Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 349 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inamullah Khan vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1279 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram Qureshi vs Mehraj Din and 3 Others1977 P Cr. L J 437 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mubarak Ali1977 PLD Lahore 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayatullah Khan and Others vs Federal Land Commission1977 PLD Lahore 166 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-04
  land reformsinterchange of landconsolidation of holdingtenanted landfamily holdingFederal Land Commissionwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the orders of the Land Commission authorities rejecting a landowner's proposed scheme for the interchange of land with members of his family under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal question concerns whether the interchange of land under the said provision is restricted by whether the land is tenanted or untenanted, and whether consolidation refers solely to the declarant's holding or the family holding as a whole. The Lahore High Court held that the Land Commission's refusal based on the presence of tenanted land and the narrow interpretation of consolidation was illegal and based on extraneous considerations. The Court ruled that paragraph 11 does not distinguish between tenanted and untenanted areas, that tenant rights under paragraph 18 only accrue after final resumption subsequent to the declarant's choice, and that 'consolidation' encompasses the family holding as a whole rather than the declarant's holding in isolation. The impugned orders were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does paragraph 11(2) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 prohibit the exchange of tenanted land?
  • Whether the requirement of consolidation under paragraph 11(2) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 applies to the declarant's holding alone or to the family holding as a whole?
  • Do tenant rights under paragraph 18 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 precede a landowner's right of choice and exchange under paragraph 11?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-09
  culpable homicidegangrene as cause of deathinterested witnesssudden provocationreduction of sentenceknife blow
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment recorded by the Sessions Judge, Mianwali. The core legal questions involved whether minor discrepancies in recording police statements affected credibility, whether a witness associated as a disciple of the deceased was an interested witness, and whether death caused by gangrene resulting from a stab wound warranted altering the conviction to a lesser offence. The Lahore High Court held that minor discrepancies in recording statements did not undermine the prompt lodging of the F.I.R., that a spiritual association without motive did not render a witness 'interested', and that death resulting from gangrene or infection flowing naturally from a severe bodily injury does not absolve the assailant of responsibility for the culpable homicide. The Court affirmed the conviction under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but reduced the sentence from ten to seven years rigorous imprisonment due to sudden provocation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies regarding the exact place and sequence of recording police statements vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Does an association between a prosecution witness and the deceased as a spiritual follower render the witness 'interested' in the absence of a proven motive?
  • Does the intervening development of gangrene from a stab wound relieve the assailant of criminal liability for culpable homicide?
  • Whether a single blow delivered in a sudden quarrel under the heat of passion caused by a dirty joke warrants reduction of sentence under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The STATEApplicant1977 P Cr. L J 383 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-15
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicide not amounting to murdermurder convictionfirst information reportappreciation of evidencestatement of accusedcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal from jail challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Muhammad Sadiq, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment. The core legal questions involve determining the reliability of the prosecution's eyewitness and FIR evidence, and whether the appellant's act fell under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 due to grave and sudden provocation arising from the deceased's illicit advances towards the appellant's wife. The Lahore High Court held that the first information report was recorded at the spot after a preliminary inquiry and lacked evidentiary value, and that imported eyewitnesses were untrustworthy. Accepting the appellant's version supported by prosecution admissions, the court concluded that the deceased's arrogant taunts in a public place deprived the appellant of self-control. Consequently, the conviction was altered from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment. The key principle laid down is that whether a provocation is grave and sudden is a question of fact to be assessed in light of the culprit's social background, family traditions, and surrounding circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a first information report recorded at the spot after a preliminary inquiry retain its sanctity and evidentiary value?
  • Whether the statement of an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted or rejected as a whole?
  • Does the hurling of an arrogant taunt regarding an illicit liaison in a public place constitute grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • How does the social and cultural background of an offender affect the determination of grave and sudden provocation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Faqir Muhammad1977 PLD Lahore 1214 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din and Another vs Ghulam Qadir and 2 Others -1977 PLD Lahore 513 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din (Represented by Heirs) vs Bashir Ahmad1977 PLD Lahore 267 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 744 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Muhammad Iqbal and Another1977 P Cr. L J 593 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Siddiquie vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 327 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 5 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Mumtaz Begum and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Alt1977 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Saleeivii, Advocate vs The Pakistan Television1977 PLD Lahore 852 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionlocus standiaggrieved personPakistan Broadcasting CorporationPakistan Television Corporationimpartialityelection campaignwrit of mandamuspublic utility corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  A constitutional petition was filed under Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by an advocate and political party office-bearer against the Pakistan Television Corporation and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. The petitioner alleged that the state-controlled media corporations exhibited bias during general election campaigns by favoring the ruling party over opposition parties, violating their legal duties. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi, exclusive jurisdiction of the Election Commission, and maintainability. The High Court held that the petitioner, as an office-bearer of a constituent party of a political alliance contesting elections, had locus standi as an aggrieved person. The court determined that statutory public utility corporations controlling broadcast media are subject to judicial direction under Article 199. It settled that 'conduct of elections' within the Election Commission's domain does not exclude High Court jurisdiction over public media impartiality. The court ruled that the respondents are legally bound by their statutory charters to maintain fairness, balance, and impartiality, directing them to provide equal coverage time as far as possible to major political contenders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an office-bearer of a political party participating in general elections qualifies as an aggrieved person with locus standi to file a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to issue directions to state-controlled broadcasting corporations to maintain impartiality during election campaigns?
  • Does the statutory phrase 'conduct of elections' grant the Election Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the coverage of election campaigns by state news media?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 Others vs Mst. Natho Bibi1977 PLD Lahore 535 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-26
  quashment of proceedingscognizance of offenceCourt of Sessionprivate complaintexclusive jurisdictionMagistratecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of proceedings in a private complaint under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pending before an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session could directly entertain and take cognizance of a private complaint for an offence exclusively triable by it, without the matter being sent to it by a Magistrate under section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that a Court of Session is barred from taking direct cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been sent to it by a Magistrate pursuant to section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that private complaints for offences exclusively triable by a Court of Session must first be instituted before a competent Magistrate for initial scrutiny and transmission under section 190(3), and a Sessions Court cannot bypass this mandatory procedure by entertaining complaints directly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Court of Session directly entertain a private complaint for an offence exclusively triable by it without it being sent by a Magistrate?
  • Does section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a Court of Session from taking cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless sent under section 190(3)?
  • What is the statutory role of a Magistrate under section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding complaints exclusively triable by a Court of Session?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 355 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Siddique and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Dar vs Muhammad Riaz Etc.1977 P Cr. L J 520 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 151 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 808 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwarul Haq vs Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore and ANOTHERs1977 PLD Lahore 907 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwarul Haq vs ----S. 2(I)-"Workman"---Person Employed1977 PLC 580 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Tog State1977 P Cr. L J 398 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 516 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and 2 Others vs Mubarik Ali and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1422 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-13
  pre-emptioncourt-feesdeficiency in court-feeextension of timediscretion of courtmala fidesecond appealrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents against a registered sale-deed. The trial court dismissed the suit because the plaintiffs affixed the deficient court-fees four days after the expiry of the time allowed by the court, holding the delay to be mala fide. The first appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the delay was a mere slip rather than an intentional default or negligence, and that the trial court had failed to provisionally fix the court-fee value under Section 9 of the Court Fees Act. The Lahore High Court upheld the first appellate court's judgment, ruling that under Section 149 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, courts possess discretionary power to extend time for making up court-fee deficiencies, and such discretion should not be interfered with in the absence of contumacy, negligence, or positive mala fides. The High Court affirmed that a delay of only a few days, absent deliberate disobedience, does not warrant the dismissal of a pre-emption suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can dismiss a suit for a minor delay in making good a deficiency in court-fees in the absence of contumacy or mala fides?
  • Does Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure give appellate courts the discretion to allow the making up of deficient court-fees at subsequent stages?
  • Whether the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the rejection of a plaint apply after a suit has been fully tried and decided on its merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad Guori and Anothers vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 490 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs Federation of Pakistan Etc.1977 PLD Lahore 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad All vs Atta Muhammad and 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 727 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs Inn State1977 P Cr. L J 544 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Kaka1977 PLD Lahore 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Rana vs Special Tribunal, Punjab1977 PLD Lahore 957 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar and Another vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 438 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 932 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Khan vs Tee District Magistrate, Lyallpur and 4 or1977 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1975-10-10
  preventive detentionvague groundseffective representationdouble jeopardymaintenance of public orderdetention order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a detention order issued under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, against a detenu who was already facing criminal trial for murder. The core legal questions were whether the detention order was based on vague grounds and whether the state could use the same criminal conduct for which a person is already being prosecuted as a basis for preventive detention. The Court held that the detention order was illegal and set it aside. It reasoned that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution for the same alleged offence. Furthermore, the Court found that the grounds of detention were vague, specifically because the identity of the individuals the detenu allegedly met to incite unrest was not provided, thereby depriving the detenu of the ability to make an effective representation. The Court affirmed the principle that if any ground of detention is vague or unlawful, the entire detention order is fatally defective and cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Can the state use the same criminal conduct for which a person is already facing trial as a ground for preventive detention?
  • Does the failure to provide specific details in the grounds of detention, such as the names of persons met, render a detention order vague and invalid?
  • If one of the grounds for a detention order is found to be vague or unlawful, does it invalidate the entire detention order?
  • Can a detention order be considered valid if it permits the detenu to attend court proceedings for a pending criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Khan vs Superintendent, District Jail, Kot Lakhpa I.--1977 PLD Lahore 44 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhamiviad Anwar and Another vs Goverment of West Pakistan and ANoThER1977 PLD Lahore 64 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Wallan vs Sultan and 3 Anothers1977 P Cr. L J 1073 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. TAJConvict vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 95 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sohagi and Another vs The Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore and 4 Others1977 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nam vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum and 142 Others vs The Capital Development1977 PLD Lahore 1200 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi and Another vs Mamla and 2 omns1977 PLD Lahore 202 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-14
  Jammu & Kashmir refugeetemporary allotmentcompensation poolMinistry of Kashmir AffairsRehabilitation Settlement Schemeinheritance of temporary allotmentcancellation of allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelling the temporary allotment of land devolved upon the petitioners (daughters and heirs of a deceased Jammu & Kashmir refugee) and allotting the same to contesting respondents against settlement claims. The primary legal issue was whether land temporarily allotted to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee forms part of the general compensation pool available for allotment to other displaced persons under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 and the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Lahore High Court held that such lands had been sold to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 and no longer formed part of the compensation pool. Furthermore, paragraph 4-A(ix), Part I of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme explicitly excluded lands temporarily allotted to Jammu & Kashmir refugees from allotment to other claimants. Consequently, the High Court held the impugned cancellation and re-allotment to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land temporarily allotted to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee remains part of the evacuee compensation pool available for allotment to other claimants under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
  • Does paragraph 4-A(ix), Part I of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme bar the allotment of land temporarily held by Jammu & Kashmir refugees to other displaced persons?
  • Are the legal heirs of a deceased Jammu & Kashmir refugee entitled to inherit and retain the temporary allotment of land held by their predecessor?
  • Can a temporary allotment of land to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee be lawfully cancelled and re-allotted to a claimant from agreed areas without authority of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Begum and Others vs Ghulam Rasul and Another1977 PLD Lahore 979 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehana and 4 Others vs Nawab Khan1977 P Cr. L J 380 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 328(1) · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Akhtar vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 168 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar an Bibi vs The Station House Officer, Saddar Police1977 P Cr. L J 624 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Malookan vs Sher Muhammad and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 718 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat 81Bi and 6 others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 589 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Zainab and 7 Others vs Mst. Tahira Sultana and Others1977 PLD Lahore 830 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-28
  appointment of receiverpartition suitco-sharersjoint propertywaste and damagecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed against the concurrent orders of the lower courts appointing a receiver for joint family property in an administration and partition suit. The respondents, heirs of a co-sharer, alleged that the petitioners had mismanaged the estate, pilfered income from a cinema house, and failed to pay them their share of profits. The High Court analyzed the scope of Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, observing that the power to appoint a receiver is a harsh remedy to be sparingly exercised. The Court held that a receiver cannot be appointed for property or business not forming the subject-matter of the suit. Furthermore, in partition suits between co-sharers, a receiver is not appointed as a matter of course unless there is proof of an imminent peril or active waste of the property. Mere apprehension of waste or non-payment of profits is insufficient to dispossess co-sharers who have been in long-standing possession. The High Court allowed the revision and set aside the appointment of the receiver.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court appoint a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 over property or business that is not the subject-matter of the suit?
  • Whether a receiver can be appointed in a partition suit between co-sharers without specific allegations and proof of waste or imminent peril to the property?
  • Does the mere non-payment of profits or exclusion from accounts by a co-sharer in possession justify the dispossession of that co-sharer through the appointment of an interim receiver?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghu Lam Zohran and Another vs The Additional Chief Land1977 PLD Lahore 1038 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazala Sana vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 192 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Eidan Begum and 2 Others vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Arab Khatoon vs Sh. Muhammad Aslam and Another1977 P Cr. L J 201 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amna Bibi and Another vs The State and 4 Others1977 P Cr. L J 110 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mst, Ghulam Janna T and Another vs Haq Nawaz and Another1977 P Cr. L J 111 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst Aziz Mai vs S. H. 0., Police Station Jal Alpur Pirwala, District Multan1977 PLD Lahore 432 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-10
  constitutional petitionabductionmarriage validitypubertyMahomedan Lawcustodywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment dismissing a constitutional petition filed by the appellant, a married woman, seeking to restrain the police from removing her from her husband's custody and handing her over to her father. The appellant, having married her husband of her own free will, faced a criminal case registered by her father under sections 363 and 366 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging abduction. The core legal question was whether the appellant, having attained puberty and entered into a valid marriage contract, could be forcibly removed from her husband's custody. The Court held that the appellant, being of age and having attained puberty, was competent to contract marriage. Relying on principles of Mahomedan Law, the Court affirmed that a Muslim of sound mind who has attained puberty may enter into a contract of marriage. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the appellant could not be treated as a chattel or forcibly removed from her husband's custody, while noting she remained available for any criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Muslim girl who has attained puberty enter into a valid contract of marriage?
  • Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against police action regarding the custody of a married woman?
  • Does the attainment of puberty constitute the age of majority for the purpose of marriage under Mahomedan Law?
  Read full judgment →
• Moulana Ehsanullah Farooqi vs Province of Punjab through the Secretary Home Department1977 P Cr. L J 433 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-18Read full judgment →
• Miss R. Shaikh vs Federation of Pakistan #,N3, 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 941 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
• Miss Imrana Malik vs Chairman, Selection Committee, for Admission in Medical Colleges, Lahore and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 820 · Lahore High Court
  medical college admissionNational Cadet Corpsstatutory concessionmerit determinationinternal and external assessmentprospectus rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court concerns the eligibility of the petitioner for admission to a medical college in the Punjab, having secured 594 marks in the F.Sc. examination alongside 20 marks under the National Guards Act, 1973 for completing National Cadet Corps training. The core legal questions are whether the statutory 20-mark concession can elevate a second-division candidate into consideration alongside first-division candidates by exceeding the 600-mark threshold, and whether internal and external assessment grades must be merged to determine merit. The court held that statutory concessions enacted by the legislature override subordinate prospectus rules, meaning the 20 marks must be counted toward eligibility for higher division consideration, but internal and external assessments remain distinct and unmerged. The key principles laid down are that subordinate rules such as a college prospectus cannot restrict or nullify statutory rights conferred by an act of the legislature, and that internal academic evaluations supplement rather than merge with external examination scores.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the 20 marks awarded under the National Guards Act, 1973 can be counted for the purpose of making a candidate eligible for consideration along with candidates placed in a higher division?
  • Do internal assessment grades merge with external F.Sc. examination marks to determine a candidate's overall division or merit for medical college admission?
  • Can a subordinate rule or provision in an institutional prospectus restrict or nullify a concession granted by a primary legislative statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Gulzar Beg vs The Station House Officer, Railway Police Station, Lahore and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 435 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Muhammad Hussa[N ETc.1977 P Cr. L J 526 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mirza Ashiq Hussain vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 684 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-01Read full judgment →
• Miraj Din vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 780 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Aslam Goraya and Dihers vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 394 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mian Manzoorul Haque and Another vs Mian Bashir Nasir, Ilaqa1977 P Cr. L J 734 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mian Hameed Ahmad, Premier Cloth Mills Ltd., Lahore vs Income-Tax1977 PLD Lahore 1168 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Jafir vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz and Another1977 PLD Lahore 965 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Aftab Ijaz vs Commissioner Op Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ansar Brother, Multan vs The Punjab Employees' Social Security1977 PLC 572 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-27Read full judgment →
• Melton) Inayat Etc. vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 463(1) · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 416 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mazdoor Itehad Union vs Registrar Op Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 588 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mazdoor Itehad Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan Region, Multan and 2 Others1977 PLC 456 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
• Market Committee, Pattoki vs Municipal Committee, Pattoki1977 P Cr. L J 265 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 823 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-19Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad Sharif vs National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-01Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs District Judge, Multan and Another1977 PLD Lahore 911 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-06
  guardianshipcustody of minorappellate forumFamily CourtGuardians and Wards Actprocedural lawjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the appropriate appellate forum for decisions rendered by a Family Court regarding the guardianship or custody of a minor. The core legal question was whether such appeals lie to the High Court or the District Court. The Court held that appeals in matters governed by the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, when decided by a Family Court, lie to the High Court. The ratio rests on the interpretation of Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which mandates that a Family Court, when dealing with guardianship matters, is deemed a District Court and must follow the procedure prescribed in the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The Court reasoned that the forum of appeal is a matter of procedure, not a substantive right. Consequently, the appellate provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, specifically Section 47, prevail. The Court further noted that allowing appeals to a District Court from a Family Court, which is statutorily deemed a District Court, would create an untenable anomaly of an appeal lying to a court of concurrent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against a decision of a Family Court in a guardianship matter lie to the High Court or the District Court?
  • Is the forum of appeal considered a matter of procedure or a substantive right?
  • Does Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 require Family Courts to follow the appellate procedure prescribed in the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor and Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ahmed vs Bashir Hussain Babri1977 PLD Lahore 532 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali Etc. vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 461 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-29Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Park Luxury Hotel, Lahore vs Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-07
  property taxvaluation listdemolition of propertyannual valuechargeability versus payabilityamendment of valuation listurban immovable property tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed by the Managing Director of Park Luxury Hotel, Lahore, challenging orders passed by tax authorities regarding property tax assessment following the partial demolition of the hotel building. The core legal question was whether a reduction in property tax resulting from the partial demolition or destruction of a building during a financial year should be given effect to for that entire charge year or postponed to the next charging period. The Lahore High Court held that property tax is levied on the annual value of the property and that chargeability is distinct from payability, which is merely divided into bi-annual instalments for convenience. The Court ruled that when a material change such as demolition occurs during a financial year, the resulting reduction in annual value must be reflected immediately for that current charge year rather than postponed. The key principle laid down is that amendments to a valuation list under section 9 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958, necessitated by the destruction or demolition of property, operate to adjust the annual tax liability for the current charge year in which the incident occurs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment to a valuation list due to the demolition or destruction of a building takes effect in the current financial year or is postponed to the next charging period?
  • Is urban immovable property tax an annual tax or a distinct bi-annual tax for the purposes of assessment and remission?
  • Does the power of the assessing authority to amend a valuation list under section 9 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 extend to reflecting material changes in the property during the current charge year?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Wazir Ali vs Tern State and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Nur Hayat Noon and ANOTHERs vs Additional Chief Land1977 PLD Lahore 1042 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Saleem vs Muhammad Sadaq and Another1977 PLD Lahore 794 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-09
  quashment of proceedingsfalse informationmandatory complaintjurisdictioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon a petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a complaint by a Station House Officer. The core legal question concerns whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon the complaint of an S.H.O. rather than the public servant concerned or their superior, in view of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory, and a complaint by a person other than the public servant concerned or a superior officer bars the jurisdiction of the Court, vitiating the proceedings without being curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned complaint is dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be initiated on a complaint filed by a Station House Officer instead of the public servant concerned?
  • Is non-compliance with the provisions of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Does the absence of a proper complaint under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bar the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akram Khan & Co vs Income-Tax Officer, Jhelum1977 PLD Lahore 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Fates Khan vs Member, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi-1977 PLD Lahore 1100 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Barkhurdar Khan vs Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 24 Others1977 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03
  land reformssuo motu revisionjurisdictionnotification in official gazettetransfer of casesnullityrepeal and saving
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation 115), disposing of a pending suo motu revision originally instituted under the repealed West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 (Martial Law Regulation 64). The core legal question was whether an Additional Chief Land Commissioner possessed the legal competency and jurisdiction to hear and decide cases pending under the repealed 1959 Regulation prior to the formal notification of his office under paragraph 32(3) of Martial Law Regulation 115 in the official Gazette, or whether general transfer powers under rule 5(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972 sufficed. The Lahore High Court held that the special procedure under paragraph 32(3) of Martial Law Regulation 115 governs the transfer and disposal of old cases and requires specific notification in the official Gazette, which cannot be bypassed by general transfer provisions under the rules. The court concluded that the impugned orders passed without proper gazetted authorization were coram non judice, without lawful authority, and a nullity in law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Additional Chief Land Commissioner is competent to hear cases under the repealed West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation 1959 without being specifically authorized and notified under paragraph 32(3) of Martial Law Regulation 115?
  • Does the power of transfer under rule 5(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Rules 1972 override or dispense with the statutory requirement of a notification in the official Gazette under paragraph 32(3) of Martial Law Regulation 115?
  • What is the legal status of an order passed by a functionary who lacks statutory jurisdiction or whose appointment has not been duly notified in the official Gazette?
  • Can a confirmation of a void order cure the initial lack of jurisdiction or improve the legal status of a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Syed Nazar Hussain vs Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab1977 PLD Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-30Read full judgment →
• Makhan and 3 Others vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 722 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-11Read full judgment →
• Majid Nizami, Editor, Printer and Publisher, Nawai Waqt_, Lahore vs MRS. Nafisa Abmad, Director, Administration and Co-Ordination Pakistan National Centre, Rawalpindi and Another- Respondents1977 PLD Lahore 1070 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mahmud Ali Kasurt, Bar-at-Law vs Punjab Government through Secretary, Home Affairs and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Khan vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mahmood and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 588 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-30Read full judgment →