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.

• Farhat Shamsa vs Mushtaq Ahmad1979 PLD Lahore 50 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-09Read full judgment →
• Fardaus Kausar vs Subah Sadiq1979 CLC 208 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and 6 Others vs Settlement Department and 2 omits1979 CLC 508 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and 5 Other vs Sheikh Nasim Ahmad1979 PLD Lahore 356 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-18
  specific performanceagreement to sellpower of attorneypleading fraudparticulars of fraudtime as essence of contractsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises out of a suit for the specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning property in Sahiwal. The core legal questions involved whether the property was validly covered under the power of attorney, whether a subsequent agreement extending time was vitiated by fraud or lack of particulars, and whether time was of the essence of the contract. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants could not raise new pleas or allegations of fraud and misrepresentation without pleading necessary particulars under the Code of Civil Procedure, that concurrent findings of fact regarding the extension of time through a subsequent agreement were unexceptionable in second appeal, and that a party cannot benefit from its own failure to perform. The key principles laid down include the strict requirement for pleading particulars of fraud or misrepresentation in pleadings under Order VI, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the rule that a party cannot raise a new plea of fact for the first time in second appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party raise a plea of fraud and misrepresentation in a suit or defense without setting out the necessary particulars in the pleadings?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the execution and extension of an agreement of sale can be disturbed in second appeal?
  • Does the non-framing of a specific sub-issue vitiate trial proceedings where the parties were fully aware of the controversy and led evidence on it?
  • Can a vendor avoid the specific performance of a contract by setting up a delay that was caused by their own failure to fulfill obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs Director, Trade1979 CLC 267 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
• Electric Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Sheikhupura vs Government of the Punjab and Another1979 PLC 416 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-19
  social security ordinancespecial tax levystatutory consultationgoverning bodycommissioner powersdelegation of authorityconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a government notification imposing a special tax under Section 70 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, arguing that statutory consultation with the Social Security Institution was not held. The Commissioner of the Social Security Institution had initiated the proposal and submitted a draft notification directly to the Government, which issued it without further consulting the Governing Body of the Institution. The Lahore High Court examined whether the Commissioner could act as a substitute for the Governing Body/Institution and what constitutes valid 'consultation' under the law.

  The Court held that the Governing Body represents the Institution as a body corporate, whereas the Commissioner is merely its executive officer and cannot substitute for the Governing Body without express statutory delegation or regulation. The Court further observed that consultation requires an impact of minds where the consulting authority presents a proposal to the consulted body for its advice or suggestions. Because no consultation occurred with the Governing Body and Section 70 did not apply to the case, the impugned notification was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does a proposal initiated by a Chief Executive officer satisfy a statutory requirement of consultation with the corporate body itself?
  • Can the Commissioner of the Social Security Institution act as a substitute for the Governing Body without express delegation or regulation?
  • What constitutes valid legal consultation when a statute requires the Government to consult a body before levying a tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Dreamland Pictures vs Shan Productions Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-09Read full judgment →
• DR. Sajjad Ahmad and Another vs DR. Muhammad Bashir and 10 Other1979 PLD Lahore 304 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-27
  writ jurisdictionframing of issuesrevisional jurisdictionalternative remedycivil procedurefraudulent mutationinterlocutory orders
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged orders passed by an Additional District Judge in revisional jurisdiction, which set aside the trial court's consolidated issues in a civil suit regarding land ownership and fraudulent mutations. The petitioners contended that the trial court's issues were sufficient and that the Additional District Judge's order framing additional, specific issues was legally flawed. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with interlocutory orders in civil proceedings where an alternative remedy exists, and whether the framing of issues was correct. The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable because the petitioners had an adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal against the final decree. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Additional District Judge's order, ruling that under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, issues must be framed distinctly for every material proposition of fact and law affirmed by one party and denied by the other, rather than consolidated. The petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order passed by an Additional District Judge in revision regarding the framing of issues amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the availability of an appeal against a final decree bar the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction against interlocutory orders in civil suits?
  • Under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, must a court frame distinct issues for every material proposition of fact and law?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Bashir Ahmad Butt vs Muhammad Sharif1979 PLD Lahore 751 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-09Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs Muhammad Sharif And Another1979 P Cr. L J 59 · Lahore High Court
  quashment of criminal proceedingsinherent powers of High CourtSection 561-A CrPCSection 249-A CrPCabuse of processpremature petitioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pending before a Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the criminal case was a malicious attempt to harass him arising from a civil dispute. The core legal question was whether the enactment of Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, ousted the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to quash criminal proceedings. The Court held that Section 249-A is declaratory of the inherent power to prevent abuse of process and does not bar the High Court's jurisdiction. However, it established the principle that Section 249-A provides a speedy remedy in the original jurisdiction. Consequently, as a rule of judicial propriety, an accused must first exhaust the remedy of acquittal before the trial court under Section 249-A before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A. The High Court will only intervene in exceptional circumstances where the trial court remedy is insufficient. The petition was dismissed as premature.

  Questions settled

  • Does the enactment of Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bar the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must an accused first seek acquittal under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings despite the availability of a remedy before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs Bashir Ahmad and 5 Others1979 CLC 466 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad Etc vs Tufail Muhammad Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 826 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Dalil Khan and Another vs Sardar Khan and 2 Trims1979 CLC 104 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-02
  civil court jurisdictionland reforms regulationjurisdictional factsouster of jurisdictionspecific relieftribunal of limited jurisdictionplaint rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Additional District Judge, Mianwali, which reversed a trial court's decision to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a civil court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit challenging an order passed by a Land Commission authority regarding the validity of a land sale transaction under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972. The appellants argued that the matter fell exclusively within the Land Commission's jurisdiction. The Court held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It established that a tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot confer authority upon itself by incorrectly determining the jurisdictional facts upon which its power depends. Consequently, if an authority acts outside the statutory framework or fails to correctly ascertain the facts foundational to its jurisdiction, its orders are not immune from challenge before a civil court. The Court affirmed that the civil court is the proper forum to determine title and the validity of such administrative orders when the jurisdictional prerequisites are contested.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of a Land Commission authority when the jurisdictional facts are disputed?
  • Can a tribunal of limited jurisdiction confer authority upon itself by making a wrong decision regarding the existence of jurisdictional facts?
  • Is an order passed by an authority under the Land Reforms Regulation immune from challenge in a civil court if the authority acted outside the four corners of the statute?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, preclude a civil court from examining the validity of an administrative order?
  Read full judgment →
• D. P. Edulji & Company Ltd. vs Secretary, Excise & Taxation Etc.s1979 P Cr. L J 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-10Read full judgment →
• Crown Bus Service Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore1979 PLD Lahore 25 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-24Read full judgment →
• Charles Peter vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Rashid1979 PLD Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ijaz Masood vs Deputy Martial Law Administrator and Other1979 PLD Lahore 719 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Barkat Ali vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 352 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ch. Atta Muhammad and 10 Others vs Federal Land Commission Erc.1979 CLC 294 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-09
  land reformsirrevocable power of attorneyagreement to sellresumption of landjurisdictional factsdeemed tenantcolonization of government lands
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the decision of the Federal and Provincial Land Commissions to resume agricultural land in excess of 100 acres from a retired civil servant under Paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972. Prior to the promulgation of the Regulation, the civil servant had executed a registered agreement to sell the land to the petitioners, received full consideration, and executed an irrevocable general power of attorney in their favour, delivering physical possession. The Land Commissions rejected the petitioners' claim for exemption under the Commission's policy letter, holding that an agreement to sell did not constitute a complete transfer. The Lahore High Court held that under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, the power of attorney was coupled with an interest and was truly irrevocable, effectively removing the civil servant from ownership and possession. The Court further held that the transaction was not void under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, as the status of 'deemed tenant' under Section 184(4) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 did not retrospectively invalidate the original grant's conditions. Deciding that the Land Commissions misconstrued the jurisdictional facts of ownership, possession, and transfer, the Court declared the resumption orders to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 remain irrevocable even if not explicitly labeled as such?
  • Can the Land Commission resume land from a transferor under Paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 when the transferor has parted with possession and received full consideration under an irrevocable power of attorney?
  • Does a statutory deeming clause under Section 184(4) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 retrospectively apply the restrictive transfer provisions of Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 to a prior independent grant?
  • Is the High Court empowered under its writ jurisdiction to review and correct an erroneous determination of jurisdictional facts by the Land Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Saboor vs The State and Another1979 PLD Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-29Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Rashid vs Capital Development Authority, Islamabad and Another1979 PLD Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-02
  master and servantconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory rulesservice regulationswrit petitiondisciplinary actionCapital Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a constitutional petition filed by a former Director of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) challenging his removal from service under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question revolves around whether the CDA Service Regulations, 1973 constitute statutory rules, thereby transforming the employment relationship from a simple master-and-servant contract to one protected by statutory provisions, making constitutional jurisdiction available. The Lahore High Court held that the CDA's service regulations are non-statutory in character, as the power to frame them is directory and distinct from statutory rule-making powers, leaving the employment governed by the ordinary principle of master and servant. The court laid down the principle that mere incorporation of statutory rules into administrative service regulations does not elevate those regulations to statutory instruments, and in the absence of a violation of statutory rules or the holding of a public or statutory office, constitutional petitions by corporate employees are incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service regulations framed by the Capital Development Authority under its Ordinance constitute statutory rules?
  • Does the principle of master and servant govern the employment relationship of CDA employees in the absence of statutory service rules?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 be invoked by an employee of a statutory corporation whose employment is governed by non-statutory regulations?
  • Does the incorporation of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules into agency regulations make those regulations statutory instruments?
  Read full judgment →
• Buland Khan and 6 Another vs Muhammad Rafiq and 6 Other1979 PLD -Lahore 237 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-14
  natural guardianalienation of minor propertyvoidable transactionlimitation periodArticle 44 Limitation Actlegal necessityMahomedan lawGuardians and Wards Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a suit filed by respondents challenging an alienation of their property by way of mortgage executed by their father in 1954. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the mortgage was within the father's authority under Islamic law and that any unauthorized transfer by a natural guardian is merely voidable, making the suit subject to the three-year limitation period under Article 44 of the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court examined the scope of a natural guardian's authority under Mahomedan law, concluding that paying off debts of extended family members does not constitute legal necessity. However, the Court held that an unauthorized alienation of immovable property by a natural guardian is voidable, not void ab initio. Furthermore, Article 44 applies to natural guardians and is not restricted to court-appointed guardians under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. Because the suit was instituted beyond three years of the plaintiffs attaining majority, the High Court held it was time-barred, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 44 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to transfers of immovable property made by a natural guardian who is not court-appointed?
  • Is an unauthorized alienation of a minor's immovable property by a natural guardian void ab initio or merely voidable?
  • Does the payment of a relative's debts constitute a legal necessity permitting a natural guardian to alienate a minor's immovable property under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education vs KI'ialid Mahmood1979 PLD Lahore 39 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
• Bilqis vs Kohinoor Industries Ltd., Lahore1979 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-27
  civil revisioncommission for examination of witnessesjudicial discretioncivil procedurewitness attendance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the order of the trial court dismissing the petitioner's application under Order XXVI, rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to examine two witnesses through a commission at Karachi where they resided and conducted business. The core legal question was whether the conditions for issuing a commission under Order XXVI, rule 4 are independent and whether their fulfilment creates an absolute right for a party to obtain a commission, or if the court retains judicial discretion. The Lahore High Court held that the requirements under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Order XXVI, rule 4(1) are indeed independent, meaning a person need not satisfy all of them to be eligible. However, fulfilling one does not entitle a party to a commission as a matter of right; the word 'may' confers a judicial discretion upon the court to refuse the commission if it would be an abuse of process, unnecessary, or intended to cause delay or harassment. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Are the conditions for issuing a commission under Order XXVI rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 independent of each other?
  • Does a party have an absolute right to obtain a commission for the examination of a witness once one of the conditions under Order XXVI rule 4 is fulfilled?
  • What is the scope of the court's discretion under the word 'may' in Order XXVI rule 4 when deciding whether to issue a commission?
  • Can a witness residing anywhere in Pakistan be summoned to attend court in person following the amendment to Order XVI rule 19?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Razia Muttaqi and 6 Other vs State Life Insurance Corporation1979 PLD Lahore 930 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
• Bashiran vs Bakhsha1979 PLD Lahore 40 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-18Read full judgment →
• Bashir and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-19Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Mst. Jahan Ara Begum1979 CLC 439 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• Barkat vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 823 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-30Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali and Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 147 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-26Read full judgment →
• Bahadur vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 138 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-06Read full judgment →
• Ba Dar Ali and Another vs Ghulam Rasool1979 CLC 46 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-23Read full judgment →
• Ashiq vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 480 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-20Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs The State and Another-1979 P Cr. L J 441 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain Shah vs The Operative Director Administration Electric1979 PLC 389 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain Shah vs Operative Director, Administration, Electric1979 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12
  industrial relationsgrievance procedurenon obstante clausetermination of servicelimitation periodJunior Labour Courtwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal concerning the dismissal of a worker. The core legal question is the interpretation of Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically whether the grievance procedure requiring notice to an employer under subsections (1) to (4) of Section 25-A remains mandatory for cases of termination, dismissal, or retrenchment, or if subsection (6) provides an independent, direct remedy to the Junior Labour Court. The Court held that the 'non obstante' clause in subsection (6) signifies that for cases of termination, dismissal, discharge, lay-off, or lock-out, the procedural requirements of notice under subsections (1) to (4) are dispensed with. Consequently, a workman aggrieved by such termination must approach the Junior Labour Court directly within the prescribed two-month limitation period. The Court affirmed that subsections (1) to (4) remain applicable for other industrial grievances not involving termination. As the petitioner's application was time-barred under this interpretation, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grievance procedure prescribed in subsections (1) to (4) of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, apply to cases of termination of employment?
  • What is the legal effect of the 'non obstante' clause in subsection (6) of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is a workman required to give notice to an employer before approaching a Junior Labour Court for termination of service under Section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can the High Court interfere with a Tribunal's decision under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 based solely on an alleged erroneous interpretation of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali Shah vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore and Another1979 PLC 201 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Islamia High School, Lalamusa vs Muhammad Hasham and Another1979 PLD Lahore 873 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-23Read full judgment →
• Amir Din Etc vs Sabir Hussain1979 PLD Lahore 896 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-29
  pre-emptionoccupancy rightsColonization of Government Lands ActPunjab Tenancy Actagricultural landright of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of occupancy rights in land governed by the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The appellants (vendees) challenged the trial court's decree in favour of the respondent (pre-emptor), arguing that the land was not subject to pre-emption and that the respondent's remedy lay under the Punjab Tenancy Act rather than a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions were whether the sale of occupancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act was immune from pre-emption and whether the respondent was precluded from filing a pre-emption suit due to the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The Court held that the notification previously exempting such lands from pre-emption had been rescinded, rendering the sale pre-emptible. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the respondent was restricted to a suit under the Punjab Tenancy Act, noting that section 114(1) of the Punjab Tenancy Act specifically exempts occupancy rights in government-owned lands from the abolition of pre-emption rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the respondent's right to pre-empt the sale.

  Questions settled

  • Is the sale of occupancy rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act subject to the right of pre-emption?
  • Does section 114 of the Punjab Tenancy Act abolish the right of pre-emption in respect of occupancy rights in all lands owned by the Government?
  • Can a pre-emptor be restricted to a suit under the Punjab Tenancy Act instead of a suit for pre-emption regarding the sale of occupancy rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Abdullah and Another vs The State and Anoti Er-1979 P Cr. L J 29 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-03Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali and Other vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 551 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-14Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali and 2 Other vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 498 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-13Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad vs The State and Anothrr1979 P Cr. L J 1000 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ally Brother & Co., Lahore vs Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad1979 PLD Lahore 857 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Lahore vs The Punjab Labour Appellate1979 PLC 443 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 701 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhi and Another vs Malik Khan1979 PLD Lahore 23 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta, Etc vs Muhammad Siddique, Em1979 PLD Lahore 841 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Farooq Ahmad and 3 Other1979 PLD Lahore 917 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-06
  ejectment proceedingslimitation periodcondonation of delayspecial lawrent restrictionsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by landlords against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, could be invoked to condone a delay in filing an appeal under the special law, specifically when the limitation period prescribed by the special law differed from the general law. The Court held that the appeal was barred by limitation, dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The Court affirmed that where a special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from that provided in the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by operation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the provisions of Section 5 cannot be applied to extend the period of limitation for appeals governed by such special enactments, as the special law's specific limitation provisions prevail over the general provisions of the Limitation Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to appeals filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 exclude the application of Section 5 when a special law prescribes a different period of limitation?
  • Is the period of limitation for a second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 different from that prescribed by the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 190 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and Another vs Muhammad Ali Shah and 10 Others1979 CLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs Rafiquddin and 9 Others1979 CLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
• Alhaj Khalil Ahmad vs The Australasia Bank Ltd., Lahore and Another1979 CLC 494 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-27
  burden of proofright to beginaffirmative evidencerebuttal evidencecivil revisionissues
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an order of the trial court rejecting the petitioner's application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought to compel the plaintiff-respondent to conclude its affirmative evidence on issues where the onus lay on the plaintiff before the defendant-petitioner was required to lead evidence. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the right to begin and the reservation of evidence under Order XVIII, rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, read with sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act 1872. The Lahore High Court held that a plaintiff must lead and conclude its affirmative evidence on issues for which it bears the burden of proof before the defendant is called upon to enter evidence, and cannot improperly reserve its affirmative evidence under the guise of rebuttal. The court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the practice of subordinate courts in reserving a plaintiff's affirmative evidence until after the defendant closes its case is illegal and prejudicial to the defense.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff reserve its affirmative evidence on issues where the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff until after the defendant has concluded its evidence?
  • Whether the practice of subordinate courts in allowing a plaintiff to reserve affirmative evidence until after the defendant closes its case is in accordance with law?
  • Does the reservation of evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to issues where the onus of proof lies on the party beginning?
  Read full judgment →
• Akram Ali Shah vs Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Kasur and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-27
  cross-version FIRregistration of FIRcognizable offencepolice investigationwrit jurisdictionduty of police
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition filed against the refusal of the Station House Officer (SHO) to register a cross-version FIR regarding a physical altercation between two parties. Both parties sustained injuries and sought registration of their respective versions of the incident. The police registered a case for one party but refused the other, claiming the petitioner’s side was the aggressor. The core legal question is whether the police possess the discretion to refuse the registration of a cross-version FIR once a cognizable offence is reported. The Court held that the police function merely as an investigating agency, not as a judicial body. Under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the duty to register a cognizable offence is mandatory and imperative. Consequently, the police cannot unilaterally determine the veracity of versions or identify the aggressor to justify refusing registration. The Court established that where cross-versions exist, both must be registered and investigated, with the final adjudication left to the competent Court, which evaluates the evidence submitted by the police.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police officer in charge of a police station legally obligated to register a cross-version FIR regarding the same occurrence?
  • Does the police have the authority to refuse the registration of an FIR based on their preliminary assessment of who the aggressor is?
  • Is the function of the police in criminal matters limited to investigation rather than judicial adjudication?
  • Can the High Court command the registration of a case under its writ jurisdiction when the police fail to perform their statutory duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan-Ul-Haq and 5 Other vs Abdul Rahim and Another1979 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Raza vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 525 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Muhammad Afzal Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Khushi Muhammad and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 879 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Bashir Ahmad and 9 Other'1979 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din and 7 Other vs Abdul Khalik and Other1979 PLD Lahore 898 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07
  abatementtotal abatementlegal representativesimpleadmentrepresentation of estateremandLetters Patent Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose out of a suit regarding the inheritance of property left by a deceased limited owner. A co-defendant, Mst. Sahib Bibi, died during the trial following a remand, and her legal representatives were not formally brought on record. The first appellate court and a learned Single Judge dismissed the suit in its entirety on the ground of total abatement, holding that the interest of all defendants was indivisible. The High Court analyzed the record and observed that Mst. Sahib Bibi had transferred her entire share to another defendant (Muhammad) via a registered sale deed before her death, thereby making Muhammad her successor-in-interest representing the entire estate. Furthermore, her legal representatives were already on record as co-appellants. The High Court held that where a deceased party's interest has been completely transferred and the estate is fully represented by another contesting defendant, it is unnecessary to implead the deceased's legal representatives, and total abatement does not occur. Reaffirming that total abatement is unjustified unless an insuperable practical obstacle prevents adjudication, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the appeal for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit abate against a deceased defendant who had already transferred her entire interest in the suit property to a co-defendant prior to her death?
  • Whether the non-impleadment of legal representatives of a deceased defendant results in the dismissal of the entire suit when the estate is otherwise fully represented?
  • Can a court dismiss a suit in its entirety for abatement without an insuperable practical obstacle preventing an adjudication on the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh and Others vs Muhammad Yar and Others1979 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid and Another vs Ghulam Maula and Another1979 CLC 481 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Abdul Sattar and Others1979 P Cr. L J 369 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Etc. vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 80 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Summary Military Court, Sialkot and 4 Other1979 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Martial Law Administrator, Punjab1979 P Cr. L J 1014 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Sessions Judge, Jhang and 2 Other1979 PLD Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-12
  superdaritemporary custodycase propertyhire-purchase agreementcivil court decreeconstitutional petitiondiscretionary orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a dispute over the temporary custody (superdari) of a bus involved in a criminal theft case, following defaults on a hire-purchase agreement and a subsequent civil court consent decree. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge rightly set aside the Magistrate's order cancelling the respondent's superdari and granting it to the petitioner, who had become the lawful owner under a final civil court decree. The Lahore High Court held that orders under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are interim in nature, and a Magistrate is fully competent to cancel superdari if a custodian fails to produce the case property, provided a show-cause notice is issued before forfeiting any security bond. The Court ruled that the Sessions Judge acted arbitrarily by restoring custody to a defaulter who no longer held title, overlooking the special circumstance of the petitioner's ownership established by the civil court. The petition was accepted, declaring the Sessions Judge's order illegal and restoring the bus to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interim order of superdari under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be cancelled if the superdar fails to produce the case property in court?
  • Whether a High Court can interfere with discretionary orders of lower courts regarding temporary custody passed in a capricious or arbitrary manner?
  • Does a final civil court decree declaring ownership constitute a special circumstance warranting the grant of superdari to the owner over the person last in possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Bhatti vs Haji Muhammad Ishaq and Another1979 PLD Lahore 473 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and Another vs Punjab Government, Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 755 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Etc vs Government of Punjab Etc.1979 PLD Lahore 851 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs The State1979 PLD Lahore 695 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and 3 Other vs THB State1979 PLD Lahore 490 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 27 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 442 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and Another vs Muhammad Nazar Ali1979 PLD Lahore 317 · Lahore High Court · 1978-12-03Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 222 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
• Zahur Ahmad alias Maki vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 227 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-22Read full judgment →
• Zahoor vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 962 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-05Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Iqbal and 2 Others vs Nasreen Hameed and Another1978 P Cr. L J 113 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-30Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab,Lahore1978 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Khan vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1978 PLD Lahore 229 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore vs Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Lahore and Others1978 PLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-24Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan Cooperative Consumer Society, Lahore vs Messrs Mian1978 PLD Lahore 28 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• War1s Ali Etc. vs The State Etc1978 P Cr. L J 748 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
• Wali vs Sardara1978 PLD Lahore 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• Walayat vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 809 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
• Wakil Khan vs Mst. Aasia Begum and Another1978 PLD Lahore 793 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-06Read full judgment →
• Umra vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 320 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-01Read full judgment →
• Umer Din and 3 Others vs Ch. Fazal Din (Represented by 7 Heirs1978 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-19Read full judgment →
• Umer Din and 3 Other vs Ch. Fazal Din (Represented by 7 Biirs1978 PLD Lahore 193 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-19Read full judgment →
• TM Muhammad vs The State and Another1978 P Cr. L J 763 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-20Read full judgment →
• The Universal Life & General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Lahore vs Ejaz1978 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-26Read full judgment →
• The Universal Life & General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lahore vs Ejaz1978 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-26Read full judgment →
• The State- Petitioner vs Ch. Altaf Hussain Magistrate Ist Class, Gujrat1978 PLD Lahore 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Other Accused1978 PLD Lahore 523 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs MR. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto1978 P Cr. L J 321 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ch. Altaf Hussain Magistrate 1ST Class, Gujrat and 21978 PLD Lahore 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →