try non-exclusive counter-cases, whether issuing process without examining the complainant under Section 202 is legal, and whether such omission invalidates the proceedings. The High Court held that while issuing process without examining the complainant on oath under Section 202, Cr.P.C. constitutes a procedural irregularity under Section 204, Cr.P.C., it does not vitiate the proceedings in the absence of prejudice to the accused, being curable under Section 537, Cr.P.C. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate transfer a private complaint regarding a counter-case to the Sessions Court without examining the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it mandatory for a Sessions Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before issuing process under Section 204?
  • Does the failure of a Sessions Court to examine the complainant on oath before issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the proceedings if no prejudice is caused to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux and 2 Others vs Mst. Nazir Khanum and Another1980 CLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-16
  civil revisionclosing of evidenceadjournmentdefault of partydecision on meritsremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from an order of the Civil Judge, Khanewal, which closed the petitioners' evidence and decided two connected suits against them under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had failed to produce evidence on an adjourned date, despite being represented by counsel who requested further time. The core legal question was whether a trial court has the jurisdiction to decide a suit on the merits under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when there is no material or evidence on the record. The Lahore High Court held that Order XVII Rule 3 is a penal provision that permits a court to decide a suit forthwith on the merits, but such a decision requires some existing material on record to form the basis of the judgment. Where no material exists, the court cannot proceed to decide the suit under Rule 3. Instead, the court should proceed with the suit under Order XVII Rule 1(3). The High Court concluded that the trial court acted with material irregularity, allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court proceed to decide a suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if there is no material or evidence on the record?
  • Does Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when a party's counsel is present in court but fails to produce evidence?
  • What is the proper procedure for a trial court to follow when a party defaults on producing evidence but there is no material on record to decide the suit on its merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Ghulam Nabi and Another1980 CLC 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-03Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ah M Ed vs Muhammad Ahmed1980 CLC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
• Rafaquat Ali Khan vs Nazir a Hmad1980 CLC 637 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-21Read full judgment →
• Qazi Masudul Haq vs Sh. Fateh Muhammad1980 CLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
• Punjab Small Industries Corporation vs Shamim Ahmad Khan and Another1980 CLC 381 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore vs Abdul Wah1d Usmani and 41980 CLC 1993 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board vs Abdul Wahid Usmani and Others1980 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-08
  fatal accidentsvicarious liabilityquantum of damagescontributory negligenceemployer liabilityfamily dependencylife expectancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arose from a suit for damages filed by the legal heirs of a deceased professor killed in a road accident involving a bus owned by the Punjab Road Transport Board. The core legal questions concerned the employer’s vicarious liability for a driver operating on an unauthorized route, the existence of contributory negligence by the deceased, and the proper methodology for calculating compensation, including age expectancy, future earning prospects, and lump-sum deductions. The Court held that the employer remains vicariously liable for the servant’s actions committed in the course of employment, regardless of unauthorized route deviations. It rejected the plea of contributory negligence, finding no evidence of initial negligence by the deceased. The judgment established that damages should be assessed based on the deceased's future earning prospects and specific family circumstances rather than rigid mathematical formulas. It affirmed that there is no universal rule requiring deductions for lump-sum payments or limiting dependency claims to the period of minority, emphasizing that family support in Pakistan often continues beyond the age of majority.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employer vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver operating a vehicle on an unauthorized route?
  • Can a defendant rely on the plea of contributory negligence if the driver was initially negligent?
  • Should damages for the death of a family member be limited to the period of the dependents' minority?
  • Is there a rigid rule requiring the deduction of a percentage from compensation awards due to lump-sum payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province through Deputy Director, Mineral Development, Jhelum vs Malik Shahbaz Khan1980 CLC 857 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
• Punjab Livestock Dairy and Poultry Development BOARDs vs Sheikh1980 CLC 1932 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-21
  ex parte decreestatutory corporationauthorization of legal proceedingsservice of summonsCode of Civil Proceduredelegation of powersratification
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed against a statutory corporation. The core legal questions were whether the application was filed by a duly authorized person and whether the corporation was validly served with summons. The Court held that the application was incompetent because it was initiated by a Project Manager who lacked specific authorization from the Board of Directors, as required by the Punjab Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Development Board Act 1974. The Court emphasized that Order XXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 only authorizes specified persons to sign and verify pleadings, not to institute legal proceedings. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that service of summons on a corporation is valid when sent to its registered office under Order XXIX, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The principle established is that an unauthorized institution of legal proceedings by an employee of a statutory body is a nullity, and subsequent ratification cannot cure an act that was ab initio illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 authorize a person to institute a suit on behalf of a corporation?
  • Can an unauthorized legal proceeding initiated by an employee of a statutory body be validated through subsequent ratification?
  • What is the correct mode of service of summons on a statutory corporation under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a Project Manager have the inherent authority to file legal proceedings on behalf of a statutory board without a specific delegation of power?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan vs Muhammad Hayat and 31 Others1980 PLD Lahore 23 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Molvi Muhammad Faizan, Advocate and 101980 PLD Lahore 632 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-21Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, District Sheikhupura vs Abdul Haque1980 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-11Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and Another vs Abdul Haque1980 CLC 465 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and 3 Others s vs Muhammad Akram1980 CLC 1571 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-01Read full judgment →
• Pervez Butt vs Government of Punjab Throuh Home Secretary, Punjab, Lahore1980 P Cr. L J 599 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-09Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ur Rahman vs Muhammad Hussain Etc.1980 P Cr. L J 3 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan vs Messrs M. A. Aziz & Sons1980 PLD Lahore 422 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-31Read full judgment →
• Pakistan vs Messrs A. Ismail Jee & Sons Lid.1980 CLC 1522 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Co. Ltd. vs Muhammad Nazir Khan1980 PLD Lahore 82 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan and Another vs Reh M Dad and Another1980 CLC 574 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuepotential valuelimitationcondonation of delaycantonment area
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the Government of Pakistan against the judgment of the Administrative Civil Judge, Gujrat, which had enhanced the compensation awarded to the respondents for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The appellants argued that the land was agricultural and the Collector's initial valuation was correct, whereas the respondents contended that the land's potential commercial use within the Cantonment area justified the enhanced rate. The High Court first addressed a 52-day delay in filing the appeal, holding that the government enjoys no special preference under limitation laws and must explain each day of delay. On the merits, the Court held that under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, compensation must be determined based on market value, which is not restricted to the land's current classification or actual use but must account for its potential future uses. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal on both the grounds of limitation and merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government is entitled to any special preference or indulgence when seeking condonation of delay under the Limitation Act?
  • Should the market value of acquired land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be determined solely by its current agricultural classification or by its potential future uses?
  • Does the location of land within a Cantonment area affect its valuation for compensation even if it is classified as agricultural?
  Read full judgment →
• P. W. R., Lahore vs Sarfraz Khan1980 CLC 541 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-08
  arbitration agreementrevocation of arbitratorbias of arbitratoraffidavit evidencecross-examinationcivil revisionappointment of arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a dispute between the Pakistan Western Railway and a contractor, Sarfraz Khan, regarding an arbitration agreement. The respondent sought revocation of the Chief Engineer's authority as arbitrator, alleging bias, threats, and improper conduct. The Civil Judge, relying on an un-rebutted affidavit from the respondent, revoked the arbitrator's authority and ordered the appointment of a new one. The petitioner challenged this, arguing they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent or produce oral evidence, and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to appoint a new arbitrator, as that power vested in the Vice-Chairman. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Order XIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court has discretion to decide matters via affidavit. Since the petitioner failed to request cross-examination or file a counter-affidavit despite being given the opportunity, they could not later claim prejudice. Furthermore, the Court affirmed its authority under Section 12(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 to appoint a new arbitrator upon the revocation of the previous one's authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decide an application for the revocation of an arbitrator's authority based solely on affidavits?
  • Is a party entitled to cross-examine a deponent who has filed an affidavit if no specific request for such cross-examination was made to the court?
  • Does a court have the jurisdiction to appoint a new arbitrator after revoking the authority of the original arbitrator?
  • Does the power to appoint an arbitrator vested in an authority by an agreement persist after the court has revoked the authority of an initially appointed arbitrator?
  Read full judgment →
• N/A vs N/A1980 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Nura Etc. vs Mst. Sahib Bibi Etc.1980 CLC 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and 3' Others vs Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 8 Others1980 PLD Lahore 471 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ali vs Deputy Director, Housing & Physical Planning Division, Lahore and Another1980 PLC (C.S.) 217 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and Another vs Habib Bank Ltd., Lahore1980 CLC 981 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20
  regular first appealstriking off defencememorandum of addressrecovery suitnon-perusal of recordex parte decreecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  Habib Bank Limited filed a recovery suit against the appellants and others. The trial court struck off the defence of the appellants under Order VIII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for allegedly failing to file a memorandum of address for service, and subsequently decreed the suit. The appellants filed a Regular First Appeal. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in striking off the defence and decreeing the suit based on a factual error regarding the non-filing of the memorandum of address. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's finding that no memorandum of address had been filed was factually incorrect, as the record showed it was filed more than a year prior, and that a judgment based on a non-perusal of the record is unsustainable. Furthermore, pronouncing judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 does not mean decreeing a suit ipse dixit without proof. The appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and decree, allowing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can strike off a defendant's defence for failure to file a memorandum of address when the address has in fact already been placed on the judicial record?
  • Does the power of a court to pronounce judgment against a party under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit decreeing a suit without requiring proof?
  • Is a judgment and decree sustainable when it is based on a mistaken factual premise resulting from a non-perusal of the court record?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain Etc. vs The State Etc.1980 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
• Nazra alias Nazira vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 264 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14Read full judgment →
• Naziruddin vs Muhammad Ali1980 CLC 203 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-06Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 796 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-29Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and 5 Others vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Another1980 CLC 128 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-08Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State and 6 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs Mst. Ghulam Zohra and Others1980 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din Etc. vs Khurshid Ahmad Etc.1980 CLC 962 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
• Naveed Rauf vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Secretary1980 CLC 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-30Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 5 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-04
  criminal revisionsupply of statementsSection 265-C Cr.P.C.defense witnessespolice diaryfair trialliberal construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by an Additional Sessions Judge refusing to supply the accused with copies of statements of persons not cited as prosecution witnesses in the challan, but who appeared as defense witnesses. The core legal question was whether, under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused is entitled to copies of all statements recorded by the police during investigation, or only those of prosecution witnesses. The Court held that the accused is entitled to copies of statements of all witnesses recorded by the police under Sections 161, 164, and 172, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regardless of whether they are prosecution or defense witnesses. The Court reasoned that Section 265-C must be liberally construed to ensure the accused has full knowledge of the evidence, particularly following the abolition of commitment proceedings. The principle established is that the statutory right to receive copies of witness statements is not restricted to prosecution witnesses but extends to all witnesses whose statements were recorded during the investigation, provided they constitute substantive statements.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to copies of statements of defense witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the term 'all witnesses' in Section 265-C, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, include witnesses not cited in the challan?
  • Can statements recorded in a police diary under Section 172, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be supplied to the accused if they are in substance statements under Section 161?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan and Another vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and 2 Others1980 PLD Lahore 435 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad and Another Convicts vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 57 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad Khan vs Province of West Pakistan1980 PLD Lahore 684 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25
  constitutional petitionacquisition of propertyevacuee propertyad hominem legislationseparation of powerslegislative sentencevalidity of ordinancejudicial power
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a displaced person, was transferred an evacuee house in Lahore under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 and issued a Permanent Transfer Deed. Subsequently, Martial Law Order No. 115 and the West Pakistan Acquisition of Property (Residence of Government Officials) Ordinance 1963 were issued to acquire this specific property for use as a residence for government officials, compensating the petitioner only the original transfer price. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Ordinance via a constitutional petition, contending that it was mala fide, targeted a single individual's property rather than enacting a general law, usurpation of judicial power, and provided inadequate compensation. The High Court held that law must be a rule of general application or based on reasonable classification. An legislative act targeted solely at confiscating or acquiring the property of a named individual constitutes an exercise of judicial power (a legislative sentence) rather than a valid law. The impugned Ordinance was declared unconstitutional and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Ordinance promulgated to acquire the property of a single named individual constitutes a valid law or an impermissible legislative sentence?
  • Can the legislature usurp judicial functions by directly passing orders that deprive a named citizen of property without judicial process?
  • Does a law violate equal protection principles if it targets a specific individual's property without a reasonable classification?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Sadiq and 2 Others vs Ghulam Ghause1980 CLC 286 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• Naseem Sadiq and 2 Others s vs Ghulam Ghaus1980 PLD Lahore 637 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
• Nasar Iqbal and Another vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 639 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• Najma Beg Um and 4 Others vs Abdul Rehman1980 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh vs Ghulam Qadir1980 CLC 768 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Hussain and 3 Others vs Sardar Khan and Another1980 CLC 1059 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-18Read full judgment →
• Musa Khan vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 622 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
• Murid Hussain and Another vs Muhammad Shafi and ANOTHERepondents1980 CLC 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-24
  pre-emptiondoctrine of sinkerdivisibility of salelimitationphysical possessionattestation of mutationco-sharerssecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose out of a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents against the appellants concerning an oral land sale. The respondents claimed a superior pre-emptive right as co-sharers in the relevant khata. The trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit in favor of the respondents on the unpleaded ground that they were owners of the estate. On second appeal, the Lahore High Court examined whether a pre-emption suit could be decreed on a ground not set forth in the plaint, whether a sale for a lump-sum price to co-vendees with specified shares is divisible to avoid the doctrine of sinker, and whether a patwari's report alone proves physical possession for calculating limitation under pre-emption law.

  The High Court held that a pre-emptor cannot succeed on an unpleaded qualification, but upon evaluating the evidence, found that the respondents were indeed co-sharers in the khata. The Court further held that a sale is indivisible when consideration is paid as a lump sum without specifying individual contributions, causing the qualified co-vendee to sink to the position of the unqualified co-vendee. Lastly, the Court ruled that a patwari's report reproducing parties' statements does not prove physical possession; limitation thus ran from the date of mutation attestation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption suit be decreed on a ground or qualification not specifically pleaded in the plaint?
  • Does the mention of specified shares in a sale transaction render it divisible if the purchase price is paid as a lump sum?
  • Is a patwari's report recording statements of parties sufficient to establish physical possession for the purpose of limitation under pre-emption law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mur Ad Bakhsh and Another vs Abdul Ghafoor and 5 Others1980 CLC 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
• Munshi vs Ali Muhammad1980 CLC 234 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain vs Station House Officer, Burewala1980 P Cr. L J 161 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
• Munawar vs Razia Begum Etc.1980 CLC 458 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs Syed Riaz Hussain and 4 Others1980 CLC 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali vs Haji Muhammad Ramzan1980 CLC 331 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 725 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammd Shah Etc. vs Ghulam Hassan Shah Etc.1980 CLC 194 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammd Ramzan and 9 Others vs Farhat Hussain and 3 Others1980 CLC 1449 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammada Etc.s vs Maula Dad Etc.1980 PLD Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →