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.

• Kh. Fakharuddin vs Hasinuddin Qureshi and 3 Others1980 PLD Lahore 778 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28
  intra-court appealmaintainabilityLaw Reforms OrdinanceLetters Patentwrit jurisdictionretrospective effectsettlement proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arose from a writ petition concerning the transfer of a house under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, where a Single Judge directed a fresh decision on an appeal. A preliminary question arose regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, read with subsequent amendments including the Law Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether an intra-court appeal survived or was barred where the law applicable to the original proceedings provided for an appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the repeal of clause 10 of the Letters Patent and the enactment of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, extinguished the general right of intra-court appeal, and the statutory bar explicitly applies to bar intra-court appeals from orders passed in writ jurisdiction arising out of proceedings where the underlying law provided for an appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as incompetent and not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an intra-court appeal is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge in writ jurisdiction when the law applicable to the original proceedings provided for an appeal?
  • Did the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 effectively repeal clause 10 of the Letters Patent to take away the right of intra-court appeal?
  • Can a right of appeal under the Letters Patent survive the retrospective ouster and substitution of Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad vs Muhammad and 4 Time1980 P Cr. L J 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-06Read full judgment →
• Karam Khan vs Noor Muhammad and Another1980 P Cr. L J 578 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
• Latif vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
• Jinda and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 327 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-14Read full judgment →
• Jewan and 9 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 570 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-20
  court witnesssummoning witnessesgiven up witnessesrevisional jurisdictionjust decision of the casepolice statement confrontationcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the legality of a trial court order summoning certain given-up prosecution witnesses as court witnesses under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions involved whether a criminal court has the power to review its earlier orders, whether a prosecution witness given up by the prosecution can be summoned as a court witness under section 540, and whether such a witness can be confronted with their previous police statement under section 162. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order did not constitute a review of the previous order, that a given-up prosecution witness summoned under section 540 retains their character as a prosecution witness and can be confronted with their police statement under section 162, and that the trial court is under an obligation to summon any witness whose evidence appears essential for a just decision of the case. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal court has the power to review its own orders under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a prosecution witness who has been given up by the prosecution be summoned by the trial court under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether a given-up prosecution witness examined as a court witness can be confronted with their previous police statement under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court obliged to summon a witness if their evidence appears essential for the just decision of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Manzoor Etc.s vs Member, Board of Revenue1980 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-31
  pre-emptioncourt-feedeficiency in court-feeextension of timelimitationconstitutional jurisdictionspeaking orderact of the court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a pre-emption suit where the vendees challenged orders allowing the pre-emptor time to make up a deficiency in court-fee. The core legal question was whether the court's discretionary power to extend time for making good a deficient court-fee under the Code of Civil Procedure should be exercised mechanically, and whether an order on the matter must be a speaking order. The Lahore High Court held that while the discretionary power to extend time remains unaffected, it must not be exercised routinely or mechanically, particularly in pre-emption cases where limitation rights accrue to the vendee. Such discretion must be exercised after proper appreciation of facts, and the court must be satisfied that the plaintiff was not contumacious, negligent, or mala fide. Furthermore, orders allowing or disallowing extensions must be speaking orders. However, since the trial court had previously made an express order accepting the court-fee, a party cannot be penalized for a court's mistake, invoking the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the discretionary power to extend time for making good a deficient court-fee under the Code of Civil Procedure should be exercised mechanically in pre-emption cases?
  • Is it mandatory for a court to pass a speaking order when granting or refusing an extension of time to make up a deficiency in court-fee?
  • Can a party be penalized or prejudiced due to a mistaken order or act of the court?
  • To what extent can the High Court interfere with subordinate forum orders regarding court-fee extensions in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs M. Muhammad Ashraf and Another1980 CLC 698 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-13Read full judgment →
• Jan Ahmad and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 420 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-14Read full judgment →
• Jamil Chaudri and Another vs Lahore Development Authority1980 CLC 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahsan Gill, Advocate vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmad Qureshi vs The Station House Officer, Police Station, Saddar, Sialkot and Another1980 PLD Lahore 119 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-03Read full judgment →
• Jalal vs Hidayat Ali and Another1980 CLC 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
• Jai Copal alias Budhan Sain vs Mst. Sardar 13Egum and 4 OTHERs1980 CLC 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-10Read full judgment →
• Jafar Khan vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 410 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 143 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
• Ismail (through His Legal Heirs) and Another vs Muhammad Aslam1980 PLD Lahore 104 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-07
  pre-emptionwithdrawal of pre-emption moneypre-emption appealdeposit of sale pricemandatory statutory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from competing suits for pre-emption. The trial court decreed the appellants' suit, while an appellate court subsequently accepted respondent No. 1's appeal and decreed his suit instead. During the pendency of the appellants' second appeal, they withdrew the pre-emption money they had deposited without obtaining prior permission from the court, though they later redeposited it pursuant to a subsequent court order. The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of pre-emption money by a pre-emptor-appellant without the court's leave renders the appeal liable to dismissal under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Holding that the statutory provisions are mandatory, the Lahore High Court followed established local jurisprudence over foreign precedents and ruled that withdrawing pre-emption funds without leave entails the dismissal of the appeal. The court declined to exercise discretion to condone the unauthorized withdrawal, concluding that the appeal could not proceed, and accordingly dismissed it with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of pre-emption money by a pre-emptor-appellant without the permission of the court render the appeal liable to dismissal?
  • Are the provisions of section 22 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, regarding the deposit and withdrawal of pre-emption money mandatory?
  • Can a pre-emptor who withdraws pre-emption money without leave cure the default by subsequently redepositing the amount?
  • Will a court exercise its discretion to condone the unauthorized withdrawal of pre-emption money by a pre-emptor?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs National Wood1980 CLC 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-24Read full judgment →
• Inam Elah1 vs Mir Abdul Hamid, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle1980 CLC 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-17Read full judgment →
• Imam Bakhsh vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din Etc. vs Abdul Hamid Etc.1980 CLC 807 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-25
  conditional decreeexecution of decreedeficit court-feefunctus officioextension of timerejection of plaintvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from execution proceedings where the decree-holder failed to make up the deficit court-fee within the conditional time limit specified in the decree, which stated the claim would be automatically rejected upon default. The core legal question is whether a conditional decree becomes unexecutable upon non-compliance with its terms, and whether a trial court can implicitly condone delay or extend time under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after becoming functus officio. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court became functus officio upon passing the final conditional decree, and since the court-fee was not paid within the stipulated time, a valuable right accrued to the judgment-debtor, rendering the decree incapable of execution. The Court established that extension of time or implied condonation of delay cannot be applied mechanically to destroy a vested right of limitation once a conditional decree has matured.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is legally competent to pass a conditional decree subject to the automatic rejection of the plaint for non-payment of a deficit court-fee?
  • Does a decree become incapable of execution if its terms regarding the deposit of court-fee within a specified time are not complied with?
  • Can a court implicitly extend time or condone delay under section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after it has become functus officio upon passing a final conditional decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din (Represented by His Heir) Etc. vs Shadi (Represented by His Heir)1980 CLC 801 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• Ikram Ali vs The State and Another1980 PLD Lahore 597 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Mahmood vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-31Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ahmad alias Nanna vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs Abdul Majid Etc.1980 PLD Lahore 201 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22
  withdrawal from prosecutionacquittalcriminal revisionrevisional jurisdictiondelay and lachesretrialpublic prosecutor
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition in revision challenged the order of acquittal resulting from the grant of consent by the Additional Sessions Judge to the withdrawal of the Additional Public Prosecutor from the prosecution of the respondents for offences under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an order of acquittal consequent upon withdrawal from prosecution under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is amenable to revision by the High Court, and whether such petition should be dismissed on grounds of laches or delay. The Lahore High Court held that the grant of consent by a trial court to a public prosecutor's withdrawal is a judicial act subject to revisional correction if discretion has been improperly or arbitrarily exercised, and that delay in criminal revisions is not an absolute bar where a grave miscarriage of justice has occurred. The court set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial, establishing that a trial court must independently satisfy itself from the record that valid grounds exist before permitting withdrawal from prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of acquittal passed consequent upon the withdrawal of a Public Prosecutor from prosecution with the consent of the court is open to revision by the High Court?
  • Does a criminal revision petition filed after considerable delay deserve to be dismissed offhand on the ground of laches alone?
  • Is a trial court obliged to independently examine the record to satisfy itself that grounds exist before granting permission to a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution?
  • Can the High Court order a retrial after setting aside an improper order of acquittal passed under section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Idrees Shah Etc.s vs Assistant Collector Etc.1980 CLC 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-01Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bakhsh and Another vs Jahangir Alam1980 CLC 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-03Read full judgment →
• Hiram Qadir vs Shah Muhammad and 2 Others1980 CLC 1585 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-06Read full judgment →
• Hayat Ali vs MRS. Aziza Mahmud1980 CLC 676 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-12Read full judgment →
• Hassan Abbas vs Shahid Bashir and 5 Others1980 CLC 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-11
  second appealejectmentdefaultrelationship of landlord and tenantagreement to sellpart performanceTransfer of Property Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a tenant eviction matter where the Rent Controller dismissed the landlords' ejectment application, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision and ordered eviction. The core legal question is whether a tenant, holding an agreement to purchase the rented property from the original owner, can successfully resist ejectment proceedings by invoking the doctrine of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, despite the Act's formal non-application to the Punjab province. The court held that the principles of section 53-A are applicable in the Punjab and that a tenant whose possession is protected by an agreement to sell ceases to hold the character of a mere tenant qua ejectment, thereby invalidating the subsequent purchasers' claim for default. The court laid down the principle that the equitable principles of part performance under section 53-A afford a valid defense against ejectment when all conditions of part performance are fulfilled by the tenant-transferee.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant in possession under an agreement to sell resist ejectment proceedings by the landlord?
  • Whether the principles of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act are applicable in the Province of the Punjab?
  • What are the essential conditions for invoking the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act?
  • Does the execution of an agreement of sale between a landlord and tenant extinguish the tenancy for the purpose of ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 636 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
• Hamayun and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-29Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Ismail Habibi vs Muhammad Qasim Khan and 2 Others1980 PLD Lahore 332 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yousaf and 23 Others vs Election Authority1980 CLC 353 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Siddique vs Administrator, Lahore Municipal1980 CLC 1289 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Khan vs Shobra Hotel Ltd., Lahore1980 CLC 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Bashir vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 21 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Qadir Etc. vs Mst. Sharifun Nisa Begum1980 CLC 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
• Haideri International Finance Ltd. vs State Bank of Pakistan, Lahore1980 PLD Lahore 658 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Hanif vs Ahmad Din1980 CLC 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Government of the Punjab and 5 Others1980 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-20
  termination of servicestatutory corporationpublic functionwrit jurisdictionservice regulationsquorum requirementsmaster and servantvoid orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the termination of services of two employees by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation. The core legal questions were whether the Corporation’s termination orders, issued under government direction without independent application of mind or adherence to statutory quorum requirements, were lawful, and whether the petitioners were bound by contractual terms that conflicted with their statutory service protections. The Court held that the termination orders were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It established that statutory corporations performing public functions must act in accordance with law and cannot terminate services perfunctorily or mechanically. Decisions by such boards must be made in valid meetings with the required quorum, not by circulation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual terms waiving statutory protections or reducing service security for existing employees are void as against public policy and lack consideration. Finally, the Court affirmed that void orders cannot be validated through post-facto ratification, and that the Corporation, as a body performing public functions, is amenable to writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory corporation terminate an employee's service without independent application of mind?
  • Are contractual terms that waive statutory service protections for existing employees valid?
  • Can a board of a statutory corporation validly decide matters by circulation instead of a meeting with the required quorum?
  • Can a void order be validated through post-facto ratification by a board?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib vs The State and 2 Others1980 PLD Lahore 791 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-10Read full judgment →
• Habib Jalib vs State Bank of Pakistan and Another1980 PLD Lahore 561 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Muhammad vs The Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi1980 PLD Lahore 544 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Shah vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Deputy Commissioner/Election Authority1980 PLD Lahore 327 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and Another vs Inayat Ali and 4 Others1980 CLC 2005 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and 4 Others vs Muhammad Hanif1980 CLC 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-02
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptioncollateralco-sharersecond appealinadmissible evidenceburden of proofpedigree table
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two regular second appeals arising out of pre-emption suits filed by the respondent for possession of agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the respondent-plaintiff successfully established his superior right of pre-emption as a collateral and co-sharer of the vendors, and whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sustainable when based on inadmissible oral testimony and failure to produce the best evidence, namely the pedigree table. The Lahore High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and dismissed the respondent's suits. The court held that the right of pre-emption, being a predatory inroad on free transactions, must be established most positively, and that oral evidence regarding pedigree which fails to satisfy the requirements of the Evidence Act is inadmissible and insufficient to discharge the onus of proof, permitting interference with concurrent findings in a second appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a pre-emptor's status as a collateral can be interfered with in a second appeal when based on inadmissible evidence?
  • Does oral testimony failing to satisfy the requirements of the Evidence Act suffice to prove relationship and a superior right of pre-emption?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on a material assertion made in examination-in-chief?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Etc.s vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 82 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qad1r and 3 Others vs Atta Ullah and Another1980 CLC 149 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Muhammad Ilyas and 3 Others1980 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-19
  civil procedurelist of witnessessummoning of witnessesproduction of evidenceinterpretation of statutessettlement of issueswitnesses in attendance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court upon a reference to determine whether the failure to file a list of witnesses within seven days of the settlement of issues under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, debars a party from producing witnesses in attendance who are brought to court on their own accord under Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code. The core legal question concerns the distinction between summoning witnesses through the court and producing witnesses independently. The Full Bench held that while Order XVI, Rule 1 strictly requires a list of witnesses to be filed within seven days if a party wishes to procure the attendance of witnesses through the coercive process of the court, it does not extinguish a party's right to independently produce witnesses in attendance on the day fixed for evidence. The ratio decidendi is that the term 'call' in Order XVI refers strictly to summoning through court processes and is distinct from the 'production' of witnesses under Order XVIII, Rule 4. The key principle laid down is that procedural provisions must be construed harmoniously to advance the administration of justice without shutting out vital evidence on purely technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to file a witness list within seven days under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prohibits a party from producing witnesses on its own accord under Order XVIII, Rule 4?
  • What is the legal distinction between 'calling' a witness through the court and 'producing' a witness during a civil trial?
  • Can a trial court refuse to record the testimony of witnesses who are present in court on the ground that they were not included in the witness list filed under Order XVI, Rule 1?
  • How should Order XVI, Rule 1 and Order XVIII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be construed harmoniously?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore and Others1980 CLC 640 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Hanif and Another1980 CLC 721 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Bakhsh Etc.1980 CLC 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-29
  pre-emptionwaiverestoppelattestation of sale deedright of pre-emptionconduct of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the right of pre-emption regarding a sale of land. The central legal question was whether a prospective pre-emptor who acts as an attesting witness to a sale deed waives their right of pre-emption and is subsequently estopped from filing a pre-emption suit. The High Court held that while mere attestation of a sale deed does not automatically constitute waiver, the circumstances surrounding the attestation are critical. Where evidence establishes that the pre-emptor was aware of the contents of the deed, or where the pre-emptor falsely denies the attestation to conceal their participation, such conduct amounts to a waiver of the right of pre-emption. The court established that waiver is the abandonment of a known right; therefore, if a pre-emptor signs a deed with knowledge of the transaction or actively participates in the bargain, they are estopped from asserting their pre-emption right. Consequently, the appellate court's reversal was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere attestation of a sale deed by a pre-emptor constitute a waiver of the right of pre-emption?
  • Under what circumstances does the attestation of a sale deed by a pre-emptor operate as an estoppel against a subsequent pre-emption suit?
  • Is a pre-emptor who denies attesting a sale deed, despite evidence to the contrary, precluded from asserting their right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Sharfan Khatoon and 7 Others1980 CLC 427 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Najal vs Fazal Karim Qureshi1980 CLC 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohyuddin vs Muhammad Ishaq and 3 Other1980 CLC 241 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04
  ejectment proceedingspersonal requirementbona fide needlandlord and tenantevacuee propertyburden of proofwitness testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ejectment order issued under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, which had been affirmed by the District Judge. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord’s requirement for the disputed shop for personal use was established in good faith, particularly when the landlord failed to appear as a witness to testify regarding his needs. The court held that the landlord’s failure to testify, combined with evidence that he was an elderly, sick individual residing in a different city, rendered the claim of personal requirement unsubstantiated. The court concluded that an objective assessment of 'good faith' is impossible without the landlord submitting to cross-examination to explain his intentions and capabilities. Consequently, the court set aside the ejectment order, ruling that the landlord failed to prove the bona fide nature of his requirement. The principle established is that a landlord’s personal testimony is generally essential to prove the good faith of a personal use requirement, especially when circumstantial evidence casts doubt on the feasibility of that requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Is the testimony of a general attorney sufficient to establish a landlord's personal requirement for a shop in good faith?
  • Does a landlord's failure to appear as a witness to testify regarding personal need invalidate an ejectment application based on that need?
  • Can a landlord claim personal requirement for a shop in good faith when evidence suggests he is too elderly and sick to operate a business?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohammad and 4 OTHERSConvicts vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 40 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 685 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Shah and Another vs Province of Punjab and 4 Others1980 CLC 1837 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar and 6 Others vs S. H. O. Police Station, Bhakkar and 21980 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-10Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Mechanised Construction Company, Pakistan and 2 oTHERs vs Amanullah Khan1980 CLC 1917 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gafar Shah vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 458 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-07Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad and 6 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue and 101980 CLC 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
• Fazal Din and 2 Others vs Umar Din and 2 Others1980 CLC 205 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
• Fater Khan vs Muhammad Z1aur Rahman and 3 Others1980 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali Khan and Others vs Yusuf Ali Khan, Barristeratlaw and Others1980 CLC 1944 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• Faqir Ali Shah vs Sh. Nazir Hussain and Another1980 PLD Lahore 335 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
• Elder Sardar Feroz Khan vs The Synod of the United Presphyterian1980 CLC 726 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
• Eastern Company (Private) Ltd., Lahore and 2 Others vs Mst. Gul Begum1980 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-25
  winding upprovisional liquidatorreceiver appointmentintra-court appealstatutory jurisdictionCompanies ActLaw Reforms Ordinancecompany management
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged an order appointing a Receiver in winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act. The primary legal questions were whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable against such an interlocutory order given the restrictions in the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, and whether a Court possesses the authority to appoint a Receiver to manage a company's business during winding-up proceedings. The Court held that the appeal is maintainable because the jurisdiction exercised under the Companies Act is statutory, not original civil jurisdiction, rendering the bar in the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it possesses inherent powers to appoint a Receiver to protect company assets and conduct business operations when necessary, as the Companies Act does not prohibit such appointments. The key principle established is that the High Court’s jurisdiction under the Companies Act is statutory, and the Court retains the power to appoint a Receiver to preserve assets and manage business affairs during winding-up, distinct from the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge in winding-up proceedings under the Companies Act?
  • Does the High Court have the power to appoint a Receiver during winding-up proceedings to conduct the business of a company?
  • Does the bar on appeals against interlocutory orders in the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 apply to proceedings under the Companies Act?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Nek Muhammad vs Mian Muhammad Sharif and Another1980 CLC 290 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain vs Yar Gul and 5 Others1980 CLC 1491 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-12Read full judgment →
• Darwesh M. Arbey, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan through the Law Secretary and 2 Others1980 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi vs Ijaz Oil42 TAX 88 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi Zone vs Pothowar Oil Mills, Gujjar Khan42 TAX 158 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax , Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Saleem Saigol, Lahore41 TAX 179 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd., Mianwali vs Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Faisalabad and Another1980 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-02
  excise dutymanufacture and productionexemption notificationvested rightwithdrawal of exemptiontax collection
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the action of the Central Excise authorities seeking to collect excise duty on stocks of cotton yarn and man-made fibre yarn held by the petitioner company at midnight between 27th and 28th June 1979. The core legal question is whether goods manufactured and produced during a period when they were exempt from excise duty can be subjected to duty upon the subsequent withdrawal of the exemption while still lying in the manufacturer's premises. The Lahore High Court held that excise duty is attracted solely at the stage of production and manufacture of goods and is independent of their subsequent disposal or removal. Following Supreme Court precedents, the court ruled that stocks produced prior to the withdrawal of the exemption continue to remain exempt, regardless of whether they were still in the manufacturer's premises at the time the exemption was superseded. The key principle laid down is that the method and timing of collecting a tax or duty are mere accidents of administration and do not alter the incidence of excise duty, which attaches strictly at the time of manufacture or production.

  Questions settled

  • Whether excise duty can be levied on goods manufactured during a period of exemption when such goods are still lying in the manufacturer's premises after the exemption is withdrawn?
  • Is the levy of excise duty dependent upon the subsequent disposal or removal of the goods from the factory premises?
  • Does the method and time of collecting excise duty affect the core nature of the duty as being attracted by manufacture or production?
  Read full judgment →
• Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd., Ismailpur, B Ha Kka R vs Assistant1980 CLC 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
• CoL,. Attaurrehman vs Ahmad Yar Khan and 3 Others1980 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-02Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore vs Mian Abdul Mari)1980 CLC 651 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaudhry Sardar Masih vs La L Masih1980 CLC 425 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
• Ch. Wali Muhammad vs Noor Ahmad Shah and 7 Others1980 CLC 859 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ch. Riffat Hussain and Another vs Asif Khan and Another1980 PLD Lahore 626 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-27
  election petitionsummary dismissalverification of pleadingsprocedural defectCantonment Board electionstatutory interpretationamendment of pleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the summary dismissal of election petitions by an Enquiry Officer regarding Cantonment Board elections. The core legal question was whether Rule 72 of the Cantonments (Election and Election Petition) Rules, 1979, mandates the summary dismissal of an election petition for failure to verify or sign it, or whether the Enquiry Officer retains discretion to allow the rectification of such defects. The Court held that Rule 72 uses permissive language ("may"), rather than mandatory language ("shall"), and does not deprive the Enquiry Officer of the power to allow amendments. Because the Enquiry Officer is vested with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, they possess the authority to allow the rectification of procedural defects, including omissions in signing or verification, to ensure the adjudication of substantial disputes. The key principle laid down is that procedural rules should be interpreted to advance the cause of justice rather than to defeat it through technicalities, and courts should allow the amendment of pleadings to cure formal defects.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 72 of the Cantonments (Election and Election Petition) Rules, 1979, mandate the summary dismissal of an election petition for lack of verification?
  • Does an Enquiry Officer under the Cantonments (Election and Election Petition) Rules, 1979, have the power to allow the amendment of an election petition to cure defects in verification?
  • Should procedural rules in election petitions be interpreted as mandatory or directory when they use the word 'may'?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Nasiruddin (Refresented by Legal Heirs) and 2 Others vs Mueenuddin and 2 Others1980 PLD Lahore 417 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Messrs Malik Coal Corporation1980 CLC 657 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Nawaz and 2 Others1980 CLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-02
  writ jurisdictionelection disputesalternative remedylocal government electionsmaintainabilitydisputed questions of factquo warranto
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of seventy writ petitions challenging various aspects of local government elections, including alleged violations of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and corrupt practices. The core legal question was whether these petitions were maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, despite the existence of alternative statutory remedies. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that they were not maintainable. The ratio established is that where a special statute provides a specific forum and remedy for election disputes—such as the Election Authority or Election Tribunals—the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked. The Court emphasized that statutory remedies are presumed adequate by the legislature. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that election disputes, which inherently involve complex, disputed questions of fact, are not appropriately resolved through writ jurisdiction but are better suited for specialized tribunals. Additionally, the Court noted that quo warranto jurisdiction is displaced when a statutory forum for such relief exists, and that judicial forums possess inherent power to grant interim relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when an alternative statutory remedy for election disputes exists?
  • Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to resolving election disputes involving disputed questions of fact?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto displaced when a statutory forum for such relief is provided?
  • Does a judicial or quasi-judicial forum possess the inherent power to grant interim relief even if not explicitly stated in the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Inay at Bibi1980 CLC 431 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Amin vs Mushtaq Ahmad Etc.PLD 1980 Lahore 784. · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Qadir vs Province of the Punjab and Another1980 CLC 1854 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Hameed vs Major Muhammad Arif, Returning Officer, Cantonment Board, Okara—;1980 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Hafiz vs Chairman, Union Committee No, 5, Sheikhupura and Another1980 CLC 1635 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
• Burhan Transport Service Ltd., Wah Cantt. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi41 TAX 182 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Budhan Shah and Others vs Mst. Shamshad Begum and Others1980 CLC 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• Brahim vs Muhammad Sharif Etc.1980 CLC 631 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
• Begum Nusrat Bhutto vs Incometax Officer, Circle v, Rawalpindi1980 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07
  income tax assessmentre-assessmentdeceased assesseelegal representativeswrit jurisdictionalternative remedybest judgment assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of six writ petitions challenging the re-assessment of income tax payable by the late former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78. The primary legal questions were whether an assessment or re-assessment can be made on a deceased person under the Income-tax Act 1922; whether such proceedings require fresh notice to the legal representatives under Section 24-B(3); and whether the re-assessment notices under Section 34 were valid without disclosing the underlying material or the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's approval. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Section 24-B is not merely a machinery provision but imposes an enforceable liability on the estate of a deceased person. The Court ruled that where statutory notices under Section 34 had already been served on the assessee during his lifetime, Section 24-B(3) empowers the Income-tax Officer to proceed with the assessment without serving fresh notices on the legal representatives, and that Section 34 notices do not need to disclose the specific information or approval on their face.

  Questions settled

  • Can an income tax assessment or re-assessment be validly made against a deceased person under the Income-tax Act 1922?
  • Is the Income-tax Officer required to serve a fresh notice on the legal representatives of a deceased assessee under Section 24-B(3) if notice under Section 34 was already served during the assessee's lifetime?
  • Does a notice issued under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act 1922 need to disclose on its face the specific information or the prior written approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner?
  • Is the pendency of an alternative statutory appeal an absolute bar to the entertainment of a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution where a question of jurisdiction is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Nusrat Bhutto vs Income Tax Officer, Circle V. Rawalpindi42 TAX 59 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
• Begum Akhtar Akhlaque Hussain and Another vs Saghir Ahmad and 121980 CLC 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-13
  striking off defencedirectory provisionsadjudication on meritstransfer of casecivil procedurerevision in discretionlegal representatives
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order by the Additional District Judge who accepted a revision petition, struck off the petitioners' defence for a delay in supplying names and addresses of legal representatives, transferred the suit to his own file, and decreed it simultaneously without evidence. The core legal question was whether the provisions regarding striking off a defence are mandatory and whether the appellate court could arbitrarily interfere with the trial court's discretion and decree the suit upon such default. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Order VIII, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directory rather than mandatory, and courts should favour adjudication on merits rather than dismissing matters on technicalities. The High Court further held that the Additional District Judge improperly interfered with the trial court's proper exercise of discretion and lacked the power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw and transfer the suit to his own file without proper assignment or jurisdiction. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Order VIII, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or directory regarding striking off a defence?
  • Can an Additional District Judge transfer a suit to his own file and decree it solely upon striking off a defence without evidence?
  • Under what circumstances can a revisional court interfere with the discretionary orders passed by a trial court?
  • Does Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 confer powers of transfer on an Additional District Judge?
  Read full judgment →