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.

• Mian Abdul Hameed Puri and 5 Other vs Federation of Pakistan1979 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-19
  Government SecurityIndustrial BondsDuplicate BondsMisdelivery of securitiesTheftIndemnity bondStatutory loan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the refusal of the State Bank of Pakistan to issue duplicate Industrial Bonds to the petitioners after the original bonds, issued as compensation for acquired shares, were misdelivered by the postal service to an unauthorized third party. The core legal questions were whether these bonds qualified as 'Government Security' under the Securities Act, 1920, and whether their misdelivery constituted 'loss or theft' necessitating the issuance of duplicates. The Court held that the bonds are indeed 'Government Security,' as the government incurred a loan by operation of law. Furthermore, the Court determined that the misdelivery of the bonds to an unauthorized recipient amounted to theft under Section 378 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and consequently, the bonds were 'lost or stolen' within the meaning of the relevant legislation. The Court ruled that the Bank is legally obligated to issue duplicate bonds under Section 21 of the Securities Act, 1920, provided the petitioners furnish the required indemnity against potential claims. This judgment establishes that statutory acquisition of property creates a loan obligation and that misdelivery of securities constitutes a loss triggering replacement rights.

  Questions settled

  • Do Industrial Bonds issued as compensation for acquired shares constitute 'Government Security' under the Securities Act, 1920?
  • Does the misdelivery of securities by the postal service to an unauthorized party constitute 'loss or theft' under the Securities Act, 1920?
  • Can the State Bank of Pakistan be compelled to issue duplicate securities upon the provision of an indemnity bond under Section 21 of the Securities Act, 1920?
  • Does the acquisition of property by the government through operation of law constitute a loan contracted by the government?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zarrin Mirza and Another vs Management of Wyeth1979 PLC 429 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shahi Bottlers Ltd., Lahore vs Khushi Muhammad Arm 5 Others1979 PLC 424 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-13
  writ jurisdictioncondonation of delaylabour appellate tribunalindustrial relationsretrenchmentremedial jurisdictionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had condoned the delay in filing grievance petitions by retrenched employees and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for a decision on merits. The petitioner, an employer, argued that no appeal lay against the Labour Court's initial dismissal of the petitions, that the delay was not sufficiently explained, and that the employees were estopped from pursuing the claims due to the Collective Bargaining Agent's prior representations. The High Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation, and its decision to condone delay, even if arguably incorrect, could not be characterized as acting without lawful authority under the writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, read with the Standing Orders Ordinance, provides a comprehensive remedial framework for workmen, including appellate remedies. The Court concluded that an authority with jurisdiction to entertain a matter inherently possesses the jurisdiction to decide questions of limitation, and thus dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does an authority with jurisdiction to entertain a matter also possess the jurisdiction to decide questions of limitation?
  • Can a High Court interfere with an order condoning delay under its writ jurisdiction if the lower tribunal had the authority to entertain the matter?
  • Does the remedy provided under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, include the right to appeal against a Labour Court's decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sargroh Oil Industries Ltd. vs Messrs European Grain and Shipping Ltd1979 PLD Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sabir Silk Mills LTu,, Lahore and Another vs Sh. Muhammad Amin1979 CLC 498 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Modern Silk Mills Ltd., Lahore vs The Commissioner of Income1979 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lovable Sarina (Pakistan) Ltd., Lahore vs Government of Pakistan and 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 246 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kashmir Cap House, Lahore vs The Commissioner of IncomePLD.1979 Lahore 162 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Ittehad Steel Re-Rolling Mills, Rawalpindi vs The Chairman, Punjab, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 460 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs International Equipment Company, Lahore vs The Chief1979 CLC 318 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Hameed Masood & Associates vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore1979 PLD Lahore 453 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-15Read full judgment →
• Messers Regal Manufcaturing Company, Lahore vs Workers' Union1979 PLC 212 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mehr Khuda Dad Khan Lak and 2 Other vs Martial Law Administrator,, Zone _a_,1979 PLD Lahore 266 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din and Another vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 505 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
• Manzoor.Ul-Haque Saajid vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 682 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Shah vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 526 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-13Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 593 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Manzoor and Another vs Hakim Khan1979 CLC 276 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-31Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Chairman, Military Court, ]LahorePLD 1979 Lahore 711(1) · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mannu Khan vs Ata Muhammad and 2 Others1979 CLC 550 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-25
  list of witnessesrejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionbar of jurisdictionjamabandi entryAuqaf propertylimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition and regular second appeal involve distinct legal matters concerning procedural compliance and civil court jurisdiction. In the first matter, the petitioner challenged an order dismissing his application to examine witnesses due to a delayed list and an unattested affidavit, which the Lahore High Court set aside, holding that procedural rules should not trap litigants and technical omissions can be cured under sections 151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In the second matter, the appellants challenged the rejection of their plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding a suit challenging a jamabandi entry and a notification under the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act 1976. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that civil court jurisdiction is barred by section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 and sections 11, 12, 13, and 21 of the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act 1976, and that the suit was also barred by limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court dismiss a party's witness list solely on the ground of an unattested affidavit when illness is pleaded as a cause for delay?
  • Does section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts regarding the correction of entries in the jamabandi?
  • Does the Auqaf (Federal Control) Act 1976 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to question the validity of a notification issued under the Act?
  • Is a plaint liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit is barred by time and by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mallah and 7 Others vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Faisalabad and 2 Others1979 CLC 400 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
• Malik Nisar Hussain vs Allah Diwaya and 9 Others1979 CLC 245 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
• Malik Mushtaq Anwar vs District Magistrate, Lahore and 2 Others1979 P Cr. L J 658 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Jilani vs The Province of Punjab and Other1979 PLD Lahore 564 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02
  mercy petitiondeath sentencedoctrine of necessityde facto officerpresidential successionconstitutional petitioncollateral attackquo warranto
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arose from the dismissal in limine of a constitutional petition filed by the appellant challenging the authority of the Chief Martial Law Administrator, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, to act as the President of Pakistan and dispose of a mercy petition filed on behalf of a condemned prisoner, Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The core legal questions involved whether the assumption of the office of the President under President's Order No. 13 of 1978 was valid under the doctrine of necessity, whether the appointment could be challenged collaterally rather than through quo warranto, and whether the appellant had the right to question the executive authority in such proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the appeal was barred by res judicata, that the President's Succession Order No. 13 of 1978 was a valid legislative measure justified under the state necessity doctrine following the resignation of the former President, that the de facto doctrine protects the official acts of the holder of the office, and that the appointment of the President cannot be challenged collaterally. The court laid down principles regarding the non-collateral attack on de facto constitutional authorities and the validity of extra-constitutional measures under the law of necessity.

  Questions settled

  • Can the assumption of the office of the President under President's Order No. 13 of 1978 be challenged in collateral proceedings?
  • Whether the Chief Martial Law Administrator validly assumed the office of the President under the doctrine of necessity following the resignation of the former President?
  • Does a petitioner filing a mercy petition for a condemned prisoner have the locus standi to challenge the de jure authority of the pardoning authority in writ jurisdiction?
  • Are the official acts of a de facto holder of a constitutional office protected from collateral invalidation under public policy and convenience?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Qayyum Etc vs Punjab Province Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 853 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-11
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationseverance damagescompulsory acquisitionsolatiumvaluation of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two regular first appeals challenging the compensation awarded for land acquired by the government for the extension of the Lahore airport. The core legal question was determining the true market value of the acquired land at the time of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants contended that the valuation was insufficient, arguing the land possessed potential for residential use. The Court held that where land is used for agricultural purposes but possesses potential for residential development—evidenced by its location within municipal limits and proximity to developing colonies—the market value should be determined by calculating the mean between the average price of agricultural land and the average price of land intended for residential purposes in the area. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, awarding compensation at the rates claimed by the appellants, alongside statutory solatium and interest. Claims for severance damages and crop compensation were rejected due to insufficient evidence. The principle established is that in the absence of precise comparable sales, the mean value approach provides a fair measure for determining market value for land with dual-use potential.

  Questions settled

  • How should the market value of land be determined when it is currently used for agriculture but possesses potential for residential development?
  • Is an owner entitled to compensation for severance of holdings under the Land Acquisition Act without providing evidence of the specific damage sustained?
  • Can a court award compensation for standing crops in land acquisition proceedings in the absence of evidence regarding the area covered by such crops?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood vs Muhammad Siddique (Represented by Legal Heirs)and 21979 CLC 539 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Shah and Other vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and Other1979 PLD Lahore 886 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Hassan vs Chairman, Summary Military Court, Lahore and 21979 PLD Lahore 470 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mahmood Alam vs Shams UN Nisa Begum and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 176 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Alam Khan vs Chief Martial Law Administrator, Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-02
  detention orderMartial Law Ordersprejudicial activitypast convictionspending caseshabeas corpuspreventive detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the detention of a businessman, arrested on March 1, 1978, and detained for three months under C.M.L.O. 12 read with C.M.L.O. No. 33, on grounds of acting prejudicially to Martial Law purposes or national security. The petitioner had a history of criminal cases, including past convictions and acquittals, with several cases pending or under investigation. The core legal question was whether past convictions for ordinary crimes, or pending investigations/adjudications for similar offenses, could justify detention under Martial Law Orders without evidence of current prejudicial activity. The High Court held that the nature of offenses (theft, cheating) in pending cases did not indicate actions prejudicial to Martial Law. It was emphasized that detention under C.M.L.O. 12 required a finding of guilt for offenses contemplated by the Order, not merely past or unproven allegations. The court set aside the detention order, accepting the petition and ordering the petitioner's release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a detention order under Chief Martial Law Order 12 be maintained based solely on a history of ordinary criminal offenses or pending investigations?
  • Does a detention order under Chief Martial Law Order 12 require a finding of guilt for actions prejudicial to Martial Law purposes?
  • Are ordinary criminal offenses like theft or cheating considered prejudicial to the purpose of Martial Law or national security for the purpose of detention under Chief Martial Law Order 12?
  • Can a person be detained under Chief Martial Law Order 12 without evidence of current prejudicial activity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Khan vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 691 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26
  court witnessescriminal revisionprosecution witnessjudicial discretionfair trialabandoned witnessescross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the trial court's order refusing to summon two eye-witnesses as court witnesses after the prosecution abandoned them as 'won over'. The core legal question is whether a trial court should exercise its discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to summon prosecution-abandoned witnesses as court witnesses, rather than compelling the defence to call them as defence witnesses. The court held that the trial court erred in declining the request. It reasoned that the administration of justice requires even-handedness, and forcing the defence to call such witnesses prejudices them, as they may be denied the right to cross-examine if the witness supports the prosecution. The court established the principle that when the prosecution abandons material eye-witnesses, the court has an onerous duty to examine them as court witnesses if requested by the defence. Judicial discretion under Section 540 must be exercised according to reason and justice, not arbitrarily, to ensure the truth is uncovered regardless of which party the evidence favors.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trial court obligated to summon as court witnesses those eye-witnesses whom the prosecution has abandoned as won over?
  • Does the refusal to examine prosecution-abandoned witnesses as court witnesses cause prejudice to the defence?
  • What are the limits of judicial discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the summoning of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Hayat Khan Etc vs Federal Land Commission, Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 825 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-17Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Land Acquisition Collector, Sargodha and AnotherP L , D 1979 Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-25Read full judgment →
• Lahore Milk Board, Kotlakhpat vs And Another1979 PLD Lahore 788 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-17Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Shaukat and 2 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-02Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Etc. vs Shashu Etc.1979 CLC 433 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-25Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and 5 Others vs The State and Another-1979 P Cr. L J 271 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad Khan vs Abu Saeed Khan1979 PLD Lahore 877 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs Mian Fazal Din and 4 Others1979 CLC 279 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 250 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood Sped vs Razi Abbas Bokhari, Judge, Family Court, Lahore and Another1979 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-18
  dissolution of marriagepersonal attendancepre-trial reconciliationFamily Courts Actpardahnashin ladylegal representationdirectory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by a Family Court in a suit for dissolution of marriage, wherein the petitioner sought to compel the personal attendance of the respondent (plaintiff) for pre-trial proceedings under the Family Courts Act, 1964. The petitioner argued that Section 10(3) of the Act mandates personal attendance of parties to facilitate reconciliation. The core legal question was whether the Family Courts Act, 1964 requires the personal attendance of a plaintiff at the pre-trial stage, and whether the absence of such personal attendance renders proceedings illegal. The Court held that the Family Courts Act does not contain a provision requiring a plaintiff to appear in person for pre-trial proceedings. It clarified that Section 10(3) is directory rather than mandatory regarding the mode of reconciliation and does not mandate personal attendance. Furthermore, the Court held that a party may be represented by a counsel, and the right of a counsel to appear is recognized by the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964 mandate the personal attendance of parties for pre-trial reconciliation?
  • Is a plaintiff required by the Family Courts Act, 1964 to appear in person before a Family Court?
  • Can a party to a family suit be represented by a counsel in the absence of personal attendance?
  • Does the Family Courts Act, 1964 require the personal attendance of a plaintiff who is not a pardahnashin lady?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and 6 Other vs Ch. Ghulam Muhammad1979 PLD Lahore 675 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javaid Malik vs The State and Another1979 PLD Lahore 260 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
• Khadim Ali Tahir vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 758 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-31Read full judgment →
• Kaura vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 521 · Lahore High Court · -
  First Information Reportsecond FIRcognizable offencecriminal investigationpolice powersreview jurisdictionSection 154 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition challenged a High Court order that had directed the registration of a second First Information Report (FIR) regarding the same murder occurrence. The core legal question was whether Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permits the registration of multiple FIRs for a single cognizable offence. The Court held that Section 154 contemplates only one FIR for an occurrence, as the primary purpose of an FIR is to set the law in motion. Subsequent information regarding the same incident, even if it offers a divergent version or implicates different suspects, constitutes part of the investigation process and must be recorded as statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rather than as a new FIR. The Court emphasized that police officers are duty-bound to investigate the true facts and identify culprits based on the initial FIR, and they cannot be compelled to register a second FIR for the same transaction. Consequently, the Court recalled the previous order and dismissed the writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a second First Information Report be registered for the same occurrence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should subsequent information regarding an occurrence already under investigation be recorded as a new FIR or as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a police officer required to register a second FIR if a complainant alleges a different version of events for the same crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam and Others vs Noor Muhammad and Others1979 CLC 258 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-26Read full judgment →
• K. M. Sadiq vs Volkart (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi1979 CLC 291 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-07Read full judgment →
• Jhang Bahadur and 3 Others vs Muhammad Pervaiz and 3 Others1979 CLC 337 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-05
  regular second appealpre-emptionsale pricemarket valueauthority of counselVakalatnamacompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises out of a suit for possession of land by pre-emption. The trial court decreed the suit upon determining the market value of the land to be Rs. 3,048, after finding that the ostensible sale price of Rs. 9,400 was neither fixed in good faith nor actually paid. On appeal, the District Judge modified the decree to fix the market value at Rs. 4,000 based on an offer made by the plaintiffs' counsel and accepted by the defendants' counsel. The defendants appealed to the High Court, contending that their counsel lacked the authority to accept the increased offer. The core legal question is whether a counsel, authorized by a Vakalatnama to make statements or enter into compromises, can validly accept a settlement offer without separate, explicit authorization. The court held that the general authority conferred through the Vakalatnama was sufficient and binding, preventing the appellants from wriggling out of the commitment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine, laying down the principle that counsel acting under a duly executed Vakalatnama containing compromise powers can lawfully bind their clients in settlement offers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a counsel authorized by a Vakalatnama to make statements or enter into compromises can accept a settlement offer on behalf of the client without separate additional authority?
  • Does a client have the right to wriggle out of a commitment made by their counsel acting within the scope of a duly executed Vakalatnama?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Government of West Pakistan Ere.1979 PLD Lahore 152 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-22Read full judgment →
• Iris Sammuel Gill vs Government of Punjab1979 PLD Lahore 467 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-24Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain Shah vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-23Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain and 16 Others vs Ahmad1979 CLC 69 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-10Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Bibi vs Mubarak Ali1979 CLC 489 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
• Imam Ud Din vs Nazar Hussain and Another1979 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din Etc vs Muiiammad Sharif, Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 832 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-25Read full judgment →
• Hussain Naqi vs The State and Another1979 PLD Lahore 810 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
• Husona Etc vs T. D. A., Bhakkar1979 PLD Lahore 830 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ullah vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-26
  suspension of sentencepost-conviction bailmedical groundsinfirmitysenilityCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the suspension of sentence and grant of post-conviction bail on medical grounds. The petitioner had been convicted under Sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death and ten years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The core legal question was whether the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which permits bail for sick, infirm, or aged persons, can be invoked in an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426 during the pendency of an appeal. The High Court, relying on a psychiatric report demonstrating that the 90-year-old petitioner was severely depressed, senile, non-communicative, physically infirm, and on the serious ill list, accepted the application. The Court held that the principle embedded in the proviso to Section 497(1) applies to suspension of sentence applications under Section 426, granting bail on medical grounds subject to furnishing required security bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Can the proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked in an application for suspension of sentence under Section 426?
  • Whether extreme old age, senility, and severe physical infirmity constitute valid grounds for suspension of a death sentence and admission to bail pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat Etc. vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 361 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-24Read full judgment →
• Hayat Ali vs Saudagar Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
• Hasan Amin vs The Capital Development Authority, Islam Abad1979 CLC 565 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs Falak Sher Etc.1979 P Cr. L J 15 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ahmad vs The State and 15 Other1979 PLD Lahore 684 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
• Hameed Akbar vs Thal Development Authority1979 CLC 456 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Rehmatullah and Another vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 36 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Fa1z Muhammad and 9 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 460 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-23
  murdercircumstantial evidenceextra-judicial confessionbenefit of the doubtrecoveriesmotivecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, convicting the appellants for the murder of Ghulam Haider. The prosecution's case rested on an alleged motive of illicit relations, last-seen (vajtakkar) evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and subsequent weapon and clothing recoveries. The core legal questions involved the reliability of uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions, the evidentiary value of recoveries from open jungle spaces accessible to the public, and the effect of an unproven motive in a circumstantial evidence case. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the motive, discarded the vajtakkar evidence, rejected the joint extra-judicial confessions as weak and uncreditable, and found the recoveries doubtful. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants, set aside their convictions and sentences, and acquitted them. The key principle laid down is that where direct evidence is absent and circumstantial evidence—such as motive, extra-judicial confessions, and recoveries—is discredited or found doubtful, the conviction cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a joint extra-judicial confession is of any evidentiary value in a criminal trial?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of recoveries effected from open places accessible to the general public?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when the motive set up is not established by the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdur Rashid and Other vs Tin State and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Khaliq and 8 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 503 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
• Hajan Bakhtawar and Another vs Ghulam Rasool and 3 Others1979 CLC 229 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Hanif vs Ahmad Din1979 CLC 429 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ali and Another vs The State and Another-1979 P Cr. L J 768 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad and 3 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 671 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Taj and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
• GRINDLAY's Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Rat Abdur Razzaqub Khan and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 192 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Afzal Khan vs Muhammad Hanif Arif1979 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-07
  rent restrictionevictionnon-residential buildinglandlord and tenantstatutory interpretationpersonal useconversion of premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an eviction order granted under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant from premises used as a News Agency, claiming personal residential need. The core legal questions concerned whether Section 11 of the Ordinance restricts an owner from letting out residential premises for commercial use, and whether a landlord can evict a tenant from a non-residential building for personal residential purposes. The Court held that the eviction order was unsustainable. It established that Section 11 of the Ordinance regulates the landlord-tenant relationship and does not restrict an owner's right to convert property before it is let out. Furthermore, for determining the character of a building, only the rented portion is considered, not the entire structure. Crucially, the Court held that a landlord cannot evict a tenant from a non-residential building for residential purposes under Section 13(3) of the Ordinance, as the statutory grounds for eviction are specific to the nature of the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 prohibit a landlord from letting out residential premises for commercial use?
  • For determining whether a building is residential or non-residential, should the entire structure or only the rented portion be considered?
  • Can a landlord evict a tenant from a non-residential building on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for personal residential use?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab vs Messrs Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd.1979 CLC 522 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique vs Station House Officer, Saddar, Dera Ghazi Khan1979 PLD Lahore 263 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-04
  First Information Reportsecond F.I.R.cognizable offencecriminal investigationSection 161 Cr.P.C.police procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of registering a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding the same criminal occurrence. The core legal question addressed by the Court is whether the police are justified in registering a subsequent F.I.R. when information regarding the same incident is provided by a different informant after the initial F.I.R. has been recorded. The Court held that the primary purpose of an F.I.R. is to inform the police of the commission of a cognizable offence for investigation. Once an F.I.R. is registered, any subsequent information provided regarding the same occurrence does not constitute a new F.I.R. but must be treated as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the police officer receiving information may question the informant to verify sources but cannot register a second F.I.R. for the same incident. Consequently, the Court recalled the previous order directing the registration of a second F.I.R. and dismissed the writ petition, establishing that multiple F.I.R.s for a single occurrence are legally impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible to register a second First Information Report for the same criminal occurrence?
  • How should subsequent information regarding an already reported cognizable offence be treated by the police?
  • Does a police officer have the discretion to record information in a station diary instead of registering a formal First Information Report?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sakhi vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sadi vs Zainab Bibi1979 PLD Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and Another vs Rehmat Ullah1979 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-21
  ejectmentpersonal needgood faithlandlord and tenantsecond appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment order concurrently passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge against the appellants from a shop (or house) on the ground of personal need under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether a landlord must explicitly utter the words "in good faith" in his deposition to satisfy the statutory requirement of personal need, and whether failure to examine the son for whose marriage the premises were required is fatal to the ejectment application. The Lahore High Court held that specific utterance of the magic words "in good faith" is unnecessary if the evidence demonstrates an honest and actual need, and that failure to produce the son as a witness is not fatal where the father has substantiated his claim as head of the household. The Court laid down the principle that the requirement of "good faith" is a matter of inference from the facts and circumstances established in evidence rather than the mechanical repetition of statutory terminology.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord is required to specifically utter the words 'in good faith' in his deposition to satisfy the requirements of personal need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to examine his son as a witness in support of a personal need plea based on the son's marriage render the ejectment application fatal?
  • How is the expression 'in good faith' to be interpreted in the context of rent restriction laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and 2 Others vs Muhammad Sharif and 9 Others1979 CLC 527 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Etc vs Bashir Ahmad Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Ulfat Hussain Qureshi, Assistant Controller1979 PLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohyuddin vs Muhammad Bakhsh and Another1979 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-12
  pre-emptionpurchase moneydeposit in courtpayment out of courtexecution of decreemandatory provisionsubstantial compliancerival pre-emptors
  Summary & questions settled

  This Execution Second Appeal was referred to a larger Bench of the Lahore High Court to resolve a conflict of authority on whether payment of the purchase money out of court in a pre-emption case complies with Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent, a rival pre-emptor, claimed to have paid the vendee out of court before the due date, which was subsequently certified by the executing court. The appellant, the alternative pre-emptor, argued that such out-of-court payment was invalid and did not satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements. The High Court analyzed the statutory framework, comparing pre-emption decrees with ordinary money decrees under Order XXI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Order XX Rule 14 is a mandatory provision with strict penal consequences, designed to prevent collusion and fraud. Consequently, payment out of court, even if certified, does not constitute lawful compliance. The Court approved the rule in Painda Khan v. Tiwana (PLD 1962 Lah. 92), overruled Noor Ahmad v. Muhammad Ramzan (PLD 1973 B J 42), allowed the appeal, and directed execution in favor of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether payment of purchase money out of court can be considered as valid compliance with the provisions of Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the payment of purchase money under a pre-emption decree?
  • Can the rule of substantial compliance be invoked to condone non-compliance with a mandatory statutory provision that carries explicit penal consequences?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs THS State1979 P Cr. L J 72 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 757 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Noor Muhammad1979 CLC 414 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Ghulam Raza Shah and 12 Owns1979 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-20
  ala malkiyatadna malkiyatmartial law regulation 64adverse possessionshamilat dehtenancysecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for a permanent injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking to restrain the respondents-defendants from interfering with his possession over 614 kanals of land in Village Daggar Yar Shah. The trial court and the District Judge concurrently dismissed the suit. The appellant claimed adna malkiyat and subsequent ownership of the land through the abolition of ala malkiyat under paragraph 22 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64, or alternatively through adverse possession exceeding 12 years. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was merely a non-occupancy tenant and could not acquire ownership rights by breaking waste land or through adverse possession while holding permissive possession. The court further held that upon the abolition of ala malkiyat under Martial Law Regulation No. 64, where no distinct adna malik existed, the ala maliks (superior proprietors) became full, exclusive proprietors of the land rather than the land becoming resumable by the Government.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant in permissive possession can claim ownership of land through adverse possession?
  • What is the legal effect of the abolition of ala malkiyat under paragraph 22 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 on the proprietary rights of superior and inferior proprietors?
  • Does the abolition of ala malkiyat render unappropriated waste land resumable by the Government?
  • Can a person acquire adna malkiyat rights by reclaiming barani or shamilat land contrary to the village wajibularz?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid and Another vs Mian Farooq Nazir and Another1979 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-03
  rented landfactorytrade or businessejectmentrent restrictionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller Lahore on a preliminary issue in an ejectment case under the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether land rented out for the purpose of setting up a re-rolling mill (a factory) falls within the definition of 'rented land' under the Ordinance of 1959, thereby giving the Rent Controller jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the setting up of a manufacturing plant or factory constitutes trade or business, as its object is the conversion of commodities into finished goods for sale, and thus falls within the definition of 'rented land'. Furthermore, the court held that for a factory to be excluded from the operation of the Ordinance, the factory itself, equipped with machinery, must be let out as such rather than bare land leased for the purpose of a factory. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land rented out for the purpose of setting up a factory or manufacturing plant falls within the definition of 'rented land' under the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does the expression 'business or trade' encompass manufacturing processes and the establishment of a factory?
  • Under what circumstances is a factory considered ousted from the ambit of the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and Another vs Lal Khan and 2 Other Rcspondents1979 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and 4 Others vs Allah Bakhsh and 2 Others1979 CLC 398 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-28Read full judgment →
• Fazaldad and 7 Others vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and 49 Others1979 CLC 408 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 238 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi and 2 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs'1979 P Cr. L J 993 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
• Fazal D1N vs Sar Dar Shah and 2 Others1979 CLC 40 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Town, Lahore and 2 Others-1979 P Cr. L J 123 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-10Read full judgment →
• Fateh Din vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
• Farhatullah Khan vs Mustafa Ali Khan1979 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-28
  rent controlex parte ejectmentappealabilityRent ControllerWest Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinancecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves six Second Appeals arising from orders passed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question before the larger Bench was whether an order of a Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment is appealable under Section 15 of the Ordinance. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Mian Manzar Bashir v. M. A. Asghar & Co., held that such an order is indeed appealable. The Court established a clear distinction: an order refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order is definitive, effectively concluding the controversy and thus functioning as an order under Section 13 of the Ordinance. Conversely, an order setting aside an ex parte order is merely interlocutory and not appealable. Consequently, the Court overruled previous conflicting Lahore High Court decisions that had deemed such refusals non-appealable, affirming that the right to appeal exists when a Rent Controller declines to vacate an ex parte ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order of a Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment appealable under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does an order of a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte order of ejectment constitute an appealable order?
  • Is an order refusing to set aside an ex parte ejectment order considered a definitive order under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →