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 Yusuf vs Muhammad Akhtar and 3 Others1971 P Cr. L J 794 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 520 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 653 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar and 2 Others vs Chief Land Commissioner, West1971 PLD Lahore 879 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub and 13 Others vs The Municipal Committee, Lyallpur1971 PLD Lahore 664 · Lahore High Court · 1970-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waryam vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 199 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail (Represented by 4 Heirs) vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Another1971 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1967-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 590 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif--Convict vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 708 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-05
  murder referencedeath sentence commutationSection 429 CrPCocular testimonyappreciation of evidencereferee judgecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a murder conviction and a reference for confirmation of the death sentence under Section 374, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Following a split opinion between two judges regarding the appellant's guilt and the appropriate sentence, the case was referred to a third judge under Section 429, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of ocular testimony and the appropriateness of the death penalty given the evidentiary discrepancies and the lack of a clearly established motive. The referee judge held that despite the exclusion of unreliable witnesses, the consistent testimony of independent, natural eye-witnesses was sufficient to maintain the conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. However, noting the absence of a proven immediate motive and the split opinion on sentencing, the court commuted the death sentence to transportation for life. The judgment established that a referee judge under Section 429 possesses the authority to independently assess the entire case, including the appropriateness of the sentence, without being bound by the sentencing views of the preceding judges.

  Questions settled

  • Does a referee judge under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have the authority to independently determine the sentence in a case of split opinion?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained based on the testimony of independent eye-witnesses even if other prosecution witnesses are found to be unreliable?
  • Is a death sentence appropriate when the immediate motive for the crime remains unproven or speculative?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Superintendent, New Central Jail, Multan1971 P Cr. L J 12 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Another vs Tat Din and Another1971 PLD Lahore 693 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 3 Others vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 688 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Another vs Muhammad Bakhsh and Another1971 PLD Lahore 148 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-08
  res judicataconstitutional jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionsettlement authoritiesexcess allotmentwrit petition dismissalLetters Patent Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal addressed whether the general principles of res judicata apply to bar a subsequent civil suit challenging administrative orders of settlement authorities after a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the late Constitution challenging the same orders had been dismissed by the High Court. The appellants' land allotments were cancelled by settlement authorities as excess, and their writ petitions and subsequent intra-court appeals were dismissed. They then instituted civil suits resulting in conflicting judgments regarding the civil court's jurisdiction and the finality of the High Court's findings. The Lahore High Court held that where a constitutional petition is decided on the merits—even if dismissed in limine—and the High Court consciously upholds the validity of the impugned orders, that determination is final and binding on subordinate courts. Consequently, parties cannot re-agitate the matter in ordinary civil courts or raise pleas that were available to them in the constitutional proceedings but omitted. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, affirming that subordinate courts cannot reach a contrary conclusion on issues conclusively decided by the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the dismissal of a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution on merits operates as res judicata to bar a subsequent civil suit on the same cause of action?
  • Does section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts to question orders passed by settlement authorities within their statutory powers?
  • Can a party re-agitate a matter in a civil court by raising pleas that were available to them but not taken during earlier constitutional proceedings before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Raja Muhammad Iqbal1971 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem--Convict vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Siddiq and 6 Others1971 P Cr. L J 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1150 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Khalida Perveen1971 PLD Lahore 813 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-21
  family courtdissolution of marriagesecond appealjurisdictionCode of Civil Proceduremisdescription of courtconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by Mst. Khalida Perveen against her husband Muhammad Ramzan, which was initially dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, but decreed on appeal by the Additional District Judge. The appellant contended in the High Court that upon the enforcement of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 in Sheikhupura, the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter as an ordinary civil suit and that the second appeal was competent under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal questions involved whether the courts below possessed jurisdiction as Family Courts, whether the provisions of the Family Courts Act applied to pending proceedings, and whether a second appeal was maintainable under section 100, C.P.C. The Lahore High Court held that civil judges in the district automatically became Family Court judges upon the enforcement of the Act, rendering the trial court's proceedings valid notwithstanding its misdescription as a civil court. The Court ruled that section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 expressly excludes the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, making a second appeal under section 100, C.P.C. incompetent. The appropriate remedy to challenge such proceedings lay under Article 98 of the Constitution rather than a second appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil judge ceases to have jurisdiction or whether proceedings become invalid when a suit is tried under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 but the judge signs the judgment using the designation of a Senior Civil Judge rather than a Judge Family Court?
  • Does a second appeal lie to the High Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an appellate decision rendered under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings before a Family Court established under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Muhammad Ghafoor1971 PLD Lahore 343 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz--Convict vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 703 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 413 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 665 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Mian Ejaz Ahmad1971 PLD Lahore 30 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishtiaq vs The Government of West Pakistan and Another1971 PLD Lahore 839 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram Butt vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram Butt vs Ashfaq Ahmad and Another1971 PLD Lahore 994 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain--Plaintiff vs Mst. Bhagan and 2 Others--Defendant1971 PLD Lahore 266 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1218-- · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Another vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 959 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hidayatullah vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation1971 PLD Lahore 931 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1971P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and 4 Others vs The District Magistrate, Bahawalpur and 4 Others1971 PLD Lahore 574 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid vs The State and Another1971 P Cr. L J 974 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faqir vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 624 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs THP State1971 P Cr. L J 123 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Ghulam Muhammad Tasleem1971 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Sharif and 3 Others1971 PLD Lahore 610 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-06
  Letters Patent Appealejectmentstatutory tenancydefault in rentholding overrent agreement terms
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from an order dismissing a second appeal against an ejectment order passed due to default in payment of rent. The tenant, who continued in possession of the demised shop after the expiration of an eleven-month lease agreement, contended that upon expiry of the lease, he became a statutory tenant under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, thereby making the statutory sixty-day period for rent payment applicable rather than the advance payment clause in the expired lease. The Lahore High Court held that while the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 do not govern statutory tenancies, a tenant continuing in possession after lease expiration remains subject to the original terms and conditions of the agreement, including the mode and time of rent payment. Consequently, the tenant was bound by Section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance, requiring payment within fifteen days of the agreed date. The Court also held that factual pleas under Section 13-A cannot be raised for the first time in a Letters Patent Appeal without evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of a lease agreement remain bound by the terms and conditions regarding the mode of payment in the expired lease under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Which default period under Section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 applies to a statutory tenant where the expired lease specified the due date of rent?
  • Can a plea regarding non-compliance with Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 be raised for the first time in a Letters Patent Appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Mir vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1307 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 985 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 25 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 778 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan vs The Punjab Province (Now West Pakistan1971 PLD Lahore 989 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and 4 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 799 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Shad vs Muhammad Akram Alias Hazard and 4 Others1971 P Cr. L J 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1070 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Alias Mahna vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 222 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 6 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 528 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 3 Others vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1971 P Cr. L J 1081 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas Alias Bassa and 9 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 9 · Lahore High Court · 1970-08-13Read full judgment →
• Mughala vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mufti Mushtaq Ahmad vs The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1971 PLD Lahore 756 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra vs The District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar and 3 Others1971 PLD Lahore 944 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaitoon Begum and 2 Others vs Muhammad Ilyas and 6 Others1971 PLD Lahore 143 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-06
  adjournmentclosing of evidenceremandlimitationprocedural illegalitycivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from second appeals filed against an appellate order of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside the trial court's dismissal of two consolidated suits for declaration and possession regarding wakf properties. The trial court had refused an oral request for an adjournment by the plaintiffs, closed their evidence, and immediately proceeded to dismiss the suits as time-barred by relying on unproved documents on the record, purporting to act under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in summarily dismissing the suits under Order XVII, rule 3 or rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without proceeding properly with the further progress of the suit or evaluating evidence legally. The Lahore High Court held that neither provision justified the trial court's procedure, as rule 3 did not apply where time had not been specifically granted for the act defaulted, and the trial court erred in treating unproved documents as evidence and failing to follow the correct sequential steps of a trial. The appeals were consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can dismiss a suit under Order XVII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when no time was specifically granted to the party for the act resulting in the default?
  • What is the distinction between proceeding with the suit forthwith under Order XVII rule 1(3) and proceeding to decide the suit forthwith under Order XVII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court rely upon documents as evidence when they have neither been formally tendered, produced, nor proved by any party?
  • Whether an appellate court is justified in setting aside a trial court's order that prematurely terminates a suit without following proper procedural steps?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tehseen Akhtar vs Mahmood-Ul-Hassan1971 PLD Lahore 875 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-13
  revisional jurisdictionfamily courts actexclusion of code of civil procedurerestitution of conjugal rightsprompt dowercrueltyconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-husband against the petitioner-wife, which was decreed conditionally upon payment of prompt dower by the Family Court and upheld in appeal by the District Judge. The petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal questions involved were whether a revision petition is maintainable against appellate orders passed by a District Judge under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, given the exclusion of the Code of Civil Procedure by section 17 of the said Act, and whether interference was warranted under Article 102 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962 regarding the definition of cruelty. The High Court held that orders of the District Judge passed either as a Family Court or as an appellate court under the Act are not subject to its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and further declined to interfere under constitutional jurisdiction as the subordinate court acted within the bounds of its authority. The key principle laid down is that the exclusion of the Code of Civil Procedure under section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 applies equally to appellate proceedings before the District Judge under the Act, rendering such orders non-revisable under section 115 of the Code.

  Questions settled

  • Whether orders passed by a District Judge in appeal under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 are subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does the exclusion of the Code of Civil Procedure by section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 apply to appellate proceedings before the District Judge?
  • When can the High Court interfere with the orders of a subordinate court under Article 102 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962 regarding the interpretation of cruelty under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Begum vs Ch. Matiullah and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 866 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-02
  territorial jurisdictionfamily courtmaintenancedowercause of actionwrit petitioniddat
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions arising from a family court suit filed by a wife against her husband for the recovery of dower money and past maintenance. The Family Court decreed the dower claim but dismissed the maintenance claim for lack of territorial jurisdiction, which decisions were upheld in appeal. The core legal question concerned whether the Family Court at Lahore possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for maintenance under rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, given that the marriage was solemnized at Lahore and the deserted wife resided there during and after the divorce. The Lahore High Court held that since the marriage took place at Lahore and the deserted wife resided there during the Iddat period, a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of Lahore under rule 6(a), making the maintenance suit entertainable there. The Court laid down that the fact of marriage forms an essential part of the cause of action in a maintenance suit, and a deserted wife may institute such proceedings where she ordinarily resides or where part of the cause of action arises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Family Court at Lahore has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for maintenance where the marriage was solemnized in Lahore and the deserted wife resided there during the Iddat period?
  • Does the fact of marriage constitute a material part of the cause of action in a suit for maintenance by a wife?
  • What is the proper course of action for a Family Court Judge who finds that he lacks territorial jurisdiction in respect of a specific claim in a plaint?
  • Can findings of fact regarding the payment of dower money be successfully reopened and reappraised in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Said Bibi vs This State1971 P Cr. L J 39 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Mohammad Ali1971 PLD Lahore 151 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabla Bibi vs Zilladar Khan and 3 OTHERSs1971 P Cr. L J 523 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Imam Hussain Bibi vs Muhammad Latif and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 727 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Government of West Pakistan and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 498 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Firdous Fatima vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 843 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fateh Bibi vs Ahmad Khan and 6 Others1971 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-26
  pre-emptionlis pendensco-ownersuperior right of pre-emptionsubsequent vendeeintegrity of bargain
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for possession of agricultural land. The land was originally sold by mutation, and subsequently parts of it were transferred, leading to the plaintiffs filing a suit for pre-emption on the ground of being co-owners against strangers and a co-owner who had associated a stranger in the purchase. During the pendency of the suit, the entire land was re-sold to the appellant, Mst. Fateh Bibi, who was herself an owner in the estate by inheritance. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the subsequent re-sales were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and not bona fide. The core legal question is whether the doctrine of lis pendens bars a subsequent re-sale of pre-empted property made during the pendency of a suit to a person having a pre-existing equal or superior right of pre-emption. The Lahore High Court held that the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to a transfer effected during the pendency of a pre-emption suit to a person possessing a pre-existing right of pre-emption equal or superior to that of the plaintiff, provided the transaction is genuine. The court laid down that a pre-emptor cannot defeat an ultimate purchaser who acquires the property within the period of limitation in assertion of a pre-existing, non-inferior right of pre-emption, as such a transaction does not offend the rule of lis pendens. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the plaintiffs' suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens apply to a transfer of property made during the pendency of a pre-emption suit to a person possessing a pre-existing right of pre-emption equal or superior to that of the plaintiff?
  • Does a co-owner lose their right of pre-emption by associating with a stranger in a purchase transaction?
  • Can a subsequent vendee successfully defend their title against a pre-emptor on the ground of a pre-existing right of pre-emption acquired within the period of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Began vs Mst. Bai1971 PLD Lahore 567 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-10
  colonization of government landsproprietary rightslife estatecustomary lawshariat application actmutationalienation restrictionssuccession
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for a declaration regarding ownership of land initially granted for livestock breeding under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The original tenant died issueless, and his widow succeeded to the tenancy, later acquiring proprietary rights. Following the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, a mutation was sanctioned giving a share to the appellant (husband's sister), which the widow challenged, claiming her estate was not hit by section 3 of the 1962 Act since she was not a limited estate-holder under Customary Law. The lower courts decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The core legal question was whether proprietary rights acquired by a female tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, constitute a limited estate under Customary Law and are thus terminated under section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The High Court held that the estate held by a female who acquired proprietary rights under sections 30 and 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, is distinct from a customary life estate and is not terminated by section 3 of the 1962 Act. The key principle laid down is that restrictions on alienation placed by section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, do not reduce a female's absolute ownership status into a customary life estate for the purposes of termination under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquisition of proprietary rights by a female tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 convert her holding into a limited estate under Customary Law?
  • Are estates held by Muslim females under sections 30 and 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 hit by section 3 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962?
  • What is the legal effect of restrictions on alienations imposed by section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 on the status of a female acquiring proprietary rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Khatun vs The Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, Umar Bakhsh, the Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and the Court of Wards1971 PLD Lahore 698 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-27Read full judgment →
• MRS. I. Butt (Nee Isabella Houghton) vs Khalid B1lal Butt1971 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 1968-01-12Read full judgment →
• MR. Manzur Qadir vs Mst. Amtul Hussain and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 537 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-28
  Letters Patent Appealevacuee propertytransfer of propertycompensation poollocus standilimitationcondonation of delaydiscretionary powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that declared respondent No. 1 entitled to the transfer of an evacuee bungalow and directed the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to give effect to the declaration. The core legal questions involved the competency of a non-party to file an appeal, the condonation of delay in filing, the interpretation of 'any property' under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the finality of an order of transfer passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The court held, firstly, that although a stranger to the suit may obtain leave to appeal if prejudicially affected, the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the substantial delay in filing the appeal, rendering it time-barred. On merits, the court held that the Central Government's power under section 10(2) is not restricted to specific properties and that the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order of transfer was final upon fulfillment of the condition of availability. The appeal was accordingly dismissed both on limitation and on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who was not a party to the original writ petition file an appeal against the judgment with leave of the court?
  • Does the admission of an appeal and ex parte condonation of delay by an admitting Bench preclude a subsequent Bench from re-examining the question of limitation?
  • What is the true scope and meaning of the expression 'any property' under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Whether an order of transfer made subject to a condition of availability can be regarded as a final and conclusive order upon the fulfillment of that condition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Siddique and 3 Others vs The State Respondent,1971 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-21Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Shafi vs Mohammad Siddique1971 P Cr. L J 596 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ramzan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 788 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ramzan and Another vs Habibullah1971 PLD Lahore 495 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-18Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Anwar and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 424 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mirza Inayatullah and Another vs Ch. Muhammad Shafi1971 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mir Riasat Ali vs The Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan1971 PLD Lahore 115 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-24Read full judgment →
• Mir and Another vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 1214 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mir Alam and 4 Otherss vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 5 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs the International Body Builders- vs Commissioner of Income-1971 PTD 513 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs the International Body Builders vs Commissioner of Income-1971 PLD Lahore 559 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs the Batala Engineering Co. (Pak.) Ltd., Lahore vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, North Zone (West Pakistan)Lahore1971 PTD 357 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs the Batala Engineering Co. (Pak.) Ltd., Lahore vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, North Zone (West Pakistan), Lahore1971 PLD Lahore 619 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Taj Din Maula Bux vs The Sales Tax Officer, D-Circle, Lahore1971 PTD 50 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sultan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1971 PLD Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Qamar Din Ahmad & Co. vs Pakistan and Another1971 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pasco Corporation (Engineers), Lahore vs Ch. Mansha Khan1971 P Cr. L J 136 · Lahore High Court · 1966-12-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Odeon Cinema, Lahore vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore1971 PTD 212 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Everlast Enterprises Ltd., Lahore vs Government of Pakistan1971 PLD Lahore 999 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dada Ltd. vs Province of West Pakistan through the Vice-1971 PLD Lahore 743 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Colony Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore vs The Income-Tax Appellate1971 PTD 1061 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Colony Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore vs The Income-Tax Appellate1971 PLD Lahore 861 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehra vs Zahur Ahmad1971 PLD Lahore 834 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-10
  pre-emptionevacuee propertypermanent settlementproprietary rightscivil court jurisdictiondisplaced personssecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal challenges the dismissal of a pre-emption suit concerning land previously held as evacuee property. The core legal question was whether a sale of land by a provisional permanent allottee is subject to the right of pre-emption and whether civil courts possess the jurisdiction to entertain such suits. The lower courts, relying on earlier precedents, had dismissed the suit, reasoning that such land remained evacuee property and was thus immune from pre-emption. The High Court, however, held that upon permanent settlement under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the land ceases to be evacuee property and vests absolutely in the allottee. Consequently, the transaction becomes pre-emptible, and the statutory bar against civil court jurisdiction is removed. The Court established that the permanent settlement of land confers full proprietary rights, rendering the property susceptible to pre-emption claims. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted, the lower courts' decrees were set aside, and the case was remanded for disposal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sale of land by a provisional permanent allottee of evacuee property subject to the right of pre-emption?
  • Does the permanent settlement of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, extinguish the status of the land as evacuee property?
  • Do civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of land by pre-emption once it has been permanently settled on an allottee?
  • Does the amendment introduced by the Displaced Persons (Laws Amendment) Ordinance, 1964, confer full proprietary rights on a displaced person in land settled on them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali Azhar vs Dr. Inzarul Islam Qureshi1971 PLD Lahore 104 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-25Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Qamar-Ud-Din vs Ghulam Muhammad1971 PLD Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-25Read full judgment →
• Maula Bakhsh vs Abdul Hamid and 4 Others1971 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-06Read full judgment →
• Masood Qureshi vs Azizul Hameed and Another1971 PLD Lahore 678 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Hussain vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 107 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-11Read full judgment →
• Man Nazar Farid Ahmad Khan Maneka and 3 Others vs The Controller1971 PLD Lahore 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-10Read full judgment →
• Mamoon and 9 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 197 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-08Read full judgment →