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.

• Dreamland Cinema, Multan vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 292 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-12
  declaratory statuteretrospective operationset-off of lossesunregistered firmregistered firmincome tax assessmentpending litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an unregistered firm, incurred a business loss in the 1963-64 assessment year. Upon becoming a registered firm in 1964-65, it sought to carry forward and set off this loss against its profits under Section 24 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer denied the set-off, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed it. Subsequently, the Tribunal reversed this, citing Explanation 2 to Section 24, added by the Finance Act, 1967, which prohibited such set-offs. The core legal question was whether this Explanation was declaratory and thus retrospective, applying to pending cases. The Court held that the amendment was indeed declaratory, intended to remove doubts and correct judicial interpretations that the legislature deemed erroneous. Consequently, the Court ruled that the amendment applied retrospectively to all pending cases, including the petitioner's. The key principle established is that statutes which are declaratory in nature, aimed at clarifying existing law or removing doubts, operate retrospectively and apply to pending litigation, even if they affect the outcome of cases not yet finalized.

  Questions settled

  • Is a declaratory statute generally construed to have retrospective effect?
  • Does the addition of an 'Explanation' to a statutory provision for the avoidance of doubt operate retrospectively on pending litigation?
  • Can the loss of an unregistered firm be carried forward and set off against the profits of a registered firm under the Income-tax Act?
  • Does the pendency of an appeal prevent a matter from being considered a 'past and closed' transaction for the purpose of applying a new statutory amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Aijaz Hassan Qureshi vs WSW Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Home Department Government of Panjab, Lahore and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1304 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Diwan Anwarul Islam vs Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and Another1977 PLD Lahore 970 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Din Muhammad Shakir alias D. M. Shakir vs D. S. P., Ichhra, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 180 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-30
  re-investigationcancellation of FIRcriminal procedurecivil disputemagisterial powerspolice investigationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the police's authority to re-investigate a criminal case (FIR No. 750 of 1974) that had previously been cancelled by a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the police could unilaterally re-investigate a case once a Magistrate had formally ordered its cancellation on the basis that the dispute was of a civil nature. The Court held that the re-investigation was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court established that while a Magistrate's cancellation order is administrative, it precludes the police from re-investigating the same matter without further authorization. The judgment laid down that to revive such a matter, the police must either move the Magistrate to recall the cancellation order, proceed on the basis of entirely fresh material, or direct the complainant to file a private complaint. The police cannot treat a matter as non-cognizable or civil in nature and simultaneously exercise investigative powers over it without judicial permission.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police re-investigate a criminal case that has been formally cancelled by a Magistrate?
  • Is the cancellation of a criminal case by a Magistrate an administrative or judicial act?
  • What are the legal avenues available to the police if they wish to revive a case previously cancelled by a Magistrate?
  • Does the police have the authority to investigate a matter deemed to be of a civil nature without the permission of a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-19Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Hussain and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 917 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
• Darvesh M. Arbey, Advocate vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 846 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• D&. Sakhi Muhammad Bhutta vs Major Karam Maui Zia and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-28Read full judgment →
• Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary1977 PLD Lahore 1029 · Lahore High Court
  educational boardsbar to suitsjurisdiction of civil courtshardship rulespractical examinationstudent illnessrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit filed by a student against the Controller of Examinations and the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, challenging the refusal to allow him to appear in practical examinations due to illness. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The petitioner contended that section 27 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance XVIII of 1961 barred civil suits against the Board, and that the deletion of a specific rule removed the authority to grant relief. The High Court held that the impugned orders were passed by the Controller of Examinations, not the Board itself, and that section 27 did not bar suits against actions taken outside the Board's jurisdiction or by subordinate functionaries. Furthermore, the Court held that the hardship rules in the Board's Calendar conferred ample power to grant relief in cases of real hardship. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 27 of the West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore) Ordinance XVIII of 1961 creates an absolute bar to instituting a civil suit against the Board?
  • Do orders passed by the Controller of Examinations constitute orders of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for the purposes of statutory immunity from suit?
  • Whether the hardship rules in the Board's Calendar empower the authorities to grant relief to a candidate who missed practical examinations due to illness?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi vs Messrs1977 PLD Lahore 1161 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Mian Muhammad1977 PLD Lahore 170 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-05Read full judgment →
• Colony Thal Textile Mills, Ismailpur, Bhakkar, District Mian Wali vs Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1249 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Clause Peter Saisal vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 504 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-04Read full judgment →
• Chughatta vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 782 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Ghulam Muhammad vs Khalid Mahmood and 7 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1110 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-10Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Ataullah Mhania vs Chaudhry Abdul Ghani Ghuman and Another1977 PLD Lahore 1079 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chaslum Contractors, Mianwali vs Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan and 3 Others1977 PLD Lahore 501 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shah Muhammad vs S. H. O., Rahimyer Khan and 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 2 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-30
  registration of FIRcognizable offencepolice daily diaryPunjab Police Ruleswrit petitionalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Ch. Shah Muhammad against the Station House Officer of Rahimyer Khan and others, challenging the police's refusal to register a First Information Report or conduct an investigation into an alleged incident, having instead recorded the information in the daily diary. The core legal question concerns the legality of a police officer's refusal to register a cognizable offence under the relevant legal provisions and police rules. The Lahore High Court held that under Rule 24.4 of the Punjab Police Rules and sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if an officer-in-charge suspects that an alleged cognizable offence has not been committed, recording the substance in the station diary with reasons and refusing investigation is not without lawful authority. Furthermore, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint before a court of competent jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the police can refuse to register a First Information Report upon receiving information of a cognizable offence?
  • Does an officer-in-charge of a police station have the authority to record reasons in the station diary for suspecting an alleged offence has not been committed?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against the refusal of police to investigate when an alternate remedy of filing a private complaint is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Noor Muhammad vs Government Op Punjab and Others1977 PLD Lahore 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1977-04-12Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Smuggling1977 PLD Lahore 300 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-19
  customs dutysmuggled goodscourt auctioncaveat emptorwarranty of titleseizure of vehicleconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the seizure of a car he had purchased at a public court auction, arguing that as a bona fide purchaser, the seizure by customs authorities was unlawful. The core legal questions involved whether a vehicle imported without paying customs duty can be seized as smuggled goods despite being purchased through a court auction, and whether court sales carry an implied warranty of title. The Lahore High Court held that the car was a smuggled item liable to confiscation and seizure under the Customs Act, 1969, because no customs duty had been paid and it was imported evading duties. Furthermore, the court held that court sales carry no warranty of title, applying the principle of caveat emptor, meaning the auction-purchaser only acquires the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtor with all existing defects. The court established that a court-sale purchaser takes the risk regarding title and encumbrances, and that smuggled goods remain subject to confiscation regardless of intermediate court auctions. The constitutional petition was dismissed, noting the availability of statutory appellate remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vehicle purchased through a court auction is immune from seizure by customs authorities if customs duty remains unpaid?
  • Does a court-sale carry an implied warranty of title protecting an auction-purchaser from latent defects or lack of ownership by the judgment-debtor?
  • When does the limitation period for issuing a show-cause notice under section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, apply to un-levied duties?
  • Are alternate statutory remedies under the Customs Act a bar to maintaining a constitutional petition against a seizure order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Hayat Ali vs Capital Development Authority, Rawalpindi1977 PLD Lahore 843 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
• Ch. Faqir Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 722 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-23Read full judgment →
• Bunyad Hussain vs Settlement Organization through the Settlement1977 PLD Lahore 929 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Brig (Rum) Sahib Dad. Khan vs The State and 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 676 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-24
  pre-arrest bailembezzlementofficial corruptionconcurrent jurisdictionbail confirmationcustodial investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of interim bail filed by a former Provincial Minister accused of various offences, including embezzlement of public funds, illegal gratification, and other malpractices related to the Punjab Peoples Festival and his official duties. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could entertain a bail application directly without the petitioner first approaching the Special Judge, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Court held that there is no statutory bar preventing a direct petition to the High Court for bail. Regarding the merits, the Court observed that the investigation involved complex rendition of accounts and scrutiny of official records, which would be a lengthy process, and that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was not strictly necessary at this stage. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail in both cases, directing the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation. The key principle established is that a High Court may exercise its concurrent jurisdiction to grant bail directly, bypassing the lower court, particularly when the investigation is documentary in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Is there a statutory bar preventing a petitioner from applying directly to the High Court for bail without first approaching the Special Judge?
  • Does the need for lengthy scrutiny of official records and accounts justify the denial of bail to an accused?
  • Can interim bail be confirmed when the investigation is primarily documentary and the accused's physical custody is not required?
  Read full judgment →
• Begum Shahebn Ramay vs The State and 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
• Begum Parveen Malik vs Tea State an 2 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-31Read full judgment →
• Begum Gulzar Khurshid Ahmad vs CDR. Sajjad Akbar1977 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-12
  Hizanatcustody of minorhabeas corpusSection 491 CrPCWest Pakistan Family Courts Actmaternal grandmothernatural guardian
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, concerns a custody dispute over a minor girl between her maternal grandmother and her father. The core legal questions were whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition for child custody despite the enactment of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, and whether the maternal grandmother is entitled to Hizanat (custody) of the minor girl. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, remains intact and is not ousted by the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, as the legislature did not explicitly transfer such powers to Family Courts. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Islamic law, the maternal grandmother possesses the right of Hizanat for a female child after the mother. Finding that the father had removed the child from the grandmother's long-standing custody through deceit, the Court declared the detention illegal and ordered the immediate restoration of the minor to the grandmother, while noting the father could pursue legal guardianship through a competent court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding the custody of a minor?
  • Is a maternal grandmother entitled to the custody (Hizanat) of a female minor child under Islamic law after the death of the mother?
  • Can a father forcibly or deceitfully remove a minor child from the custody of the person entitled to Hizanat without a court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Hussain/ vs Sadiq Hussain Shah and Another1977 P Cr. L J 527 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-10Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 893 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-16Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Akhtar and Another1977 P Cr. L J 337 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-13Read full judgment →
• BASbIR and Another vs Tpe State1977 P Cr. L J 1038 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-11Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs Mst. Bliag Bhari1977 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-26Read full judgment →
• Badaruddin vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 89 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-17Read full judgment →
• Baboo Khan vs Sardara and Another1977 P Cr. L J 77 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-12Read full judgment →
• Babar Farooque and Another vs Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore1977 PLD Lahore 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
• Azhar and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 325 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-11Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Shah vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 630 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-06Read full judgment →
• Asghar Majid vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 205 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-28Read full judgment →
• Asghar and 2 Others vs The State1977 P C r. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and Others vs Muhammad Siddiq Javed and OTHERSs1977 PLD Lahore 586 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 156 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
• Aqleem Akhtar Rani vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 390 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-26Read full judgment →
• Anwar Javed and Others vs Ikramul Haq and 3 Othbrs1977 PLD Lahore 100 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ansar Brothers, Multan vs The Punjab Employees' Social Security1977 PLD Lahore 651 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-27Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs Mohd. Iqbal and Another1977 P Cr. L J 476(2) · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain Gilani vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-11Read full judgment →
• Amin Gul and Another vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 205 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-17Read full judgment →
• Am Anat Hussain vs Mat. Misri Bibi and Another1977 PLD Lahore 840 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs Suerdin, S. H. O. and 57 Others1977 P Cr. L J 413 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Abdur Razzaq and Another1977 P Cr. L J 916 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 63 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Bagh Ali1977 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-03
  quashment of proceedingscomplaintexamination on oathjurisdictional illegalitysummoning of accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 204 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the initial complaint met the statutory definition of a complaint and whether the Assistant Commissioner acted with jurisdiction in directing an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first examining the complainant on oath. The Court held that while the application constituted a valid complaint under Section 4(h), the Assistant Commissioner committed a jurisdictional illegality by referring the matter for inquiry without first recording the complainant's statement on oath as mandated by the proviso to Section 202. Furthermore, the Court found that the subsequent summoning of the petitioner was based on mere conjecture rather than evidence. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that the examination of a complainant on oath under Section 200 is a mandatory prerequisite before a Magistrate can direct an inquiry under Section 202, and failure to do so renders subsequent proceedings without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complaint filed with a request for police inquiry fall under the definition of a complaint pursuant to Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the examination of a complainant on oath a mandatory prerequisite before a Magistrate can direct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can proceedings initiated upon a complaint be quashed if the Magistrate failed to record the complainant's statement on oath before directing an inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 3 Others vs Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab and 71977 PLD Lahore 352 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan and Another vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 349 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs Rafiquddin and 9 Others1977 PLD Lahore 418 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-25
  execution of decreeobjection petitionthird party possessioninherent powersanticipatory objectionejectmentcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arises out of an appellate order dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding an objection petition in execution proceedings, which had been referred to a referee. The core legal question was whether an anticipatory objection petition filed by a third party in execution proceedings before actual dispossession or resistance is competent under Order XXI rules 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or under the inherent powers of the court under section 151. The Lahore High Court held that an anticipatory objection petition by a third party who has neither resisted execution nor been dispossessed is not maintainable under rules 99 or 101, nor can it be entertained by invoking the inherent powers of the court under section 151, as express statutory provisions exclude inherent jurisdiction. The court further held that no appeal lies against an order passed under section 151. The petition was consequently dismissed, establishing that third-party obstruction or objection in execution is strictly governed by specific statutory procedures and cannot be brought prematurely.

  Questions settled

  • Is an anticipatory objection petition filed by a third person in execution proceedings competent before actual dispossession or resistance?
  • Can the inherent powers of the court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to entertain objection petitions when express provisions exist in the Code?
  • Does an appeal lie against an order passed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the distinction between a referee and an arbitrator in judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs Riasat Ali and 4 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ali a Kbar and Another vs The Board of Intermediate and Secondary1977 PLD Lahore 1075 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Alam Sher and 4 others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-19Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Iqbal Pori vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and 8 OTHERSs1977 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-15Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Collector, Lahore Etc.1977 PLD Lahore 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1974-04-16Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 698 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Pervez alias Guddo vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1055 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-30Read full judgment →
• Aitbar Khan and Another vs The State1977 P Cr, L J 114 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ai3dur Rashid vs Special Judge, Central. Lahore and Another-s1977 PLD Lahore 145 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Beg vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Zaman Khan vs The Government of Pakistan and 13 Others1977 PLD Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 388 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Faiz Ali and 5 Others1977 P Cr. L J 340 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-15Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Jan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and Another1977 PLD Lahore 761 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Another1977 PLD Lahore 956 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din alias Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
• Afzal alias PHALLAAccused vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-18Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Market Committee, Bhakk Ar and Another1977 PLD Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar and 2 mamas vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 453 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-05Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 580 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs Muhammad Nawaz and Another1977 P Cr. L J 914 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 905 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad vs Muhammad Ali and ANomna1977 PLD Lahore 687 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-29
  revisional jurisdictionAdditional District Judgeassignment of functionscivil business distributionWest Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962Code of Civil Procedure 1908writ petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by an Additional District Judge who exercised revisional jurisdiction under Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner contended that only the District Judge, as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, possesses the authority to exercise revisional powers, and that an Additional District Judge lacks such competence. The core legal question was whether an Additional District Judge can exercise revisional jurisdiction when such business is assigned to them by the District Judge under the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Additional District Judge is competent to exercise such jurisdiction. The ratio is that the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, empowers the District Judge to assign functions and distribute civil business to the Additional District Judge. Upon such assignment, the Additional District Judge exercises the same powers as the District Judge. The principle established is that the special provisions of the Ordinance regarding the distribution of business and assignment of functions override the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Additional District Judge exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 empower a District Judge to assign revisional functions to an Additional District Judge?
  • Is the assignment of civil business by a District Judge to an Additional District Judge limited to ministerial acts?
  • Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override the special provisions of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962 regarding the distribution of judicial business?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and moms vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 681 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and Anothers vs The State1977 PLD Lahore 679 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 841 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raseiid and 5 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 91 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman vs Wahid Bakhsh and 9 Others1977 PLD Lahore 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-21
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionnotification under section 8(2)cause of actionvested rightsColonization of Government Lands Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenges the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for possession of agricultural land through the exercise of a superior right of pre-emption. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit is maintainable when a notification under subsection (2) of section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which barred pre-emption rights on Government grant lands, was in force at the time of the sale but was subsequently rescinded before the institution of the suit. The Lahore High Court held that a pre-emptor must possess the right of pre-emption in both its primary form at the time of the sale and its secondary form at the time of the institution of the suit and up to the passing of the decree. The Court ruled that since the notification extinguishing pre-emption was active on the date of the sale, the transaction was protected, and the subsequent rescission of the notification could not retroactively revive or create a right where none existed at the time of the sale. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a right of pre-emption exist at the time of sale if a notification under subsection (2) of section 8 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is in force?
  • Can the subsequent rescission of a notification under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act retroactively revive a right of pre-emption for a sale completed while the notification was active?
  • What are the temporal requirements regarding the existence of a right of pre-emption for a suit to succeed?
  • What is the effect of delegated legislation under section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act on pre-emption claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman and Another vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner II and Another- -s1977 PLD Lahore 576 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-06
  evacuee propertysettlement schemeoccupanttransfer of propertyconstructive possessionlandlord and tenantwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioners' application for the transfer of an evacuee building site. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the term 'occupant' under the reconstituted Settlement Scheme No. VIII (1973), specifically whether a tenant in physical possession or the landlord who constructed the permanent structure on the site held the superior right to transfer. The Court held that while 'occupant' generally refers to the person in actual physical possession, in a competition between a landlord and a tenant, the landlord must be deemed the 'occupant' for the purposes of transfer. The Court reasoned that a tenant holds property on behalf of the landlord and cannot deny the landlord's title. Consequently, to prevent tenants from usurping property rights, the landlord is entitled to preference. The Court further established that the law in force at the time of the final decision, rather than the law at the time of the application, governs the transfer process. The petition was dismissed, affirming the respondent's right to the property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'occupant' under Settlement Scheme No. VIII (1973) include a tenant in physical possession when the landlord who constructed the building also claims the property?
  • Is the right to transfer of evacuee property determined by the law in force at the time of the application or the law in force at the time of the final decision?
  • Can a tenant in physical possession of an evacuee building site claim transfer in preference to the landlord who constructed the permanent structure on that site?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Faqir Hussain and Another1977 P Cr. L J 716 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalid vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil alias Jumman vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 150 · Lahore High Court · 1976-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 571 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and ANOTHERs vs Ali Liasan and Another1977 PLD Lahore 375 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-03
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processcriminal breach of trustcheatingulterior motivemala fide complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under the inherent jurisdiction seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated against the petitioners under sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a complaint of criminal breach of trust and cheating. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive to harass adversaries and settle collateral family disputes constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The Lahore High Court held that where circumstances clearly demonstrate that a criminal complaint has been filed to victimize the accused and force them to compromise unrelated civil or family litigation—such as a pending suit for dissolution of marriage—allowing the prosecution to continue is an abuse of process. The court established the principle that criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of harassment or pressure tactics in the face of demonstrable mala fides and strained family relations.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the complaint is found to be filed with an ulterior motive?
  • Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings to exert pressure in a family dispute constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Is it appropriate to quash a complaint at the initial summoning stage when mala fides and strained relations are evident?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ali Khan vs Haji Khuda Bakhsh1977 PLD Lahore 510 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-20Read full judgment →
• Abbas vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 507 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
• Abbas Etc. vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 421 · Lahore High Court · 1975-02-02Read full judgment →
• Abaidurrehman and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1976-08-08Read full judgment →
• A. R. Soofi vs WAPDA through Its Secretary1977 PLD Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Colony Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore vs The Commissioner of Sales1976 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Booz Allen & Hamilton International (P. R.) Inc., U. S. A. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore1976 PTD 67 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Aftab Medical Stores vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1976 PTD 242 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →