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.

• Rashid Ahmad vs Soofi Muhammad and Another1977 PLD Lahore 793 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-12Read full judgment →
• Rana Zah1d Ali Khan and 5 oetteas vs Ehsan Elahee1977 PLD Lahore 538 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-02
  rent restrictionstriking off defencedefault in deposit of rentfinal ordermaintainability of appealejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge setting aside the Rent Controller's order which had extended the time for depositing arrears and current rent, thereby refusing to strike off the tenants' defence. The core legal question is whether an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike off the tenant's defence for non-deposit of rent is a final order and thus appealable under the relevant rent restriction law. The Lahore High Court held that an order refusing to strike off the defence is a final order because, if reversed by the appellate court, it terminates the proceedings by resulting in the tenant's ejectment, making it analogous to an order dismissing the landlord's ejectment application. The key principle laid down is that the finality of an order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance must be judged by whether the appellate court, by reversing the finding, can pass a final order terminating the ejectment proceedings, thereby granting a right of appeal under Section 15(1).

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike off a tenant's defence is a final order or an interlocutory order?
  • Does an order refusing to strike off the tenant's defence for non-deposit of rent give the landlord a right of appeal?
  • Can the Rent Controller extend the time for the deposit of rent once fixed under the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Rafique vs Government of Punjab and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 177 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-18
  land reformspower of reviewfinding of factwrit jurisdictiontenant possessioninterpolation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed in the Lahore High Court challenging the orders of the Land Reforms authorities who, upon review and revision, rejected the petitioner's claim to land under the Sale Scheme. The petitioner claimed entitlement to 162 kanals of land surrendered under the Land Reforms Regulation No. 59 of 1964, asserting he was in cultivating possession as a tenant during the relevant harvests. Although a predecessor Land Commissioner initially accepted his claim, a successor Land Commissioner, with the requisite sanction, reviewed and reversed that order, finding the possession entries to be interpolated. The petitioner contended that the power of review under Rule 11 of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules, 1959, was limited to clerical or arithmetical errors and did not extend to reversing factual findings on merits. The High Court held that Rule 11(1) contains no such limitation and allows for a full review of factual findings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of review under Rule 11(1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules 1959 permit a successor officer to reverse a predecessor's findings of fact on merits?
  • Is the power of review under Rule 11(1) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Rules 1959 restricted or qualified by the provisions of sub-rule (3) regarding clerical or arithmetical mistakes?
  • Can a finding of fact supported by relevant evidence and circumstances be disturbed by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Ghafoor1977 PLD Lahore 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ashraf vs District Magistrate, Rawalpindi1977 PLD Lahore 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-28Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Afzal Khan Etc. vs Zareena Akram Etc.1977 PLD Lahore 662 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-11Read full judgment →
• Raja Allah Din Etc. vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 517 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Rahim Jan vs Institute Op Chartered Accountants and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-27
  natural justicebiasdomestic tribunalprofessional misconductwrit jurisdictionquasi-judicialChartered Accountants
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order of expulsion issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan against the petitioner, a member, for alleged professional misconduct. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by bias and lack of jurisdiction, given the pre-existing animosity and public disputes between the petitioner and members of the Council. The Court held that the expulsion order was without lawful authority and void. It established that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed due to the presence of biased members on the Investigation Committee and the Council, who had previously leveled serious allegations against the petitioner. The Court affirmed that the principles of natural justice require that an adjudicator must not only be impartial but must manifestly be seen to be impartial. A real likelihood of bias, or a reasonable suspicion thereof, disqualifies a member from acting as a judge in a cause. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Council lacked the legal authority under the relevant bye-laws to compel the issuance of no objection certificates, rendering the basis for the misconduct charge legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of biased members on a domestic tribunal vitiate the entire proceedings?
  • Can a domestic tribunal compel a member to issue a no objection certificate in the absence of specific bye-law authority?
  • Is a domestic tribunal exercising quasi-judicial functions bound by the principles of natural justice?
  • Does the existence of an alternative remedy, such as an application for restoration, bar a writ petition challenging an order passed without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafiq vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-12Read full judgment →
• Rab NAWAZConvict vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-14Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 732 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-19Read full judgment →
• Qamar Hussain vs Sultan Sikandar and a Notp1977 P Cr. L J 1096 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
• Qadir Baksh vs District Magistrate, Dera Ghazi Khan and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1044 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore through Iis Secretary vs Fazal1977 PLC 148 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-06Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Sh. Zafar Din Ahmad1977 PLD Lahore 55 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-23
  second appeallimitationcondonation of delaygovernment litigantevictionrent controllerstriking off defence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second appeal arising from an order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which dismissed the appellant's (Province of Punjab) first appeal as time-barred and refused to condone the delay in its institution against an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerns whether the Government is entitled to special treatment or indulgence under the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant. The Lahore High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the Government cannot claim to be treated differently from an ordinary litigant regarding limitation periods, as it possesses superior resources and facilities. The key principle laid down is that the Government is bound by the ordinary law of limitation and administrative delays or internal departmental reorganisation do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Government can claim a different treatment or special indulgence regarding the law of limitation compared to an ordinary litigant?
  • Does internal administrative delay or the transfer of a dealing official constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
  • Can a High Court interfere with a discretionary order of a lower appellate court refusing to condone delay when such discretion was not exercised arbitrarily or perversely?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Aflal Khan1977 PLD Lahore 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-10Read full judgment →
• Piran Ditt a vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-11Read full judgment →
• Pervez Akhtar vs Muhammad Arif1977 PLD Lahore 394 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-16
  pre-emptioncustomary lawburden of proofcivil revisionurban immovable propertysub-division of a townMohallah
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges an appellate judgment regarding a pre-emption suit for urban property in Pindigheb. The core legal question is whether the custom of pre-emption, generally established in the town, applies to the specific locality (Mohallah Masjid Malkan) where the property is situated, particularly when the existence of that Mohallah at the time of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, is contested. The High Court held that the general existence of the custom in a town does not automatically extend to a specific sub-division. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to establish the custom's existence in the specific locality. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a town is not presumed to have sub-divisions; their existence and status as recognized units for pre-emption law must be proven. Because the lower courts failed to determine if the Mohallah existed at the Act's commencement or if it constituted a recognized unit, the case was remanded for fresh findings on these issues.

  Questions settled

  • Does the general existence of the custom of pre-emption in a town automatically extend to all its sub-divisions or Mohallahs?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the existence of the custom of pre-emption in a specific locality of a town?
  • Can the custom of pre-emption be claimed in a Mohallah that did not exist at the time of the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • What constitutes a 'sub-division' of a town for the purposes of the law of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Paz Al Din vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Gujranwala and Another1977 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-19Read full judgment →
• Parvez Kayani vs Tas State1977 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs Punjab Industrial Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 16 limas1977 PLD Lahore 354 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Refugees Rehabilitation Finance Corporation and ANOTHERs1977 PLD Lahore 1218 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Motor Owners Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner1977 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., Karachi1977 PLD Lahore 787 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ohulam Muhammad Mustafa Khar vs Election Commissioner of Pakistan and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Elahi vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1977 PLD Lahore 1077 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nus Rat vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-26Read full judgment →
• Nur Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 716 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-28Read full judgment →
• Noor Etc. vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 602 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-04Read full judgment →
• Noor Alam vs Sardar Khan1977 P Cr. L J 705 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-17Read full judgment →
• Noor AHMADPet itioner vs Tue State1977 P Cr. L J 936 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1027 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
• Nazra and 5 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 480 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Taj Din vs Deputy Collector Op Customs, Lahore and 21977 PLD Lahore 1392 · Lahore High Court
  import policyhacksaw bladescustoms classificationbanned itemsadministrative precedentwrit petitionimport trade control schedule
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the orders of customs authorities confiscating imported hacksaw blades and imposing a redemption fine on the petitioner firm. The core legal question revolves around whether hacksaw blades should be classified under sub-heading 82.02-I (as a hacksaw/banned item) or sub-heading 82.02-III ("of a kind used in machinery") of the Import Trade Control Schedule, and whether the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports has the authority to declare items banned via a public notice without statutory backing. The Lahore High Court held that hacksaw blades fall under sub-heading 82.02-III as items used in machinery, and that the Chief Controller cannot arbitrarily classify or ban items outside the mechanism provided by law. The court laid down the principle that administrative agencies must interpret trade schedules objectively using established interpretation rules, cannot change settled classification practices without lawful justification, and that administrative bodies lack the inherent power to declare goods banned without express statutory notification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether hacksaw blades are correctly classified under sub-heading 82.02-I or sub-heading 82.02-III of the Import Trade Control Schedule?
  • Does the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports have the authority to declare an item banned through a public notice without a notification by the Central Government?
  • Are customs authorities bound by their own past precedents in classifying identical imported articles?
  • Does a delay of six months in filing a writ petition constitute fatal laches when the aggrieved party was pursuing alternative remedies diligently?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad and ANOTHERs vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-13
  post-arrest bailmurderaffidavitlegal evidencecriminal procedurewitness credibilitylalkara
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by two petitioners accused of murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners killed the deceased due to a scandal involving an illicit connection between one petitioner and the sister of the other. The defense argued that the case was a blind murder, that the petitioners would not have acted in concert given the alleged illicit relationship, and that the presence of contradictory affidavits from a prosecution witness cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The Court held that affidavits not falling under Sections 74, 526, or 539-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 do not constitute legal evidence and that the trial court must resolve the issue of contradictory affidavits during the trial. Regarding bail, the Court confirmed bail for the petitioner who allegedly raised a lalkara, finding that his participation required further inquiry. However, the Court refused bail to the petitioner accused of delivering the fatal blow, as his involvement was supported by eyewitness statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Are affidavits not covered by Sections 74, 526, or 539-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered legal evidence?
  • Does the existence of contradictory affidavits from a prosecution witness necessitate the cancellation or refusal of bail at the pre-trial stage?
  • Is the role of an accused who allegedly raised a lalkara during a murder sufficient grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs Aslam Shah1977 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-13
  landlord and tenantdefault in rentstatutory noticedevolution of propertyrebuttable presumptionestoppelejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge ordering the ejectment of the appellant-tenant for default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the non-service of a statutory notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is fatal to an ejectment application where the tenant has already acknowledged the successor landlord and paid rent. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the statutory notice requirement under Section 13-A raises a rebuttable presumption meant to inform the tenant of devolution or transfer. Where a tenant expressly acknowledges the new landlord and pays rent, a fresh tenancy is created, rendering formal notice unnecessary. The court laid down the principle that the protection of Section 13-A does not apply once a tenant voluntarily acknowledges the transferee or heir by paying rent, and the principle of estoppel prevents the tenant from subsequently claiming default protection based on lack of notice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-service of notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is fatal to an ejectment application when the tenant has already acknowledged the successor landlord?
  • Does the payment of rent to a successor landlord create a fresh tenancy waiving the requirement of a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a tenant invoke the principle of lack of statutory notice under Section 13-A after having conducted themselves by paying rent and acknowledging the landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs Abdullah and Another1977 PLD Lahore 220 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-04
  watercourseCanal and Drainage Actprocedural compliancemandatory noticewarabandiadministrative lawDivisional Canal Officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the sanctioning of a new watercourse by a Divisional Canal Officer without adhering to statutory procedural requirements. The appellant challenged an order that sanctioned a new watercourse for the respondent based on an oral request made during proceedings initiated by the appellant for a warabandi. The core legal question was whether a Canal Officer could sanction a new watercourse based on an oral request without providing notice to interested parties, in violation of the Canal and Drainage Act. The Court held that the order was unsustainable because the statutory procedure was not followed. It emphasized that the requirement for a written application and the issuance of notice to interested parties under the relevant provisions of the Act are mandatory, not directory. The failure to provide notice and the absence of a written application rendered the Canal Officer's order invalid. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree, affirming that procedural compliance is essential for the validity of administrative orders affecting water rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to issue notice to interested parties under the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 mandatory or directory?
  • Can a Divisional Canal Officer sanction a new watercourse based solely on an oral request?
  • Does the failure to follow the statutory procedure for sanctioning a watercourse render the Canal Officer's order invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din and 2 Others vs Mst. Maqboolan Bibi1977 P Cr. L J 339 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-13Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad and Another vs Tun State1977 P Cr. L J 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
• Nasiburrehman vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 109 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
• Naseer A. Sheikh vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1977 PLD Lahore 753 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-17Read full judgment →
• Nasar Javed vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Qadir and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 239 · Lahore High Court · 1973-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 937 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ahmad Khawaja vs Pakistan General Insurance Co. Ltd., Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 902 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 874 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 906 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Bashir Ahmad and 5 Others1977 P Cr. L J 767 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-04Read full judgment →
• Musarrat Ali Khan vs The District Magistrate, Rahimyarkhan and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1140 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Munawar Khan and Another vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• Munawar Khan and Another vs Da State1977 P Cr. L J 1030 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 603 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain alias Butta vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Lahore and Another1977 PLD Lahore 749 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mum's Iqbal & Co., Jhang vs Government of Punjab and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs Tiis State1977 P Cr. L J 330 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zamurrad and 2 Others vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 136 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zakir vs Taj Muhammad and 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 443 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs Tim State1977 P Cr. L J 403 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Chairman, Union Committee, Ward No, 7/8, Kot1977 P Cr. L J 107 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs Mahboob Hussain Janjuha1977 P Cr. L J 506 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Beg vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 641 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 387 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 909 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs Muhammad Yousaf (Represented by Legal Hams)1977 PLD Lahore 676 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman and ANOTEElt vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 488 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 587 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher and 2 Others vs Muhammad Azim and Another1977 PLD Lahore 729 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-30
  forged documentregistered sale deedpresumption of registrationconcurrent findings of factburden of proofsecondary evidencesecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a dispute over the ownership of land, where the appellants claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 12-9-1957, while the respondent claimed ownership through a subsequent purchase via mutation sanctioned on 12-3-1961. The core legal question was whether the appellants' registered sale deed was genuine or a forged document, and whether the presumption of regularity attached to registration could be rebutted. The trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that the appellants' sale deed was a forgery, noting that the original document was withheld from the court, its alleged loss was unproven, and expert evidence confirmed the thumb impressions did not belong to the vendor. The High Court upheld these findings, holding that while a certificate of registration under the Registration Act 1908 provides evidence of the registration process, it does not create an irrebuttable presumption of the executant's identity or the document's genuineness. Where fraud is alleged, the court may inquire into the actual execution, and the burden of proof rests on the party relying on the disputed document.

  Questions settled

  • Does a certificate of registration under the Registration Act 1908 create an irrebuttable presumption that the document was executed by the person named therein?
  • Can a court inquire into the genuineness of a registered document if fraud is alleged?
  • Is a party entitled to lead secondary evidence of a document without proving its loss to the satisfaction of the court?
  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of a document in a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 163 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Sh. Muhammad Amin1977 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-26
  landlord and tenantdenial of relationshipstriking of defencerent restrictionfrivolous pleajurisdiction of Rent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal filed by a tenant challenges an order striking out his defense under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, following his denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The core legal questions concern whether a Rent Controller must invariably frame a formal issue and conduct an elaborate inquiry upon a tenant's denial of tenancy, and whether a person collecting rent on behalf of a wife-owner must hold written authorization to qualify as a 'landlord' under the statute. The Lahore High Court held that a Rent Controller is not bound to adopt a rigid civil-court procedure or hold a formal inquiry in every instance, particularly where the denial of relationship is patently frivolous, mala fide, or capable of summary resolution from pleadings and documents. Furthermore, the Court held that the statutory definition of 'landlord' encompasses any person entitled to receive rent on behalf of another, and does not require such authorization to be in writing. The appeal was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame a formal issue and hold a detailed inquiry whenever a tenant denies the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Does a person receiving rent on behalf of another person require written authorization to be classified as a landlord under Section 2(c) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defense without affording a formal opportunity to adduce evidence when the denial of tenancy is frivolous and mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Amanullah Khan and 7 Others1977 P Cr. L J 118 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Allah Ditta and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 16 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 785 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaban vs Master Muhammad Sadiq1977 P Cr. L J 578 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 899 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sardar Khan vs 7FM State1977 P Cr. L J 503 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajjad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 219 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The District Magistrate, Lahore and Others1977 P Cr. L J 320 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and 5 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Abdul Rehman and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 456 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Abdullah and Another1977 P Cr. L J 188 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 585 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq man ANoTHER vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 518 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Hanif and Another1977 P Cr. L J 449 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naz1r vs Muhammad Yousaf and 7 OTHERSs1977 PLD Lahore 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 129 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir and 2 Others vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz alias Bholi and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 752 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar Rana vs Special Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore and Another- Respondents1977 PLD Lahore 524 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-04
  constructive res judicataspecial tribunalequality clausewrit jurisdictionmala fideemergency legislationfundamental rightsclassification of offences
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged proceedings before a Special Tribunal constituted under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971, alleging mala fide, unconstitutionality, and violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 4, 24, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner contended that the Ordinance provided an inadequate procedure for a fair trial, violated the equality clause, and that the prosecution was motivated by mala fide intent. The Court held that the petition was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, as the petitioner failed to raise these arguments in a previous writ petition challenging the same Tribunal's proceedings. On merits, the Court rejected the constitutional challenges, ruling that the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971, created a valid classification of offences and offenders, which is not arbitrary or capricious. The Court affirmed that exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon a Special Tribunal, even with procedures differing from the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is constitutional provided the classification is rational and bears a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation, which the Ordinance satisfies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to writ petitions challenging criminal proceedings?
  • Is the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971, violative of the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a law establishing a special tribunal with procedures different from the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be considered constitutional?
  • Does Article 12 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit the trial of an offence under a different law if that law existed at the time of the commission of the act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 2 Others vs Karim Bakhsh and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 747 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-28
  Rehabilitation Settlement SchemeJammu & Kashmir refugeestemporary allotmentallotment of landwrit petitionintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of 49 kanals and 17 marlas of land in District Sialkot, originally allotted to Ghulam Rasul, a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, in 1955 under the Rehabilitation Act. The appellants, also refugees, sought the allotment of this land after Ghulam Rasul's death, arguing that as claimants, they were entitled to the land over the heirs of the original allottee. The core legal question was whether the appellants could claim land that had been allotted on a temporary basis to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Court held that the land in question was explicitly excluded from the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme pursuant to paragraph 4-A, Chapter II of the West Punjab Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Consequently, the appellants had no legal right to claim the land under that scheme. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the appellants' writ petition, establishing the principle that land allotted on a temporary basis to Jammu & Kashmir refugees is excluded from the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and is not available for allotment to other claimants.

  Questions settled

  • Is land allotted on a temporary basis to Jammu & Kashmir refugees available for allotment under the West Punjab Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme?
  • Does the death of a temporary allottee of land under the Rehabilitation Act create a right for other claimants to seek allotment of that land?
  • Are heirs of a temporary allottee of land under the Rehabilitation Act entitled to succeed to that allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 523 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and Others vs Province of Punjab through Secretary Irrigation and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 226 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 505 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam Shah vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 829 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Mst. Zainab Bibi1977 P Cr. L J 572 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-23Read full judgment →