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.

• Malik Zakauddin and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 152 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Mumtaz Ali vs Pakistan through Secretary, Refugees and Works, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi and 3 Others1971 PLD Lahore 395 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-05
  withdrawal of writ petitiontransposition of partiesevacuee propertypermanent transfer deedOrder I Rule 10 CPCOrder XXIII Rule 1 CPCapplicability of CPC to writ petitions
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by a displaced person challenging a sanction granted by the Central Government under Section 25(2)(s) of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957 for the sale of evacuee land to the Municipal Committee of Lyallpur. During the pendency of the petition, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner issued a Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) in favor of the petitioner under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition. The Municipal Committee opposed the withdrawal and applied under Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be transposed as a co-petitioner to challenge the PTD. The High Court held that transposition under Order I Rule 10 cannot be allowed where a respondent's claim runs completely counter to the petitioner's cause of action and radically alters the suit's character. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that Civil Procedure Code provisions apply to writ proceedings under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962, and under Order XXIII Rule 1, a petitioner has an unconditional right to withdraw a proceeding without liberty to file a fresh suit. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to writ proceedings under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
  • Can a defendant or respondent be transposed as a co-petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if their claim runs counter to the original petitioner's claim?
  • Does a petitioner have an absolute right to withdraw a writ petition under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without seeking permission to file a fresh suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Zahoor vs The State,1971 P Cr. L J 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akhtar vs Mian Salahuddin and 9 Others1971 PLD Lahore 737 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-11
  nomination paperselection disputemandatory and directory provisionsconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedyelection petitionbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the acceptance of a rival candidate's nomination papers by the Returning Officer one day prior to the date specified in the official notification under the election laws. The core legal question is whether the statutory provision regarding the date of filing nomination papers is mandatory or directory, and whether the High Court should interfere with the election process at an intermediate stage. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the statutory timeline for filing nomination papers is directory rather than mandatory in the absence of a prescribed penal consequence, and that the early acceptance of nomination papers constituted a mere irregularity that did not affect the fair conduct of elections. Furthermore, the court held that election disputes should not be entertained by ordinary courts through extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction when an alternative remedy via an election petition is provided by law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provision specifying the date for filing nomination papers under the election law is mandatory or directory?
  • Can an election dispute be entertained by the High Court under extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction prior to the conclusion of the election?
  • Does the early acceptance of a nomination paper by a Returning Officer invalidate the nomination in the absence of a prescribed penal consequence?
  Read full judgment →
• Major Ata Muhammad Khan and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad Khan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 723 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-09Read full judgment →
• M. Rashid Ahmad vs National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. and Another1971 PLD Lahore 598 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-03
  master and servantwrongful dismissalreinstatementspecific performancedeclaratory suitprivate employmentStanding Orderscommercial establishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a civil suit filed by an employee of a private banking institution against his dismissal from service. The plaintiff sought a declaration that his suspension, domestic inquiry, and dismissal were illegal and ultra vires the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1960, along with a decree for reinstatement. The trial court rejected the plaint, and the appellate court affirmed the decision.

  The core legal question was whether an employee of a private commercial establishment can maintain a civil suit for declaration and reinstatement on the ground that his dismissal violated statutory Standing Orders, or whether his remedy is confined to damages for wrongful dismissal under the general law of master and servant.

  The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in private employment the relationship remains governed by the master and servant rule. A contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, nor can a declaration for reinstatement be granted under Section 42. While Industrial Courts acting under special labor legislation may order reinstatement, ordinary civil courts cannot foist an employee upon an unwilling private employer, and the aggrieved employee's sole remedy in a civil court is a suit for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract for personal service with a private employer be specifically enforced in a civil court under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Whether an employee of a private bank can seek a declaration of illegal dismissal and reinstatement in a civil court?
  • Does a violation of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1960 entitle a private employee to sue in a civil court for reinstatement rather than damages?
  • Can an ordinary civil court order the reinstatement of a wrongfully dismissed private employee as an Industrial Court might?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Daud Khan and 20 Others vs Government of West Pakistan and 21971 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-12
  WAPDAelectricity tariffstatutory discretionunilateral contract amendmentpublic authorityadministrative lawnatural justicewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, agricultural consumers of electricity, challenged a notification issued by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) that unilaterally revised electricity tariffs, effectively altering existing agreements. The core legal questions were whether WAPDA could unilaterally amend these tariffs despite prior contracts, whether such actions were subject to the Electricity Act 1910, and whether the revision violated principles of natural justice. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that WAPDA possesses the statutory authority under the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 to fix and revise rates. The Court determined that the proviso to Section 12 of the WAPDA Act exempts the Authority from specific obligations under the Electricity Act 1910. Furthermore, the Court established that a public body cannot fetter its future statutory discretion or executive action through private contracts, as the service of the community and public interest override contractual obligations. Finally, the Court held that the fixation of utility rates is an administrative function that does not require a hearing or show-cause notice under the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory body like WAPDA unilaterally amend electricity tariffs despite existing agreements with consumers?
  • Does the principle of natural justice require a public authority to issue a show-cause notice to consumers before revising utility tariffs?
  • Can a public body fetter its future statutory discretion by entering into a contract?
  • Are the provisions of the Electricity Act 1910 regarding licensee obligations applicable to WAPDA?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Abdul Aziz and 3 Others vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation1971 PLD Lahore 871 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-05Read full judgment →
• Kundan Bibi and 4 OTHERSs vs Walayat Hussain, Controller of Estate1971 PTD 43 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-03Read full judgment →
• Kundan Bibi and 4 Others vs Walayat Hussain, Controller of Estate1971 PLD Lahore 360 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-03Read full judgment →
• Khushi Mohammad vs Mohammad Yausaf and 6 Others1971 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-09Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Iqbal Butt vs Messrs Pakistan Sports Co-1971 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-31Read full judgment →
• Khan Nabi Ahmad Khan And 10 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 875 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-26Read full judgment →
• Khan Mohammad and 11 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 762 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khalid Latif Alias Goga vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-28Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State Respondent1971 P Cr. L J 268 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Ghulam Muhammad1971 PLD Lahore 529 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-02Read full judgment →
• Khadim alias Khooni vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 776 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-15Read full judgment →
• Jagdev and 12 Others vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 162 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-17Read full judgment →
• Inayat and Others vs Nawab Khan1971 PLD Lahore 938 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-29Read full judgment →
• Inayat and 3 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 312 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 448 · Lahore High Court · 1971-01-27Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bakhsh vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-11
  murder in jaildeath sentencehostile witnessestransfer of previous statementbenefit of doubtacquittalcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Hussain Bakhsh, who was found guilty of the murder of a co-convict under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The prosecution alleged that during an altercation over an earthen pitcher inside a jail cell, the appellant struck the deceased on the head, causing fatal injuries. Upon appeal and a death reference before the High Court, the ocular witnesses resiled from their previous statements, claiming coercion by jail officials during the inquiry proceedings. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to satisfy the legal prerequisites under section 33 of the Evidence Act 1872 for transferring an absent witness's previous statement to the sessions file. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious legal infirmities and reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, declining to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of an absent witness recorded by a committing magistrate can be transferred to the sessions file under section 33 of the Evidence Act 1872 without proving reasonable and diligent search for the witness?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the eyewitnesses resile from their statements at the trial and claim coercion by jail authorities during earlier proceedings?
  • What are the legal consequences when a counsel for a pauper accused is appointed at state expense on very short notice without adequate time to prepare the defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Humera Satwat Yusuf vs The Government of the Punjab through the Secretary of the Health Department, Lahore1971 PLD Lahore 641 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-23
  admission to medical collegesdiscrimination on the basis of sexplace of birth versus residenceexecutive authorityrepeal of ordinance during proceedingsfundamental rightsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of four constitutional petitions filed under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 by female students challenging the restrictions imposed by the Government on the admission of girls to medical colleges in the Punjab. The core legal questions involved whether the executive government had the lawful authority to restrict admissions and allocate seats on the basis of sex and place of birth, particularly in light of the Medical Colleges (Governing Bodies) Ordinance 1961, and whether such restrictions violated Fundamental Rights. The Lahore High Court held that although the Medical Colleges (Governing Bodies) Ordinance 1961 was repealed during the pendency of the proceedings and the executive orders lacked statutory force, the petitions must fail because the petitioners had no enforceable legal right to admission, and the Constitution did not prohibit discrimination based on sex regarding educational admissions while the equality right (Article 15) remained suspended under the Provisional Constitution Order 1969. Furthermore, the court held that permanent residence is distinct from place of birth. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs against the petitioners due to the intervening legislative repeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to apply for admission to an educational institution carries with it an enforceable legal right to be admitted under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
  • Whether executive orders regulating medical college admissions possess statutory force in the absence of enabling primary legislation?
  • Does the prohibition against discrimination on the ground of place of birth under Fundamental Right 12(3) equate to a prohibition against discrimination based on permanent residence?
  • Whether the State can lawfully restrict the admission of female students to certain public medical colleges on the ground of sex when the equality provisions of the Constitution stand suspended?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat and 10 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 541 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-12Read full judgment →
• Haqdad Khan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 274 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-25Read full judgment →
• Hakim Aziz Ahmad vs Ijazul Mulk1971 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-08Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 666 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Sh. Manzoor Ilahi vs Sh. Abu Bakar1971 P Cr. L J 1021 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-19
  false affidavitperjuryverification of affidavitCode of Civil ProcedureCode of Criminal Procedureprosecution for false evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to prosecute the respondent under section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for filing a false affidavit in support of a transfer application. The core legal question was whether a person can be prosecuted for perjury based on an affidavit whose verification clause states that the contents are true to the best of knowledge and belief without specifying which parts are based on personal knowledge and which on belief, in violation of procedural requirements. The Lahore High Court held that an affidavit must strictly conform to Order XIX rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by clearly distinguishing between facts based on personal knowledge and those based on belief, along with the grounds thereof. The court ruled that an ambiguous or defective affidavit failing this requirement is not a legal affidavit and cannot form the basis for a prosecution for perjury. The application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an affidavit verified to the best of knowledge and belief without distinction can sustain a prosecution for perjury under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does a verification clause stating facts are true to the best of knowledge and belief comply with Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What are the legal consequences of failing to specify which portions of an affidavit are based on personal knowledge versus belief?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Siddiq vs Babu Karam Bakhsh and 3 Others1971 PLD Lahore 912 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ali vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-13Read full judgment →
• Haider and: Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 566 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-23Read full judgment →
• Haider and 3 Others--Convict vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-09Read full judgment →
• Gulsher vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 400 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-20Read full judgment →
• Gul Jamal Khan and Another vs Shah Jahan Khan1971 P Cr. L J 943 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-02
  quashmentdishonour of chequecheatingcriminal breach of trustcivil liabilitycriminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The respondent filed a direct complaint alleging that the petitioners, after settling accounts for cotton supplied in 1968, issued a post-dated cheque for the outstanding balance of Rs. 4,000, which was subsequently dishonoured. The core legal question was whether the dishonour of a cheque issued to settle a pre-existing civil debt constitutes cheating or criminal breach of trust. The High Court held that because the cheque was issued for outstanding dues after the finalization of accounts, and not as a fraudulent inducement to part with property at the time of delivery, no criminal liability arose. The court reaffirmed that the liability for a dishonoured cheque under such circumstances is purely civil. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the dishonour of a cheque issued in settlement of a pre-existing debt or outstanding account balance gives rise to criminal liability under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can criminal proceedings for cheating be sustained if there is no evidence that the complainant was fraudulently induced to part with property at the time of the transaction?
  • Does the inability or refusal to pay an outstanding civil debt constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Shah vs Income-Tax Officer, Lahore and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 34 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Ghulam Muhammad and Another1971 P Cr. L J 2 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Arm 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rubbani and 3 Others vs The State and Another1971 PLD Lahore 741 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi--Defendant vs Ghulam Muhammad and 3 Others1971 PLD Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1971 P Cr. L J 551 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad--Convict vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 850 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-09
  murderextra-judicial confessionjudicial confessionretracted confessioncriminal procedurerecoveriesburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of his employer. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and voluntariness of an extra-judicial confession, the legality and adequacy of warnings administered prior to recording a judicial confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the reliability of supporting recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that both the extra-judicial and judicial confessions were involuntary, untruthful, and vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards, while the alleged recoveries were unconvincing and fabricated. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down key principles regarding the strict scrutiny required for extra-judicial confessions, the necessity of proper judicial warnings and adequate cooling-off periods before recording confessions to free the accused from police influence, and the requirement of independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an extra-judicial confession can form the basis of a conviction without close scrutiny and independent corroboration?
  • Does a failure by a magistrate to administer the precise warning mandated by subsection (3) of section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiate a judicial confession?
  • Are recoveries of weapons and blood-stained garments considered reliable corroboration when prosecution witnesses contradict each other regarding the timing and circumstances of the recovery?
  • What is the effect of police surveillance and proximity during the recording of a confession on its voluntariness?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1971-06-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore and Another1971 PLD Lahore 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1971-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 4 · Lahore High Court · 1965-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohammad vs Ghulam Sarwar and 2 Others1971 P Cr. L J 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Tits State1971 P Cr. L J 117 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Discipline Committee, Board of Inter-Mediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and Another1971 PLD Lahore 952 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 918 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ghazi and 8 Others vs Mst. Nighat Ara Begum and 38 Others1971 PLD Lahore 825 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Ali vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 29 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ghaus Muhammad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-14Read full judgment →
• Feroze Khan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-11Read full judgment →
• Feroze and 9 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 525 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-08Read full judgment →
• Fazal-U R-Rahman and 2 Others--Convict vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 883 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-03
  culpable homicide not amounting to murdergrave and sudden provocationappreciation of evidenceself-defensecommon intentionocular evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from convictions and death sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge for the murder of the deceased. The appellants claimed self-defense, asserting the deceased initiated the violence. The High Court examined whether the prosecution's ocular evidence, which contained improvements to align with medical findings, remained credible. The Court held that while the prosecution witnesses modified their statements, their testimony was not entirely unreliable, as the court must sift the grain from the chaff. Rejecting the defense's plea of self-defense as a fabrication, the Court nonetheless found that the deceased had initiated the altercation by striking one appellant, thereby causing grave and sudden provocation to the others. Applying the principle that courts must evaluate probabilities when direct evidence is partially inconsistent, the Court held the appellants' actions were covered by Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentences, convicting two appellants under Section 304(I) and one under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing them accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the modification of witness statements to align with medical evidence necessitate the total rejection of their testimony?
  • Can a court convict an accused under Section 304(I) of the Pakistan Penal Code when the defense of self-defense is rejected but grave and sudden provocation is established?
  • Is it permissible for a court to sift the grain from the chaff in witness testimony when parts of the evidence are found to be unreliable?
  • Does the act of an unjustified attack on one family member by the deceased constitute grave and sudden provocation for the other family members to retaliate?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain and Another vs Abdul Hamid1971 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-10
  regular second appealorder of remandimmovable propertydescription by boundariesownership titleconcurrent findings of factinjunction suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff claiming ownership of the suit land against the defendants who contested title. The trial court initially dismissed the plaintiff's suit upon deciding the issue of ownership against him, having erroneously refused certain documents. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge remanded the case for retrial on the sole ownership issue after admitting the documents. Following remand, both the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found the plaintiff to be the owner and decreed the suit, leading to the present second appeal. The Lahore High Court held that an appealable order of remand not challenged becomes final and cannot be re-agitated in subsequent appeals, pursuant to section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, minor discrepancies in area descriptions do not vitiate a suit where boundaries and identity of the immovable property are clearly established, and description by boundaries prevails over area. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of fact regarding ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appealable order of remand, if not challenged by way of appeal, be called in question in an appeal from the final decree passed after remand?
  • Does a misdescription or variation of area in the plaint invalidate a suit for immovable property when the boundaries clearly identify the land?
  • Whether description by boundaries should prevail over area in cases of inconsistency within title documents and plaints?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Alias Faja vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 602 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-28Read full judgment →
• Fatta vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 1054 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-04Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sher vs Sarang1971 PLD Lahore 128 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-22
  habeas corpuscustody of wifeillegal detentionIslamic lawperjurysection 491 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the release and custody of Mst. Naziran, alleged by the petitioner to be his wife, but claimed by the respondent Sarang to be his lawfully wedded wife. The core legal question concerns whether a woman who is sui juris can be allowed to leave her husband to accompany her paramour in habeas corpus proceedings, when weighed against Islamic law and marital rights. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish his marriage, finding the woman to be the lawful wife of the respondent, and declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under section 491 to facilitate an illicit liaison or frustrate the husband's right of guardianship. The key principle laid down is that discretionary habeas corpus remedies under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 will not be invoked to enable a collusive circumvention of marital obligations and Islamic injunctions regarding a husband's lawful custody.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a woman who is sui juris can be allowed to accompany her paramour in preference to her husband in habeas corpus proceedings?
  • Can the discretionary jurisdiction under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to facilitate an illicit connection?
  • Is a husband entitled to the custody and guardianship of his wife under Islamic law in proceedings seeking her release?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 221 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-02Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali and Another vs The State and Another s1971 P Cr. L J 49 · Lahore High Court · 1970-08-25Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 929 · Lahore High Court · 1971-07-27
  sodomyrevision petitionres gestaeadmissibility of statementmedical evidencechild witness
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Faqir Muhammad sought revision against his conviction under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing sodomy, which had been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerned the admissibility of the victim's out-of-court statements regarding the incident, given that the victim was a minor child who was found incapable of giving evidence at trial. The Lahore High Court held that while the lower appellate court erroneously relied on section 32 of the Evidence Act, the victim's statement to a witness immediately after the occurrence was admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act as part of the res gestae. Coupled with medical evidence and chemical reports confirming semen and blood stains, the prosecution successfully proved its case. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding both the conviction and the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment and ten stripes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statement of a child victim of sodomy is admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act when the child is incapable of giving evidence?
  • Is the statement made by a victim immediately after an occurrence admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act as res gestae?
  • Whether medical and chemical examiner reports corroborated by circumstantial witness testimony are sufficient to uphold a conviction under section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ullah Khan vs Government of West Pakistan and Another1971 PLD Lahore 474 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-14Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-05Read full judgment →
• Dullah and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 17 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-23Read full judgment →
• DR. Mazhar Ali Hashmi vs Abdul Qadir and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 278 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-03Read full judgment →
• DR. Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 658 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-16Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad and 15 Others vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 381 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-18Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent (Workshop), P. W. R., Lahore vs Muhammad1971 PLD Lahore 355 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-06Read full judgment →
• Dilmeer Khan and 5 Others vs Subhan Khan and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 1040 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-20Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Shah vs The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore1971 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-24Read full judgment →
• Dara and 3 Others vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-23Read full judgment →
• Dalmir vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 157 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-25Read full judgment →
• Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Superintendent of Central Excise1971 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-13Read full judgment →
• Chuhar Khan vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-04Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Noor Muhammad vs Province of West Pakistan and Another1971 PLD Lahore 367 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-18Read full judgment →
• Dil vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-23Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property, West Pakistan, Lahore vs Muhammad Din and Another1971 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-16
  evacuee trust propertylimitation periodcondonation of delayexpressio unius est exclusio alteriusstatutory interpretationdisplaced persons appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under subsection (4) of section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, against an order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner holding that the disputed property was not an evacuee trust property. The core legal question was whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applied to appeals filed under subsection (4) of section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, so as to allow condonation of delay. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine as time-barred, holding that section 5 of the Limitation Act is specifically applicable only to appeals under section 19 of the 1958 Act and not to appeals under section 4(4). Applying the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the court determined that the express mention of sections 5 and 12 in relation to section 19 appeals excludes their application to other provisions where they were not explicitly extended by the Legislature.

  Questions settled

  • Do the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, apply to appeals filed under subsection (4) of section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under section 4(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, can be extended by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does the express mention of sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908, in section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, exclude their application to other proceedings under the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shafqatullah vs Delimitation Commission, Pakistan through Its1971 PLD Lahore 533 · Lahore High Court · 1970-08-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Nazir vs Ata-Ul-Haq and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 180 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Inayat Ullah and 180 Others vs The Province of West Pakistan and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 482 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-05Read full judgment →
• Bati and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 753 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-01Read full judgment →
• Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. vs Punjab Tanneries, Wazirabad Ltd. and 21971 PLD Lahore 199 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-20
  choice-of-forum clauseterritorial jurisdictionwaiver of jurisdictionpledge agreementrecovery suitbanking disputereturn of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant-Bank filed a recovery suit against the respondents before the Civil Judge, Wazirabad, based on a cash credit facility and pledged goods. During the trial, after the plaintiff had closed its evidence, the defendants filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to frame a preliminary issue based on a clause in the pledge agreement stipulating that Karachi courts alone would have jurisdiction. The trial court framed the issue and ultimately returned the plaint to be presented before the Karachi court. In appeal, the Lahore High Court examined the validity and enforcement of the choice-of-forum clause. The High Court held that while an agreement restricting litigation to a particular court having jurisdiction is generally valid, the right to invoke such a contractual forum can be waived. The Court found that both Wazirabad and Karachi courts possessed territorial jurisdiction, but the defendants had unequivocally waived their right under the choice-of-forum clause by filing a written statement on merits without raising this objection at the earliest opportunity, participating in framing issues, and allowing the plaintiff to lead evidence. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the trial court's order and remanded the matter for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement between parties restricting the trial of disputes to a specific court having jurisdiction is valid and enforceable?
  • Can an objection regarding a contractual choice-of-forum clause be waived by the conduct of a party, such as filing a written statement on merits?
  • At what stage of the proceedings must an objection founded on a choice-of-forum clause be raised by the defendant?
  • Does a civil court possess the discretion to refuse the enforcement of a purely contractual choice-of-forum clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakhsha and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-23Read full judgment →
• Baja and 2 Others vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 195 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-18Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 955 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-10Read full judgment →
• Bahadur and 7 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 512 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-10Read full judgment →
• Baggar Khan--Convict vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 189 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-28Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali vs The Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary1971 PLD Lahore 972 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-22
  educational institutionsunfair meansdisciplinary committeenatural justiceconstitutional petitionstudent disqualificationreview jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a student challenging an order of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Multan, which disqualified him from appearing in four examinations after he was caught using unfair means in an examination hall. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was condemned unheard, whether the Board possessed the statutory power under its governing Ordinance and Regulations to penalize candidates for using unfair means, and whether a right of hearing existed against a review petition before the Chairman. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity of defence through a charge-sheet, a written explanation, and a personal hearing before the Disciplinary Committee, and failed to substantiate his claim of duress. The Court ruled that the Board's general powers to conduct examinations inherently include the power to maintain discipline and penalize misconduct. Finally, the Court held that the Chairman's review power is strictly circumscribed and does not entail a right of oral hearing. The petition was dismissed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate caught using unfair means in an examination is entitled to cross-examine witnesses during a domestic disciplinary inquiry?
  • Does a Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education possess the implied statutory power under its enabling Ordinance to penalize students for misconduct and use of unfair means?
  • Whether the Chairman of the Board is bound to afford an opportunity of personal hearing when dealing with a representation invoking review powers under the Regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayyub Masih vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-18Read full judgment →
• Australasia Bank Ltd., Lahore-Plaintiff vs Bashir Barton Stores, Sargodha 2 Others¬Defendants1971 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-09
  equitable mortgagedeposit of title deedsbona fide purchasertransfer of propertyreasonable careurban immovable propertyrevenue recordsmortgage charge
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil second appeal arises from a suit filed by Australasia Bank Ltd. for the recovery of an overdraft amount through the sale of mortgaged property, specifically a house in Sargodha, which the principal debtor had mortgaged by deposit of title deeds before selling it to a third party, Mst. Nasiban. The core legal question was whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and thus entitled to the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, relying solely on revenue records without inquiring into the original title deeds. The Lahore High Court held that for urban immovable property, a prudent buyer cannot rely exclusively on revenue entries and must demand and inspect the previous title deeds; failure to do so does not constitute reasonable care or good faith. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower appellate court's findings, ruled that the purchaser was not entitled to statutory protection, and granted a preliminary decree for the sale of the mortgaged property.

  Questions settled

  • Does a purchaser of urban immovable property act with reasonable care under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 by relying solely on revenue records without demanding or inspecting the original title deeds?
  • Can a buyer claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice when the inquiry into property title is delegated entirely to a lay broker?
  • What constitutes reasonable care and good faith for ascertaining the power of a transferor to sell urban real property?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaul Haque and 2 Others vs H. Malik Electric Co.1971 PLD Lahore 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-02
  displaced personsbig mansionstatutory tenantprovisional transfer orderrent restrictionlandlord-tenant relationshippermanent transferSection 30 notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second appeal against a High Court judgment remanding a rent eviction case to the Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the appellants, claiming to be transferees of a 'big mansion' under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, had acquired the status of 'transferees' sufficient to issue a valid notice under Section 30 of the Act and establish a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court held that mere acceptance of an offer to purchase property, where the price is payable in a lump sum without deferred payment, does not constitute a 'provisional transfer' or 'permanent transfer' entitling the purchaser to act as a landlord. The Court affirmed the remand, directing the Rent Controller to determine whether the property was permanently transferred to the appellants—specifically whether full payment was made and, if applicable, settlement fees paid and entries made in the register—prior to the issuance of the notice. The principle laid down is that a person only becomes a 'transferee' for the purposes of Section 30 when they are entitled to hold and enjoy the property and its appurtenant rights, or when specific rights are expressly transferred under the Act or relevant schemes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere acceptance of an offer to purchase a big mansion under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 constitute a transfer of property sufficient to create a landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Can a finding regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship be challenged in an appeal against an order directing the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Is a Rent Controller empowered to direct the deposit of rent for a period exceeding three years?
  • Does the issuance of a Provisional Transfer Order (P.T.O.) arise in cases where the transfer price of a big mansion is payable in a lump sum?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad--Plaintiff vs Ahmad Bakhsh and 2 Others- Defendants1971 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-01
  pre-emptioncomposite saleindivisibility of saleco-sharersuperior right of pre-emptionagricultural landpartial pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil regular second appeal addresses the question of whether a composite, single sale of agricultural land comprising multiple khatas is indivisible for the purpose of pre-emption, allowing a pre-emptor with a superior right in only one khata to pre-empt the entire transaction. The plaintiff brought a suit for possession by pre-emption concerning land across three khatas, claiming a superior right as a co-sharer in one khata while admitting no co-sharing in the other two. The lower courts decreed the suit only to the extent of the khata where the plaintiff was a co-sharer, while upholding the sale's price apportionment. Upon appeal, the Lahore High Court examined whether the sale was indivisible. The Court held that the rule of indivisibility is not absolute or inflexible, and where distinct properties or khatas are sold in a single transaction, a pre-emptor can only enforce pre-emption in respect of the property subject to their right, treating the transaction as divisible pro tanto. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the plaintiff's pre-emption right could not extend to khatas where he held no superior right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a composite sale of agricultural land comprising multiple khatas is strictly indivisible so that a pre-emptor with a superior right in only one khata can pre-empt the entire transaction?
  • Does the rule of indivisibility of a sale transaction operate as an absolute and inflexible rule of general application in pre-emption suits?
  • Can a pre-emptor enforce a right of pre-emption in respect of a specific property subject to their right in a single bargain without taking over the whole transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-18Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-26Read full judgment →
• Anwar (Anwar Ali) vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1971-10-19Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 53 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-16
  revision petitioncounterfeit currencyforged currency notepossession of forged notesburden of proofcriminal intentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal revision petition directed against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for possession of forged currency notes. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the mere recovery of forged currency notes from the possession of the accused is sufficient to establish the offence under Section 489-C, or if the prosecution must separately prove that the accused had knowledge or reason to believe the notes were forged and intended to use them as genuine. The High Court accepted the revision petition and held that under Section 489-C, the prosecution must affirmatively establish both the accused's knowledge/reason to believe the notes are forged and the intention to use them as genuine, which were not proven in this case given the small number of notes and lack of visible defects. The conviction and sentence were accordingly set aside and the petitioner was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere possession of forged currency notes is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code without proof of knowledge or reason to believe they were forged?
  • Does the onus lie on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence or reliable circumstances that the accused had the intention to use forged notes as genuine?
  • Can an inference of guilty knowledge be drawn solely from the recovery of a limited number of forged currency notes from an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-04Read full judgment →