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.

• Ma Teen Javaid vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 599 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
• M. D. Tahir, Advocate vs Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and 21977 PLD Lahore 926 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-17Read full judgment →
• M. Ashrafuddin vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-27
  post-arrest bailcross-versionsmurderfurther inquiryinjuries to accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon an application under Section 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by Mohammad Ashraf-ud-Din and Saba Ali, who sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Nazir. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted in a case involving cross-versions where the accused persons sustained severe injuries during the incident. The Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners were not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and that the matter fell within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where cross-versions and severe injuries sustained by the accused render the matter one requiring further inquiry into their guilt, the case is appropriately covered under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving cross-versions and severe injuries to the accused?
  • Does the existence of a counter case and injuries sustained by the accused constitute reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• M Uhammad Asghar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-22Read full judgment →
• M Uham Mad Sadiq vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 154 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-09Read full judgment →
• LT. General (RTD) K. M. Azhar Khan vs Superintendent, Kot Lakhpat Jail, Lahore And 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 629 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-07Read full judgment →
• Life Friends Corporation, Khewra vs Director of Industries and Mineral Development, Lahore and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 707 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
• Liaquat and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 600 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-17Read full judgment →
• Lal Shah vs Muhammad Ishaq1977 PLD Lahore 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24
  limitationdeficient court-feerent appealcondonation of delayoffice objectionstime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arises from an appeal filed against an order of the Rent Controller, which was returned by the office due to insufficient court-fee, absence of a certified copy of the order, and other objections. The core legal question concerns whether an appeal filed with deficient court-fee and refiled beyond the period of limitation without a proper application for condonation of delay is maintainable. The Lahore High Court held that since the deficiency in court-fee was made good after the period of limitation expired and no proper application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act was filed, the appeal became time-barred and liable to rejection. The court established the principle that counsel must follow prevailing binding precedents regarding court-fee rather than relying on the mere grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court in another matter, and that a failure to remove office objections within limitation without seeking timely condonation of delay proves fatal to the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed with deficient court-fee and refiled after the period of limitation is time-barred?
  • Can an appellant maintain a time-barred appeal without filing an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit?
  • Does the mere grant of leave to appeal by the Supreme Court on the question of court-fee justify ignoring the existing binding judgments of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 181 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-17Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 198 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-12Read full judgment →
• Lahore Satd vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-22Read full judgment →
• Labore Naseer AHMADPetit loner vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 712 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
• Kohistan Travel Service and Another vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Lyallpur and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 85 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad alias Khushia and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 194 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-18Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Mir and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 430 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-07Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Oil Mills, Rawalpindi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi1977 PLD Lahore 1166 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khawaja Islamud Din (Represented by His Legal Heirs) Plaintiff vs Man1977 PLD Lahore 933 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khanu and Anothers vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 335 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
• Khani Zaman vs Sher Zaman and Anoteier1977 P Cr. L J 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-06Read full judgment →
• Khan Wazir and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 193 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-11Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Nisar vs National Industrial Relations Commission1977 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khan M Uhammad and 9 Others vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-26Read full judgment →
• Khair Din (Represented by His Legal Heirs) vs Muhammad Amin1977 PLD Lahore 817 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Assistant Collector, Jhang Ano Another1977 PLD Lahore 194 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-12
  tenant evictionmartial law regulationland reformsrestoration of possessiondelegation of powerswrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from a dispute regarding agricultural land where the Assistant Collector found that respondent Ahmad Bakhsh, a tenant, had been unlawfully evicted by Muhammad Bakhsh and his sons, and consequently ordered restoration of possession and initiation of prosecution proceedings under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972. The petitioner, one of the sons, challenged these orders, arguing that the protection against eviction in paragraph 25 of the Regulation applied only to tenants of big landowners holding land above the ceiling limit, that revenue authorities lacked the power to order restoration of possession, and that the order directing prosecution was issued without delegated authority. The Lahore High Court held that the protections and restoration mechanisms under the Regulation apply to all tenants in general regardless of land size, that notifications issued under the Regulation validly empower Revenue Officers to restore possession, and that Tehsildars acting as Sub-Assistant Land Commissioners possess delegated authority to lodge complaints. However, the Court partially accepted the petition by declaring the prosecution order without lawful authority regarding persons who were not landlords, while maintaining the order for restoration of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the protections against eviction afforded to tenants under paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 apply to all tenants in general or are restricted only to tenants of landlords holding land in excess of the permissible ceiling?
  • Does a Revenue Officer have the legal authority under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972 to order the restoration of possession to a tenant who has been unlawfully evicted?
  • Whether a notification empowering a Revenue Officer to order restoration of possession is vitiated by excessive delegation of powers under Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
  • Does a Sub-Assistant Land Commissioner possess the delegated power to file a complaint for the prosecution of a person who contravenes the provisions of paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 of 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Shah and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 356 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-28Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Jan Muhammad1977 PLD Lahore 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-26
  second appealwithdrawal of suitfresh suitcause of actioncivil procedureevacuee property
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-appellant concerning a plot claimed under Settlement Scheme No. VII promulgated under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the appellant's second suit was barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to the unconditional withdrawal of an earlier identical suit without obtaining permission from the court to file a fresh suit. The Lahore High Court held that the withdrawal of the previous suit fell under Order XXIII, Rule 1(1) rather than Rule 1(2), thereby attracting the statutory bar precluding the institution of a fresh suit on the same subject-matter. The Court further held that no fresh cause of action had accrued and that the mere withdrawal of the prior suit without formal leave of the court or proven consent under distinct legal exceptions did not save the second suit from dismissal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a suit without permission of the court to file a fresh suit preclude the plaintiff from instituting a subsequent suit in respect of the same subject-matter?
  • Whether an order permitting the withdrawal of a suit without specific mention of permission to file a fresh suit can be deemed granted under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a mere statement that a suit is withdrawn with the consent of the defendant automatically exempt the plaintiff from the disability contained in Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh and Others vs Taa State1977 P Cr. L J 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-19Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain and 2 Others vs Wali Etc.1977 PLD Lahore 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-08Read full judgment →
• Karam Elahee Chauhan, Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 Others vs Province1977 PLD Lahore 399 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-13Read full judgment →
• Kamran Company vs Province of West Pakistan1977 PLD Lahore 359 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
• Kamran Co., Rawalpindi vs Province of West Pakistan1977 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
• Kala (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Allah Dad (Represented by Legal1977 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-20
  pre-emption suitlimitationcondonation of delayabatement of appealevacuee propertysecond appealsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second appeal in a pre-emption suit regarding land formerly classified as evacuee property. The core legal questions addressed were whether the sale of such property is pre-emptible, whether the time spent obtaining a trial court judgment is excludable or condonable for limitation purposes in a second appeal, and whether the death of some co-plaintiffs causes the entire appeal to abate. The Court held that the sale of rights in land allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act is pre-emptible. Regarding limitation, the Court ruled that while Section 12 of the Limitation Act does not explicitly cover trial court judgments, the mandatory requirement under Lahore High Court rules to file such copies constitutes sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the entire period spent obtaining them. Finally, the Court established that the right of pre-emption is individual and independent; thus, the death of some co-plaintiffs does not cause the entire appeal to abate, but only abates the appeal concerning the deceased parties.

  Questions settled

  • Is the sale of land rights allotted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act pre-emptible?
  • Does the death of some co-plaintiffs in a pre-emption suit cause the entire appeal to abate?
  • Can the time spent obtaining a copy of the trial court's judgment be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for a second appeal?
  • Is the filing of a certified copy of the trial court's judgment mandatory for a second appeal in the Lahore High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Kajeer Dad Khan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-22Read full judgment →
• K. S. B. Pumps Co. Ltd., Lahore and Another vs National Industrial1977 PLD Lahore 67 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-13Read full judgment →
• Javid Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 475 · Lahore High Court · 1974-09-08Read full judgment →
• Ismail and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 549 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-10Read full judgment →
• Ishaque Hussain and 6 Others vs Shahzad Hassan Pervaiz, Additional1977 PLD Lahore 212 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14
  Writ jurisdictionStatutory interpretationDistrict MagistrateAdditional District MagistrateDistribution OrderNullity of orderAdministrative authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the cancellation of authorizations to distribute essential food items, granted under the West Pakistan Wheat, Wheat Atta, Maize, Rice and Sugar Distribution Order, 1967. The core legal question was whether an Additional District Magistrate, despite being invested with the powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, possessed the legal competence to cancel such authorizations, given that the Distribution Order specifically vested this power in the "District Magistrate." The Court held that the Additional District Magistrate lacked the requisite authority. It reasoned that the Distribution Order, by defining "District Magistrate" narrowly and omitting "Additional" officers—unlike other definitions within the same Order—implied an exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the cancellation orders were declared nullities, and the subsequent appellate orders affirming them were set aside. The principle laid down is that where a special law vests power in a specific authority, and the statutory scheme implies exclusivity, an officer exercising general powers of that authority under a separate statute cannot usurp that specific jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Additional District Magistrate possess the authority to cancel an authorization under the West Pakistan Wheat, Wheat Atta, Maize, Rice and Sugar Distribution Order, 1967?
  • Can an officer exercising the powers of a District Magistrate under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, exercise powers under a special law that specifically vests authority in the District Magistrate?
  • Is an order passed by an authority lacking the statutory power to do so considered a nullity?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Khan vs The State--1977 P Cr. L J 623 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-12Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Akhtar vs Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq and 4 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-03
  Customs Actdelegation of powersjurisdictional defectsearch and seizurevested righttax exemptionconstitutional petitionpolice powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment from the Lahore High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions challenging the legality of joint raids, searches, and seizures conducted by police and customs authorities in a local market for consumer goods. The primary legal question revolved around the jurisdictional competency of police officers exercising powers under the Customs Act 1969, and whether delegated powers were lawfully exercised without violating statutory procedures or surrendering discretion to non-statutory authorities. The court held that while the Legislature can delegate certain administrative functions such as conferring customs powers upon police officers, the respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police committed a jurisdictional error by surrendering his statutory discretion to un-authorized higher authorities and failing to record mandatory grounds of belief under section 163 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the court declared all searches, seizures, and subsequent prosecutions to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The key principle established is that an officer exercising delegated statutory powers must strictly satisfy all jurisdictional prerequisites and act independently of non-statutory commands.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Legislature constitutionally authorize subordinate functionaries to exercise powers through delegated legislation under the Customs Act?
  • Does a police officer exercising delegated powers under section 163 of the Customs Act need to record grounds of belief prior to conducting a search?
  • Whether a notification granting tax exemption creates a vested right that cannot be taken away retrospectively by a subsequent withdrawal notification?
  • Can an executive authority or police officer surrender statutory discretion upon the command of non-statutory higher authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad Malik vs Surraya an War Sheikh1977 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-22Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad Khan, Advocate and 51 Others vs WSW the State and 21977 PLD Lahore 1337 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Inayat Hussain vs Ch. Akram and 7 Oteers1977 P Cr. L J 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-19Read full judgment →
• In re : Al-Hilal Vegetable Ghee Mills Ltd., Multan vs Not1977 PLD Lahore 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
• Iltaf Hussain vs Talib Hussain1977 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-04
  rent restrictionevictiondefault in rentadvance rentstatutory grace periodjudicial discretionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an eviction order passed against a tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether a contractual stipulation for advance monthly rent allows a landlord to seek eviction if the tenant fails to pay in advance, despite paying within the statutory fifteen-day grace period following the month's end. The Court held that while parties may contract for advance rent, the statutory provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance govern eviction. Rent only becomes 'due' upon the completion of the occupancy period. Consequently, a tenant cannot be evicted for failing to pay in advance if they clear the rent within the statutory grace period after it becomes due. The Court clarified that the Rent Controller possesses discretion in ordering eviction, which must be exercised based on the actual duration and circumstances of the default. As the lower courts erroneously calculated the default period as three months instead of one, the matter was remanded for a fresh exercise of discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual agreement to pay rent in advance override the statutory grace period provided for rent payment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • When does rent become 'due' for the purpose of calculating default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Is a Rent Controller bound to order eviction upon finding a single month's default in rent payment?
  • Can a landlord rely on a breach of a contractual stipulation for advance rent to seek eviction if the tenant pays within the statutory grace period?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmed vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 164 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 757 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 374 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
• Hyder and mums vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 491 · Lahore High Court · 1973-05-14Read full judgment →
• Highway Petroleum Service (Regd.), Lahore Petitioner vs Islamic1977 PLD Lahore 797 · Lahore High Court
  additional taxadvance payment of taxlegislative competencetaxing statute interpretationdouble jeopardyincome-tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of orders demanding additional amounts of tax under sections 18-A(6), (8) and 45-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal questions revolved around whether the levy of an additional amount of tax on unpaid or underpaid tax constituted an unconstitutional tax on tax rather than on income, and whether it violated the prohibition against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. A majority of the court held that the petitions be dismissed. The primary opinion reasoned that despite inapt terminology, the additional levy was not a new tax on income but rather a civil liability or compensatory burden for withholding money rightfully due to the State, akin to damages under general law, and did not attract the bar against double jeopardy since it was distinct from criminal sanctions or penalties for false statements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the demand of an additional amount of tax under sections 18-A and 45-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 amounts to an unconstitutional imposition of tax on tax rather than on income?
  • Does the imposition of an additional amount of tax alongside penalties and other sanctions violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • How are fiscal statutes and financial liabilities to be strictly construed under established canons of interpretation?
  • Whether the inclusion of an additional amount of tax for delayed or short payment of tax constitutes a civil liability for withholding public funds rather than a fresh tax imposition?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat Muhammad (Represented by 10 Heirs) vs Muhammad Shafi and Others1977 PLD Lahore 1229 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haneef alias Kaka vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-09Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Mahboob Ali Khan and Another vs Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwal a and 70 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Nooruddin. vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Khan vs Ch. Khizar Hayat and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-29
  First Information Reportmandatory dutycognizable offencepolice investigationalternative remedyconstitutional petitioncriminal complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant seeking directions for the police to register a First Information Report for bribery against respondent No. 1 and to investigate his conduct. The core legal question revolves around whether a police officer has the discretion to refuse to record a First Information Report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether constitutional writ jurisdiction should be withheld when an adequate alternative remedy by way of a private complaint exists. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory, leaving no discretion to the police officer to refuse to record an information relating to a cognizable offence, whereas the power to refuse investigation under section 157 is distinct. However, the Court affirmed that where the complainant possesses all necessary evidence and no police investigation is required, filing a private complaint before a Magistrate provides an adequate alternative remedy, barring relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principles laid down are that recording an F.I.R. under section 154 is a mandatory duty separate from the discretionary power to investigate under section 157, and the High Court will not issue a writ where an adequate remedy through a private complaint is available.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police officer has the discretion to refuse to record a First Information Report under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the distinction between the duty to record a First Information Report under section 154 and the power to refuse investigation under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a private complaint before a Magistrate an adequate alternative remedy barring the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when the complainant already possesses the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider and 2 Tohers vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 121 · Lahore High Court · 1973-10-18Read full judgment →
• Haft Mohd. Yousaf vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-20Read full judgment →
• Gulzar M. Chughtai vs The Commissioner, Lahore Division and 21977 PLD Lahore 1060 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad and aporma vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 576 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
• Gulsher Khan and Another vs The Province of West Pakistan and 21977 PLD Lahore 975 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gullu alias Gullan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 793 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-14Read full judgment →
• Gullan and Another vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 583 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 326 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 353 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Etc, vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 460 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza Shah vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 478 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 53 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Etc. vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 459 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs The STATERespendent1977 P Cr. L J 596 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 458 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 494 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohyuddin vs Suba Khan1977 PLD Lahore 1094 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-17
  evacuee propertyrent restrictionlatest assessmentejectmentdefault in rentbona fide personal needres judicatastatutory tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant of evacuee property. The core legal question was whether a transferee of evacuee property is entitled to charge rent based on the 'latest assessment' by local authorities, and whether a tenant’s failure to pay such enhanced rent after notice constitutes default. The Court held that 'latest assessment' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, refers to periodic assessments, not merely the assessment in force at the time of transfer. A transferee acquires the right to charge enhanced rent only upon issuing a formal notice to the tenant. Consequently, the tenant’s failure to pay after receiving such notice renders them a defaulter. Furthermore, the Court established that a landlord has the absolute discretion to determine which of their properties to occupy for personal need, and the tenant cannot challenge this choice. The plea of res judicata was rejected as the landlord was entitled to enforce rights arising from subsequent valid assessments.

  Questions settled

  • Does 'latest assessment' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, refer only to the assessment in force at the time of property transfer?
  • Is a tenant of evacuee property liable to pay enhanced rent based on a new assessment without receiving prior notice from the landlord?
  • Can a landlord who owns multiple properties be compelled by a tenant or the Controller to occupy a specific property for their personal need?
  • Does the principle of res judicata bar a landlord from seeking rent at an enhanced rate if a new assessment has been made subsequent to a previous court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohyud Din (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Minn Amiruddin1977 PLD Lahore 381 · Lahore High Court
  abatement of appeallegal representativeslimitation periodejectment applicationnecessary partycondonation of delayappellate discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. During the pendency of the proceedings, certain respondents died, and the appellants failed to implead their legal representatives within the statutory limitation period. The appellants subsequently filed applications to bring the legal representatives on record, invoking the court's discretion under Order XLI, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The core legal question was whether an appellate court possesses the power to implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent after the period of limitation has expired, particularly when the appellants had prior knowledge of the deaths. The court held that the appeal had abated in toto. It ruled that the court cannot exercise its discretionary power under Order XLI, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to implead parties against whom the limitation period has run out, especially where the appellants are guilty of extreme neglect. The principle established is that the appellate court cannot override the provisions of Order XXII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding abatement.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent under Order XLI, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after the period of limitation has expired?
  • Does the failure to implead legal representatives of a deceased respondent within the limitation period result in the abatement of the appeal?
  • Can the appellate court exercise its inherent powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to add a party against whom the limitation period has already run out?
  • Is an appeal competent if a necessary party has not been impleaded due to the death of the original respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 366 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hasan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 479 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Muzaffar Khan1977 PLD Lahore 1247 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
• Gharibwal Cement Ltd. Lahore vs Messrs Universal Traders, Gakhar1977 PLD Lahore 481 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-26
  territorial jurisdictioncorporationcause of actionmandatory injunctionspecific performancecivil revisionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil revision petitions arising from a suit for specific performance of a cement agency agreement. The core legal questions were whether a corporation could be sued in a court where a part of the cause of action arose, notwithstanding the absence of a subordinate office, and whether a mandatory injunction was appropriate under the circumstances. The Court held that Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is an independent provision regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, a corporation may be sued at any place where the cause of action arises, in whole or in part, regardless of whether it maintains a subordinate office at that location. Explanation II to Section 20 pertains only to the definition of carrying on business under clauses (a) and (b) and does not restrict the operation of clause (c). Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a mandatory injunction cannot be granted under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly when the alleged injury is compensable through monetary damages. Both petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does Explanation II to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restrict the jurisdiction of a court under clause (c) of the same section regarding corporations?
  • Can a corporation be sued in a court where a part of the cause of action arises if it does not maintain a subordinate office at that location?
  • Is a mandatory injunction maintainable under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the loss is calculable in monetary terms?
  Read full judgment →
• General Manager. Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila vs MR. Bashir1977 PLC 516 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-11Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Lyallpur, Cotton Mills, Lyallpur vs Sardar1977 PLD Lahore 188 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-10Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila vs MR. Bashir1977 PLD Lahore 982 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs Mst. Naseem Akhtar and Others1977 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-22Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-29Read full judgment →
• Feroze Din vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore and 2 Omers1977 PLD Lahore 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-29Read full judgment →
• Fazil and Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 471 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-21Read full judgment →
• Fazale Rehman (Represented by His Legal Heirs) vs Niaz Ahmad1977 PLD Lahore 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 468 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-01Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi Ejaz and 22 Others vs Government of the Punjab and 131977 PLD Lahore 549 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-14
  nationalization of educational institutionsservice tribunal jurisdictionMartial Law Regulation No. 118reduction in rankterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional barArticle 212
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against the dismissal of writ petitions challenging the validity of the Punjab Nationalised Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974, and the Nationalized Colleges (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974. The petitioners, former headmasters and college teachers, argued that these rules, which effectively reduced their rank and status following the nationalization of their institutions under Martial Law Regulation No. 118, violated the protection of service terms guaranteed by paragraph 7(2) of the Regulation. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain these challenges or if the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the impugned rules and orders regarding reduction in rank constituted matters of service terms and conditions, thereby falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. The Court affirmed that while the government's actions appeared to contradict the original intent of the Regulation, the constitutional bar under Article 212 necessitated the dismissal of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge against service rules when the matter falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can an executive order of a general nature be treated as a statutory rule for the purpose of determining its validity?
  • Does the protection of terms and conditions of service under paragraph 7(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 guarantee the retention of specific posts held by teachers prior to nationalization?
  • Can subordinate legislation be given retrospective effect to deprive a person of a vested right?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dad and 2 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies) West1977 PLD Lahore 264 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-01
  auction cancellationshow-cause noticejurisdiction of S.D.O.application of mindvoid ab initiowrit petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises out of a dispute regarding the cancellation of the auction and transfer of a 14-acre land lot (Lot No. 43) in District Multan, purchased by the petitioners in June 1962. After the petitioners failed to pay the final instalment on time, a show-cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) Khanewal, signing for the Collector, which led the Collector to cancel the transfer of the land. The petitioners' appeals and subsequent revision and review before the revenue authorities were dismissed. The core legal questions involved whether an S.D.O. is competent to issue a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912, and whether a Collector exercises lawful and independent application of mind by merely initialing an office-noting. The Lahore High Court held that the S.D.O. was not a Collector and lacked the authority to issue the notice, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio. The Court further held that the Collector failed to apply an independent mind by merely signing the office-noting without a conscientious decision. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority and the case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an S.D.O. is authorised to exercise the powers of a Collector and issue a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act V of 1912?
  • Does a Collector's mere initialing or signing of an office-noting amount to a conscientious and independent application of mind?
  • What is the legal effect of a basic notice issued by an incompetent authority upon the subsequent proceedings and orders based thereon?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Mahmood1977 P Cr. L J 393 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-11Read full judgment →
• FATA and 4 Others vs Tan State1977 P Cr. L J 591 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-08Read full judgment →
• Faryad Ali and 5 Others vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-16Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs THe State1977 P Cr. L J 619 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-22Read full judgment →
• Faqir Shah vs 'The State1977 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-31Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 895 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-13Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 870 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-04Read full judgment →