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.

• Muhammad Shafiq vs Sh. Sardar Ali1979 CLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Settlement Commissioner, Multan and Another1979 PLD Lahore 790 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-18
  constitutional jurisdictiondeed of associationsettlement authoritiestransfer of propertydisputed executionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from a dispute regarding the transfer of shop No. 4-C, Block-I, Jahania, District Multan, which was transferred to the petitioner, Muhammad Shafi, in November 1960. The petitioner subsequently executed an agreement of association with Muhammad Din, respondent No. 2, but later denied its execution and validity before the Settlement authorities, contending that the agreement was never properly accepted or admitted by a competent authority. The core legal question concerned whether the Settlement authorities could enforce an unaccepted and disputed agreement of association against a transferee who denied its execution. The Lahore High Court held that the mere filing or initial processing of a deed of association does not amount to its acceptance, and settlement authorities cannot enforce such an agreement if the execution is disputed by a party, leaving the aggrieved party to seek remedy before a civil court. Consequently, the petition was allowed, setting aside the Settlement Commissioner's order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere submission of a deed of association amounts to its acceptance by the Settlement authorities?
  • Can the Settlement authorities enforce an agreement of association when one of the parties denies its execution?
  • What is the remedy for a party when an agreement of association is disputed or avoided before the Settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Bashir Ahmad and Asr1979 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Etcs vs Member, Board of Revenue and 5 Other1979 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 2 Others vs Munshi and 3 Others1979 CLC 230 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-10
  Letters Patent Appealco-sharershamilat landexclusive possessionforcible dispossessionjoint possessionpossessory title
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a dispute over a site measuring 4 marlas and 79/131 sarsais in village Samburi, Sialkot. The appellants, who were co-sharers in joint property (shamilat), alleged they were in exclusive possession of the site before being forcibly dispossessed by the respondent co-sharers, and sought a decree for exclusive possession. The trial and first appellate courts decreed the suit, but a learned Single Judge of the High Court modified the decree to joint possession, holding that the appellants could not seek exclusive possession in an ordinary suit without proving a better title. On appeal, the Division Bench considered whether a co-sharer forcibly dispossessed of joint property can recover exclusive possession via an ordinary suit rather than a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Court held that while a co-sharer in exclusive possession cannot be ousted except through partition, once dispossessed, their remedy to regain exclusive possession without proving superior title is strictly limited to a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, within the six-month limitation period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer who has been forcibly dispossessed of joint property recover exclusive possession through an ordinary civil suit without proving a better title than the ousting co-sharer?
  • Is a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 the exclusive possessory remedy for a dispossessed co-sharer to regain possession without proving title?
  • Does a co-sharer in possession of a specific portion of joint property have a right to retain it against other co-sharers until partition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The StatePLD 1979 Lahore 711(2) · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Sub Martial Law Administrator, Sargodha and Another1979 PLD Lahore 284 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Mirza vs Anothbr R1979 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar Meer vs Mst. Fahmeeda Begum1979 PLD Lahore 541 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Additional District Judge II, Rawalpindi Aim 2 Ors1979 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 427 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razaq vs Ghulam Yasin and Others1979 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Lal Khatoon and 2 Others1979 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and Another vs Nazir Ahmad and 2 Others1979 CLC 95 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-30
  arbitration awarddissolution of partnershipappellate jurisdictionrendition of accountsscope of referencepecuniary jurisdictionsuit valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil revision and connected appeals arising from a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, wherein the trial court referred the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrators issued an award directing the payment of money and the transfer of a factory, which the trial court subsequently made a rule of the court. The District Judge set aside the judgment and decree, finding the arbitration proceedings vitiated. The core legal questions were whether an appeal lies against a decree passed in terms of an award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940, the determination of the appellate forum based on jurisdictional value, and the scope of arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court held that an appeal against an order dismissing objections to an award is maintainable under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940, and Section 17 does not bar such an appeal. It further held that the scope of arbitration is limited to matters in difference within the suit, and extraneous disputes cannot be included. The principle established is that the appellate forum in a suit for accounts is determined by the value fixed in the plaint until a final decree for a larger sum is passed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 bar an appeal against an order dismissing objections to an award when that order is part of a composite judgment passing a decree?
  • Is the appellate forum in a suit for accounts determined by the value fixed in the plaint or the amount decreed?
  • Can a dispute extraneous to the original suit be referred to arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does the failure of arbitrators to appoint an umpire when differences arise vitiate the arbitration proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mst. Akbari Begum1979 PLD Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and 3 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 392 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs District Magistrate, Dera Ghazi Khan and 4 Others1979 P Cr. L J 831 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Anwar Ali Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 756 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Anwar vs Mst. Guleyasmin and Another1979 P Cr. L J 519 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 154 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem, Inspector, Foodgrain, Vehari vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadir Khan vs District Magistrate, Vehari E TC.1979 PLD Lahore 37 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mueen vs The District Magistrate, Sahiwal and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mobin and 3 Other vs President, Summary Military Court1979 PLD Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzur Ahmad Ayyaz and Another vs LT.Col. Muhammad1979 P Cr. L J 642 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Khan vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Etc.1979 PLC 307 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil and 8 Others vs Muhammad Sarwar1979 CLC 470 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Baboo Feroze Din1979 CLC 516 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs President, Summary Military Court, Lahore1979 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Ho TM Din (Represented by Legal Heirs)1979 CLC 554 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Alias Sajjad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 473 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inayat vs Ch. Muhammad Saleem and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 154 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim. Alias Mubarik Ali Khan Petitioner vs Superintendent1979 PLD Lahore 225 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 275 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-06
  murderattempted murdersudden fightdeath sentence commutationpremeditated murdercriminal appealPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant, Muhammad Ibrahim, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, for the murder of Niaz Ali and the attempted murder of several others under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the incident constituted a sudden fight under the fourth exception to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby mitigating the offense. The Court held that the prosecution evidence, including the presence of premeditation, the use of lethal weapons, and the specific motive, negated the defense's claim of a sudden fight. Consequently, the Court affirmed the conviction. However, regarding the sentence, the Court exercised judicial discretion to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment, citing the appellant's advanced age of seventy years and his suffering from tuberculosis. The judgment establishes that the defense of a sudden fight requires evidence of a spontaneous, unpremeditated altercation, which is invalidated by proof of prior motive and organized preparation for violence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of prior motive and preparation with lethal weapons negate the defense of a sudden fight under Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can advanced age and serious illness serve as valid grounds for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the prosecution proves the accused arrived armed with deadly weapons and shouted a lalkara?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Haji Muhammad Tufail.1979 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain (Represented by Heirs)- vs Haji Hassan Muhammad1979 PLD Lahore 41 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haneef and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-04
  taking cognizanceCourt of Session jurisdictionColumn No. 2 accusedsummoning of accusedmurderbenefit of doubtcorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the murder of Rana Muhammad Yaqub. Four accused were convicted under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences for two and life imprisonment for the others, alongside connected appeals and a revision petition. The core legal questions addressed the jurisdiction of the Court of Session to directly summon accused persons whose names were placed in Column No. 2 of the police report under the amended Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the applicability of Section 191 and Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the interpretation of 'taking cognizance'. The Court held that under the altered legal scheme, the entire case is sent to the Court of Session under Section 190(3), empowering the Sessions Judge to summon accused individuals placed in Column No. 2 upon taking cognizance of the offence, and that such cognizance relates to the case/offence rather than solely the named offenders. On merits, the Court laid down principles regarding the necessity of corroboration for accused persons found innocent in successive police investigations, ultimately acquitting three appellants on benefit of doubt while confirming the conviction and death sentence of the fourth.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Court of Session can lawfully summon accused persons whose names were placed in Column No. 2 of the police report when the case is sent to it under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the summoning of an accused whose name is placed in Column No. 2 attract the mandatory requirement of informing the accused of their right to be tried by another court under Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes 'taking cognizance of an offence' by a court or magistrate under the criminal procedure framework?
  • Does Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a Court of Session from taking cognizance of an offence against persons not initially sent up for trial by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad H.Ussain vs Gulrez Khan Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 182 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghazanfar vs Ali Haider1979 CLC 84 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Duryab Yousuf Qureshi vs Punjab Labour Appellate1979 PLD Lahore 406 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 575 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh Etc vs Talc State1979 PLD Lahore 941 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-11
  pre-arrest bailSection 304-A PPCrash and negligent actdriving without licenceculpable homicideMartial Law jurisdictionArticle 212-A
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arose out of a pre-arrest bail application in a criminal case registered against two petitioners following a fatal car accident involving a young boy. The prosecution alleged that petitioner No. 1 left an official vehicle unattended with the keys inside, after which petitioner No. 2, who lacked a driving licence, operated the controls, causing the vehicle to strike the deceased. The police registered a case under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds that petitioner No. 1 lacked authority to move the car, petitioner No. 2 had no licence, and Martial Law authorities intended to seek transfer of the case. The High Court held that the core of an offence under Section 304-A is a rash or negligent act; lacking a driving licence or moving a vehicle without departmental permission does not escalate the offence to culpable homicide under Section 304. It further held that informal instructions to submit a challan to Martial Law authorities do not oust court jurisdiction under Article 212-A of the Constitution without a formal transfer order. Consequently, interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed.

  Questions settled

  • Does driving without a driving licence convert an offence of causing death by negligence under Section 304-A PPC into culpable homicide under Section 304 PPC?
  • Does unauthorized use of an official vehicle convert an offence from Section 304-A PPC to Section 304 PPC?
  • Does informal police instruction to submit a challan to Martial Law authorities oust High Court jurisdiction under Article 212-A of the Constitution in the absence of a formal transfer order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub Alias Ayuba vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 536 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State and Another1979 P Cr. L J 211 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Walayat Shah and Another-1979 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan Etc vs Province of Punjab Em1979 PLD Lahore 843 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-27
  land acquisitionpublic purposeurgency clausenotification lapseconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge a land acquisition notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which sought to acquire the petitioners' land for the construction of office accommodation for the Assistant Commissioner, Kabirwala. After the petitioners filed objections, the respondents issued a subsequent notification under Section 17 of the Act, invoking urgency powers to bypass the objection process. During the proceedings, it was admitted that the office of the Assistant Commissioner had already been constructed on other land. The respondents argued that the land was still needed for an approach road, a Bar Room, and Civil Courts. The High Court held that since the specific public purpose for which the land was originally sought to be acquired had already been fulfilled elsewhere, the impugned notification lost its purpose and lapsed. The Court declared the notification to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, noting that the government remains free to issue a fresh notification if a new public purpose arises.

  Questions settled

  • Does a land acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapse if the specific public purpose for which the land was sought has already been fulfilled elsewhere?
  • Can the government divert land acquired for one specified public purpose to another subsequent public purpose without issuing a fresh acquisition notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 610 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Khair Muhammad and 2 Others1979 P Cr. L J 372 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 5 Others vs Mst. Jamila Khatoon1979 CLC 367 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-24
  ejectmentpersonal needbona fide requirementlandlord testimonyrented housesecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an ejectment order passed against the appellants by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Additional District Judge on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the landlady. The appellants contended that because the landlady did not enter the witness box to testify to her personal need, her bona fide requirement was not established. The respondent argued that her occupation of a rented house sufficiently proved her bona fide requirement, and that her failure to testify was not fatal. The High Court held that while living in a rented house satisfies the condition that the landlord does not occupy another suitable building, it does not automatically establish the requirement of good faith. The Court ruled that the landlord is a material witness whose statement on oath is most relevant to prove bona fides. Unless prevented by physical or mental disability, a landlord's failure to testify without explanation detracts from their bona fides. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the ejectment application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's failure to enter the witness box to testify to their personal need is fatal to proving their bona fide requirement for ejectment?
  • Does the mere fact that a landlord resides in a rented house automatically establish the element of good faith required for ejectment?
  • Can the testimony of a landlord's attorney or relatives substitute for the landlord's own statement on oath regarding personal need when no disability is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and Others vs T1e State-1979 P Cr. L J 51 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 602 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Shah Muhammad and 2 Others1979 CLC 514 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Malik Fazal Ellahi1979 CLC 222 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan and 2 Other vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 2 Others vs The State and Another- Respondents1979 P Cr. L J 822 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Anara and 4 Others1979 P Cr. L J 566 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Allah Ditta and 4 Other1979 PLD Lahore 763 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs Karam Illahland Another1979 PLD Lahore 838 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1979 PCr. L J 614 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Presiding Officer, Summary Military Court No. 9, Faisalabad and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 862 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Muhammad Aslam and Other.1979 PLD Lahore 782 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Government,of Punjab, Home Department,Etc and Another1979 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Government of Punjab1979 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 12 Others vs Municipal Corporation, Lyallpur1979 CLC 361 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and Another vs The State1979P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah Khan vs Collector/Deputy Commissioner,1979 PLD Lahore 844 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 45 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Naqi vs Asghar Khan, D. S. P. and Other1979 PLD Lahore 587 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wazir Begum vs Mst. Sardar Begum and 7 Others1979 CLC 72 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-15
  civil revisionpre-emptionamendment of pleadingslimitationwritten statementprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision concerns the refusal of a trial court to allow an amendment to a written statement in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner sought to amend her written statement to include a plea regarding the limitation period for filing the suit. The trial court dismissed the application, characterizing it as an afterthought and a belated attempt to introduce a new factual plea. The High Court held that there is no universal rule prohibiting amendments at a belated stage, provided the opposite party is not prejudiced and has an opportunity to respond. The Court emphasized that the issue of limitation is a legal duty for the court to consider under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while an admission in a written statement cannot be withdrawn, an amendment introducing inconsistent pleas is permissible, leaving the trial court to determine the effect of such inconsistencies upon evidence. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the amendment was allowed subject to costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can an amendment to a written statement be disallowed solely on the ground that it is sought at a belated stage?
  • Is it permissible to introduce inconsistent pleas in a written statement through an amendment?
  • Does a court have a duty to consider the issue of limitation even if not explicitly raised in the initial pleadings?
  • Can an amendment to a written statement be allowed if it does not involve the withdrawal of a specific admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surriaya Begum vs Governor of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 Others1979 P Cr. L J 660 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahib Khatoon and Another vs Khan Muhammad and Another1979 CLC 273 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum vs Mst. Aisha Bibi Etc.1979 CLC 509 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazir Begum and Another vs Sheikh Abdul Rashid and Another1979 PLD Lahore 546 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maroof Sultana and 2 Others vs Professor Agha Raza and 21979 CLC 419 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maqsooda Bano vs Federal Government of Pakistan and 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 677 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kishwar Sultana vs Chief Martial Law Administrator, Etc.1979 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs The State through the Home Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and 2 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. L J 1056 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Khursheed Bibi and Another vs Ahmad Ahd 2 Otherp L D 1979 Lahore 846 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Sakina vs Nasim Hai Der1979 CLC 4 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida Iftikhar Ahmad vs Mirza Javed Akhtar1979 PLD Lahore 689 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
• MRS. Nasreen Rao Abdul Rashid vs District Magistrate, Rawalpindi and Another1979 PLD Lahore 923 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
• MRS. Jamila Latif vs Ghulam Yazdani Khan and 4 Others1979 CLC 29 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Feroza Aslam vs Muhammad Akhtar and Another1979 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
• Monawar Jehan vs Muhammad Sarfaraz1979 PLD Lahore 32 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sher vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 351 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-09Read full judgment →
• Miss Farah Naz vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 477 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-12Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Akram Beg and 5 Other vs The State and Another1979 PLD Lahore 935 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Ahmad vs Mirza Amjad Beg1979 PLD Lahore 865 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
• Miftah Fazale Haq vs The Punjab Civil Services (Appellate) Tribunal, Lahore and 3 Others1979 PLC 352 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mian Nazir Ahmad vs Summary Military Court, Jhelum and 4 Others--1979 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mian Munawar-Ud-Din vs The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Federal Ministry Op Communication, Islamabad1979 PLD Lahore 699 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-14
  civil servicesuspension from serviceinefficiencyoral ordersprior approvalretrospective executive actiondepartmental practiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged the suspension and subsequent extension of suspension of the petitioner, a General Manager of Telecommunications, ordered initially on oral approval and subsequently extended in writing, pursuant to proceedings initiated for 'inefficiency'. The core questions were whether an employee could be suspended on a charge of inefficiency under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973; whether an oral approval of the competent authority constitutes a valid order; and whether suspension can be granted retrospectively without prior approval. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that Rule 5(1) limits suspension strictly to charges of subversion, corruption, or misconduct, thus excluding inefficiency. Furthermore, the Court held that all public orders, especially presidential orders governed by Article 48(3) of the Constitution, must be in writing. Approval of the competent authority is a mandatory condition precedent prior to suspension, executive orders cannot operate retrospectively, and the government is legally bound by its own departmental interpretations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant be suspended from service under Rule 5(1) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 on a charge of inefficiency?
  • Can a public functionary or the President pass a legally valid administrative or penal order orally without reducing it to writing?
  • Is prior approval of the competent authority a mandatory condition precedent before an authorized officer can suspend a government servant under Rule 5(1) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
  • Can an executive order extending or directing suspension of a civil servant be given retrospective effect?
  • Is the government bound to follow its own official interpretation and departmental practice regarding administrative rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Khalil vs The Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle, Faisalabad and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 836 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Khalil vs Income Tax Officer, Company Circle, Faisalabad Ano 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 703 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri and Another vs Government of Punjab1979 CLC 370 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Muhammad vs Maul vi Fazal Haq and Another1979 CLC 518 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-09
  second appealcompromise decreepower of attorneypre-emptionfindings of factcounsel authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two second appeals challenging the judgments of the District Judge, which arose from declaratory suits filed by the respondent to declare pre-emption decrees null and void. The core legal question was whether a compromise decree entered into by a general attorney lacking express authority and merely attested by the counsel was binding on the principal. The Lahore High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts—that the counsel had not exercised his authority to compromise and that the attorney lacked the power to do so—were conclusive and not open to challenge in second appeal. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact and inferences drawn therefrom by lower courts cannot be displaced in second appeal unless a genuine misconstruction of foundational documents is established.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in second appeal?
  • Whether an advocate's mere attestation of an unauthorized attorney's compromise statement amounts to an exercise of the advocate's authority to compromise?
  • Does an ordinary power of attorney implicitly confer authority to enter into a compromise on behalf of a principal?
  Read full judgment →