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.

• Beerbal and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 119 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• Bashiruddin Salar vs The District Magistrate, Dera Ghazi Khan1980 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 251 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Registered Firm Hafiz Habibur Rehman and Another1980 CLC 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-18
  trade mark infringementpassing offregistered trade markcolourable imitationunwary purchaserpermanent injunctionsohan halva
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No. 1 against the appellant and respondent No. 2, alleging the infringement of its registered trade mark for "Hafiz ka Multani Sohan Halva" through the use of deceptively similar packaging. The core legal question was whether the wrappers and trade mark used by the appellant amounted to a colourable imitation likely to deceive unwary purchasers and pass off their goods as those of the respondent. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that notwithstanding minor dissimilarities, the overall colour scheme, get-up, and dominant phonetic features of the appellant's wrappers were substantially similar and calculated to confuse an average, unwary consumer. The key principle laid down is that in trade mark infringement cases, the test of deceptiveness is whether an unwary purchaser or the careless public is likely to be deceived, and minor points of dissimilarity cannot outweigh overwhelming overall visual and phonetic similarities.

  Questions settled

  • What is the test for determining the infringement of a registered trade mark in relation to an unwary purchaser?
  • Whether minor points of dissimilarity between two wrappers can outweigh substantial overall visual and phonetic similarities in a passing off action?
  • Is the comparison of a disputed mark with a registered trade mark by a judge a legitimate mode of discovering infringement?
  • Whether the standard of confusion applies to the careless public at large rather than an intelligent section of consumers?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Malik Abdul Ali Khan and 11 Others1980 CLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Allaqa Magistrate, Jaranwala and 4 Others1980 PLD Lahore 28 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-28
  criminal revisioncancellation of casepolice reportadministrative orderLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972discharge of accusedSection 173 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged a Magistrate's order discharging respondents accused of murder, based on a police report finding them innocent. The core legal question was whether, following the amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, a Magistrate retains the power to discharge or cancel a case against an accused person under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Magistrate's power to cancel a case under Section 173(3) remains intact despite the 1972 amendments. The Court clarified that an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 173 is essentially administrative rather than judicial, effectively amounting to a cancellation of the case rather than a formal discharge or acquittal. Consequently, the Magistrate's order was upheld, and the petition was dismissed, noting that an aggrieved complainant retains the remedy of filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate retain the power to cancel a case under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following the amendments by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
  • Is an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered a judicial order or an administrative order?
  • Does the discharge of an accused by a Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to a formal acquittal?
  • What is the remedy for a complainant aggrieved by a Magistrate's order cancelling a case under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Bhatti vs Sajad Javed Akbar (Special Magistrate), Returning Officer, Lahore and Another1980 CLC 1810 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and 3 Others vs Muhammad Hussain and Another1980 CLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• Basher Ahmad Etc. vs Mukhtiar Hussain ETc.1980 CLC 11 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
• Barkatullah/ vs Abdul Hamid1980 PLD Lahore 548 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Administrator, Thal Development, Bhakkar, District1980 CLC 713 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-26Read full judgment →
• Bahaduri and 7 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 261 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain vs The Government of the Punjab and Another1980 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Etc. vs The State1980 P.Cr. L J 245 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
• Assistant Collector, Central Excise & Land Customs, Faisalabad and Another vs Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd., Ismailpur1980 CLC 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-23Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Nawaz Khan Baba vs Ch. Shafaat Ali and Others1980 CLC 886 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali and Another vs Abdul Rashid and 2 Others1980 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08
  temporary injunctionpre-emptionchange of character of landlis pendensprima facie caseirreparable lossbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order of the trial court dismissing an application for a temporary injunction filed by the appellants-pre-emptors in a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction restraining the vendees from changing the character of the suit land or selling it for building purposes can be granted in a pre-emption suit where no perpetual injunction is prayed for. The Lahore High Court held that the rule precluding temporary injunctions where no perpetual injunction is claimed does not apply to pre-emption matters, as a pre-emptor seeks substitution and requests the maintenance of status quo regarding the nature of the property during the pendency of the suit. The Court laid down that a vendee in a pre-emption suit cannot be permitted to change the very nature and character of the suit land, such as by converting agricultural land into a housing colony or selling it to strangers for building purposes, as this causes irreparable loss and inconvenience to the pre-emptor, and consequently allowed the appeal by granting the temporary injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary injunction be granted in a pre-emption suit where a permanent or perpetual injunction has not been prayed for?
  • Whether a vendee in a pre-emption suit can change the nature and character of the agricultural land during the pendency of the suit?
  • Does the principle of lis pendens apply to prevent the sale of property to strangers for building purposes in a pre-emption action?
  Read full judgment →
• Arfan Ali Shah alias Poopi Shah vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 444 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
• Anwar Aziz Chaudhary vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
• Amtul Batool and Another vs Qamar Sultana1980 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25
  co-sharerjoint propertytemporary injunctionalienation of specific portiontransfer of propertypartitionbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts granting a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo in a suit concerning a residential property. The plaintiff-respondent claimed joint ownership and that a co-owner could not validly sell a specific portion of the undivided property. The core legal question is whether a co-owner in possession can transfer a specific portion of joint property, and whether a temporary injunction can be issued against such a transferee at the instance of another co-owner who is already in possession of a portion. The Lahore High Court held that a transferee of a co-sharer steps into the shoes of the transferor and is entitled to retain possession of a specific portion not exceeding the vendor's share, subject to adjustment at the time of partition, and cannot be treated as a trespasser or restrained by a temporary injunction. The Court laid down that a co-sharer in established possession of an undivided property up to their share may alienate it, and other co-owners cannot obtain interim injunctions against such transferees when they are already in peaceful enjoyment of their own share.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a co-owner in possession of an undivided property may validly transfer a specific occupied portion?
  • Whether a transferee from a co-sharer of a specific part of joint property becomes the owner and is entitled to retain possession?
  • Whether a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. may be issued against such a transferee at the instance of another co-owner who is equally in possession?
  • Does the exception contained in the second paragraph of section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act apply to a Muslim family?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain Shah vs Umra1980 CLC 628 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali alias Sity vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 489 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-08Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan through Manager, I. D. B. P., Lahore and Another1980 CLC 180 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and Another vs Abdullah and Another1980 CLC 1602 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 105 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhsh vs The State1980 PLD Lahore 601 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-24Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha Etc.s vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Lahore and Others1980 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha and ANOTHERs vs Muhammad Yousaf and 37 Others1980 CLC 517 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Rak Ha vs Hamida Bibi1980 CLC 851 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
• Allah DITTAConvict vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 163 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-21
  circumstantial evidencelast-seen evidenceextra-judicial confessionmurder convictioncorpus delicticriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased, based solely on circumstantial evidence. The core legal question is whether such evidence—comprising last-seen testimony, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and various recoveries—is sufficient to sustain a conviction when the body was never recovered and the evidence is highly suspect. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant. The Court rejected the extra-judicial confession as unreliable and fabricated, deemed the recoveries of bones and personal effects as planted, and dismissed the last-seen evidence as weak and insufficient. The Court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the facts proved must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of any other reasonable hypothesis. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that no conviction for murder is permissible unless the fact of death is proven fully, either by direct evidence, such as the recovery of the body, or by circumstantial evidence of an exceptionally strong character.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence when the body of the deceased has not been recovered?
  • Is an extra-judicial confession admissible if made while the accused is in police custody?
  • What is the evidentiary value of last-seen testimony in a murder case?
  • What standard of proof is required for a conviction based entirely on circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 6 Others vs Muhammad Latif and 2 Others1980 CLC 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 17 Others vs Custodian of Evacuee Property and 111980 CLC 175 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The Summary Military Courts Nos. 36_37, Lahore and Another1980 P Cr. L J 83 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh Etc. vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh Etc. vs Noor Khan Etc.1980 CLC 498 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-10
  civil revisionappellate judgmentspeaking ordertemporary injunctionnon-speaking judgmentremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impugns the appellate judgment of the District Judge, Sargodha, which dismissed an appeal against the trial court's refusal to grant a temporary injunction in a property dispute. The core legal question was whether a perfunctory appellate judgment that fails to state points for determination, record reasons, or discuss necessary requisites for injunction satisfies the requirements of law. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate judgment was illegal, arbitrary, and failed to meet the mandatory requirements of a speaking judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment and remanded the matter to the District Judge for a fresh decision with an elaborate judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate judgment that merely recites facts and dismisses an appeal without reasoning constitute a valid judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What are the dual objectives of requiring an appellate court to record a self-evident judgment supported by elaborate reasoning?
  • Can a perfunctory disposal of an appeal without resolving points of controversy be sustained in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Alico Civil Engineers and Contractors, Lahore vs Syeda Mushtri1980 CLC 466 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04
  civil revisionsue in forma pauperispauper applicationcourt feemandatory procedureexamination of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an order dated 26 April 1972 passed by the trial court, which dismissed the petitioner's application for permission to sue in forma pauperis and directed the deposit of court-fee solely on the basis of a report submitted by the Collector. The core legal question is whether an application to sue as a pauper can be dismissed without following the mandatory procedure prescribed for examining witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that relying entirely on the Collector's adverse recommendation without examining the petitioner's witnesses, as required by law, constitutes an illegal act and material irregularity. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law, laying down the principle that the mandatory procedure of examining witnesses under the relevant civil procedure rules cannot be bypassed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis can be dismissed solely on the basis of a Collector's report without examining witnesses?
  • Does the failure to follow the mandatory procedure for examining a petitioner's witnesses under Order XXXIII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a material irregularity?
  • Can a counsel's lack of instructions from respondents serve as a valid ground for revoking a power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Nazir Erc.1980 PLD Lahore 52 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-31
  bail cancellationconstructive liabilityunlawful assemblymurderfurther inquirysimple injuriespost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under subsection (5) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 5, who were charged along with others for murder, attempted murder, and rioting under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the respondents, who were members of an unlawful assembly armed with weapons but inflicted only simple injuries on prosecution witnesses and did not assault the deceased, are entitled to bail, or if they should be held constructively liable for murder. The Lahore High Court held that the case of an accused who did not cause injuries to the deceased and is only responsible for simple injuries to witnesses is distinguishable at the bail stage from those who assaulted the deceased, particularly where a firearm was introduced by a subsequently appearing person, bringing the matter within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2). The petition for bail cancellation was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused who inflicted only simple injuries and did not assault the deceased is entitled to bail in a murder case?
  • Does the principle of constructive liability apply rigidly at the bail stage for members of an unlawful assembly?
  • When does a case fall under further inquiry for the purpose of bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 2 Others vs Maulvi Sultan Ahmad and Another1980 CLC 1767 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Mango() Khan and 3 Others1980 CLC 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue, Consolidation, Punjab, Lahore and 4 Others1980 CLC 159 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs Muzaffar Khan1980 CLC 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
• Ak Bar Au and 4 Others vs Ehsan Ellahi1980 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05
  pre-emptioncourt feesundervaluationlimitationurban propertydiscretionary reliefsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions were whether the first appeal was deliberately undervalued and understamped, and whether the suit property was urban property, thereby exempt from pre-emption. The Court held that the respondent had deliberately and fraudulently undervalued the appeal by filing a fictitious statement of net profits to evade proper court fees, despite knowing the land was fallow and uncultivated. Consequently, the Court refused to exercise discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend time for making up the deficiency, as doing so would prejudice the appellants' accrued right of limitation. Furthermore, the Court found the trial court's determination that the land was urban property to be correct based on uncontradicted evidence. The key principle laid down is that where a party is contumacious, negligent, or acts with mala fide intent to evade court fees, the court will not grant an indulgence for the extension of time if it deprives the opposite party of a valuable defence like limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal need to be valued according to the law in force at the time of its presentation, regardless of the valuation used in the original plaint?
  • Can a court grant an extension of time to make up a deficiency in court fees if the party has acted with mala fide intent or gross negligence?
  • Does the burden of proof shift in a civil case once evidence is placed on the record by one party?
  • Is land situated in a residential zone near a town and cantonment considered urban property for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1912?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsanullah Khan vs Government of Pakistan and 2 Others1980 PLC (C. S.) 654 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din and A/AMERs vs Imam Din (through Legal Representatives)1980 PLD Lahore 672 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-28Read full judgment →
• Afzal Hussain Syed vs Government of Punjab and Another1980 PLD Lahore 697 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-04
  constitutional petitioncivil servicecompulsory retirementbar of jurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicepublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a civil servant challenging an order of compulsory retirement passed by the Government of Punjab under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 after completing 25 years of service. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether the bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution applies to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199, and whether the competent authority can exercise the power to retire a civil servant under Section 12(ii) more than once or at any time after the completion of 25 years of qualifying service. The High Court held that under Section 12(ii) of the Act, the competent authority possesses unfettered discretion to retire a civil servant at any time after 25 years of qualifying service in the public interest, without restriction as to time or prior scrutiny. Consequently, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, ousting High Court jurisdiction under Article 212. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 completely oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters relating to terms and conditions of civil service?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 where an order affecting a civil servant is passed without jurisdiction or is void ab initio?
  • Can a competent authority exercise the power of retirement under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 at any time after a civil servant completes 25 years of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Afta B Ahmad vs Rehmat Ali1980 CLC 999 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-17Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Shah vs Khurshid Ahmad and Another1980 CLC 977 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Muhammad Yasin1980 CLC 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Sessions Judge, Jhang and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 574 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Muhammad Akhtar and Another1980 CLC 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Administrator, Market Committee, Okara and Another1980 PLD Lahore 509 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qad1r vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 397 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid ETc. vs Barkat Etc1980 CLC 152 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs D R. Din Muhammad1980 CLC 513 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs AbALAT Hussain1980 CLC 995 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 365 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Ashraf and Another1980 CLC 151 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Iqbalurrehman and 5 Others1980 CLC 1283 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kareem vs The Border Area Committee, District Kasur1980 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq & Sons Ltd., Lahore vs The Punjab Industrial Development1980 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Secretary, Rehabilitation and Revenue to the Government of Punjab, Lahore1980 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Mst. Kalsoom Begum1980 CLC 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Fazal Khan vs Muhammad Amjad Khan1980 PLD Lahore 706 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 357 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-27Read full judgment →
• Abadullah and 3 Others vs The Additional Deputy Commissioner1980 CLC 736 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abad Ali vs President, Summary Military Court No, 15, Bahawalpur1980 PLD Lahore 299 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
• A. R. Azar vs Pakistan through the Chairman, Railway Board. P. W. R., Lahore and 5 Others1980 PLC (C. S.) 139 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• A. Muhammad Hanif vs The Evacuee Property Trust Board, Government1980 CLC 105 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
• A. M. Mohajir vs The Managing Director, Gharibwal Cement Ltd., Lahore and Another1980 CLC 229 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-09Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Hailer Etc. vs Settlement Commissioner Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ziauddin vs F. S. Alexander and Another1979 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
• Zawar Hussain vs The District Magistrate, Sahiwal and Another---1979 P Cr. L J 397 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-08Read full judgment →
• Zarina Bibi vs Mehboob Etc. ,.1979 PLD Lahore 36 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
• Zarina Begum vs District Magistate, Lahore and Another1979 PLD Lahore 706 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
• Zareen Khan vs Agha Jan Muhammad1979 CLC 40 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah Khan vs Ch. Ghulam Ahmad and An07hbr1979 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 976 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
• Zafarul Haq vs Waris Iqbal and Another1979 PLD Lahore 514 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
• Zafar Saeed vs The State--1979 P Cr. L J 535 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Asif vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Multan and 21979 CLC 486 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
• Yasin vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-25Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan and 41 Other vs Meiviber (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab Etc1979 PLD Lahore 882 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• Wazir vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 835 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali and 2 Others vs Ghulam Rasool and Another1979 CLC 533 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-06
  pre-emption suitsecond appealadditional evidencelimitationwaiverphysical possessionimprovement of status
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of land. The appellants challenged the lower courts' decrees, seeking to introduce additional evidence regarding an alleged improvement in their status and contesting findings on waiver and limitation. The Court rejected the application for additional evidence, noting that the appellants failed to produce the document during trial or the first appeal, and that such improvement, occurring after the suit's institution, was barred by Section 21-A of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Regarding waiver, the Court held that a plea of fact not raised before the first appellate court cannot be agitated in second appeal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, a claim that a suit is time-barred due to prior physical possession requires affirmative evidence, which was absent here. The Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing that courts do not assist the indolent and that findings of fact affirmed by lower courts are generally final in second appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party introduce additional evidence in a second appeal that was available but not produced during the trial or first appeal?
  • Does an improvement in the status of a vendee-defendant made after the institution of a pre-emption suit affect the pre-emptor's right?
  • Can a plea of fact, such as waiver, be raised for the first time in a second appeal if it was not argued before the first appellate court?
  • What constitutes physical possession under Article 10 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of determining the limitation period in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux vs Muhammad Musa and 4 Others1979 CLC 261 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• Tufail vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
• Tribal Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore vs Province of Punjab through Chief1979 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Munir and 4 Others1979 P Cr. L J 797 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-07Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mohammad Yousaf and 3 Others1979 P Cr. L J 665 · Lahore High Court
  cancellation of bailconflicting bail orderssuccessive bail applicationsduty of advocateconcealment of factssuo motu noticesame bench rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arose out of suo motu notice issued by the High Court to resolve conflicting bail orders and consider the cancellation of bail granted to four co-accused respondents in a case registered under Sections 376 and 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal issue was the duty of counsel and litigants to disclose previous or pending bail petitions of co-accused in the same case, and the effect of obtaining conflicting bail orders from different Benches due to non-disclosure. The High Court reaffirmed the binding principles laid down in Abdul Ghafoor v. The State, emphasizing that subsequent bail petitions in the same case must be placed before the same Judge who earlier dealt with a co-accused's petition to ensure harmony and prevent suppression of facts. Counsel conceded the procedural non-compliance. Consequently, the High Court recalled its previous orders granting bail to two respondents and set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order granting bail to the remaining two respondents, thereby cancelling the bail of all four respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for an advocate and an accused person to ascertain and disclose whether earlier bail petitions have been filed or decided in the same case regarding co-accused?
  • Whether subsequent bail applications in the same criminal case must be placed before the same Bench that earlier dismissed a co-accused's bail application?
  • Can bail granted to an accused be cancelled if obtained from a different Bench without disclosing that a co-accused's bail petition had already been dismissed in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Muhammad Etc.1979 P Cr. L J 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and Another1979 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Club, Lahore vs Habib Ullah Tarar1979 CLC 742 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26
  club membershipArticles of Associationtemporary injunctiondismissal from serviceipso facto terminationcivil revisionpublic policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an appellate order granting a temporary injunction to the respondent, whose membership in the petitioner club was terminated following his dismissal from public service. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s dismissal resulted in the ipso facto cessation of his club membership under Article 21 of the Articles of Association, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal against that dismissal. The Court held that the Articles of Association clearly mandated the immediate cessation of membership upon dismissal, and the pendency of an appeal did not suspend this effect. The Court found that the lower appellate court acted with material irregularity by requiring the dismissal to attain finality before the clause could operate. The key principle laid down is that a private association may validly prescribe qualifications and conditions for membership, including automatic termination upon specific events like dismissal from public service, and such provisions are not inherently against public policy or unreasonable restraints on trade, provided they are consistent with the association's governing documents.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a member from public service result in the immediate, ipso facto cessation of their club membership under the Articles of Association?
  • Can a court declare a provision in a club's Articles of Association void on the grounds of public policy if it mandates membership termination upon dismissal from public service?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal against a dismissal order prevent the operation of a clause in a club's Articles of Association that mandates automatic termination of membership upon dismissal?
  • Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to the automatic termination of club membership pursuant to a specific provision in the Articles of Association?
  Read full judgment →
• The Land Acquisition Collector vs Ch. Muhammad Ali1979 CLC 523 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-21
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationcompulsory acquisitioninterest on excess compensationmutationenhanced compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act raising the compensation for acquired land from Rs. 1,950 to Rs. 4,500 per kanal, along with 15 percent compulsory acquisition charges and interest from the date of the Collector's award. The core legal question concerns the correct determination of the market value of the acquired land based on comparable sales and evidence, and the appropriate rate of interest payable on enhanced compensation. The Lahore High Court held that the evidence on record, including mutations and oral testimony, fully justified the valuation of Rs. 4,500 per kanal fixed by the lower court, as the land was well-situated and of prime category. However, regarding interest, the Court held that pursuant to the amendment introduced by Act III of 1969 to section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the rate of compound interest on the excess compensation must be eight per centum rather than six per centum. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed to modify the rate of interest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector can be enhanced on the basis of comparable sales and mutation evidence?
  • What is the correct rate of interest payable on the excess amount of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act after the 1969 amendment?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding land valuation arrived at by the lower court based on evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• The Evacuee Trust Property Board, Govern Ment of Pakistan, Lahore1979 PLD Lahore 903 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Punjab1979 CLC 492 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →