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.

• Allah Bukhsh vs Tits State1971 P Cr. L J 211 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-22Read full judgment →
• Ali vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 15 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Alias Ali Ahmad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs The State and 3 OTHERSs1971 P Cr. L J 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-05Read full judgment →
• Alauddin vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore1971 PLD Lahore 829 · Lahore High Court · 1971-04-23Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 154 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 439 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Shafi Sheikh vs Municipal Committee, Rawalpindi1971 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 75 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and 32 Others vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore1971 PLD Lahore 979 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-03Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 463 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs Malik Wahid Bakhsh and Another1971 P Cr. L J 241 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Fazal Din vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 228 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 6 Others vs Abdul Hamid and 2 Others1971 P Cr. L J 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1971-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Alias Sheeda vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jamil vs Registrar of Trade Unions, West Pakistan, Lahore and Another1971 PLC 507 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-30
  trade union registrationemployers' associationindustrial disputecollective bargaining agentstatutory remedyconstitutional jurisdictionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the registration of the National Bank of Pakistan Supervisory Staff Union as an employers' trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner argued that employers cannot form trade unions, that compliance with registration requirements regarding executive committee composition was impossible for employers, and that no collective bargaining agent existed for employers. The Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, explicitly contemplates the formation of trade unions by employers, distinct from those of workmen. It clarified that while certain registration requirements, such as the composition of the executive committee, are tailored to workmen's unions, they do not bar the registration of employers' unions. The Court further held that the Ordinance provides a comprehensive mechanism for settling industrial disputes and challenging registrations, and that the petitioner had failed to exhaust these statutory remedies. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, emphasizing that where a statute provides an adequate, specific remedy for a grievance, that remedy must be pursued.

  Questions settled

  • Can employers form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the inability of an employers' trade union to comply with the executive committee composition requirements of Section 7(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, bar its registration?
  • Is the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962 available when the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides an adequate alternative remedy for challenging a trade union's registration?
  • Does the definition of 'industrial dispute' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, include disputes between employers?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid alias Hamida vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 947 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and 4 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 307 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and 8 Others vs Muhammad Sharif and 4 Others1971 PLD Lahore 53 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdul Karim and 2 Others1971 PLD Lahore 616 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1971 PLD Lahore 732 · Lahore High Court · 1971-02-15Read full judgment →
• A. Hamid vs Hussain Hyder, Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1971 PLD Lahore 858 · Lahore High Court · 1971-05-28Read full judgment →
• A. George vs Pakistani International Airlines Corporation1971 PLD Lahore 748 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-03
  master and servantwrongful dismissalstatutory corporationspecific performanceservice codeemployment contractcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second appeal against the dismissal of a suit filed by an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) challenging his termination. The core legal question was whether the PIAC Service Code provided statutory protection to employees, thereby allowing a suit for a declaration that the dismissal was void and for specific performance of the employment contract. The Court held that the PIAC is a statutory corporation distinct from the State, and its employees are not civil servants entitled to constitutional protections. The Court further determined that the PIAC Service Code, not being framed under statutory regulation-making powers or published in the official Gazette, lacked statutory force and constituted merely internal directory instructions. Consequently, the relationship between the Corporation and its employees is governed by the general law of master and servant. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of statutory provisions protecting service, a contract for personal service cannot be specifically enforced, and an employer may terminate employment subject only to a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation a civil servant entitled to constitutional protections?
  • Does the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Service Code have the force of statutory law?
  • Can a contract of personal service be specifically enforced against a statutory corporation in the absence of statutory protection?
  • Is a suit for a declaration of continued employment competent where the relationship is governed by the general law of master and servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs Zulfiqar and Another1970 PLD Lahore 747 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-03Read full judgment →
• Zabtey Khan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 515 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Yousaf and 11 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 591 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-23Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob and 4 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 427 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-14Read full judgment →
• Wazir and 3 Others vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-18Read full judgment →
• Wajahat Ali Hasnie vs Mst. Ghazala1970 PLD Lahore 641 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-03
  family courtcivil revisioninterlocutory ordersrevisional jurisdictionsubordinate courtprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil revision petitions directed against interlocutory orders passed by Judges, Family Courts, refusing to summon witnesses or treating certain witnesses as given up. The core legal question was whether interlocutory orders passed by a Family Court are revisable by the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Lahore High Court held that revision petitions against interlocutory orders of Family Courts are not maintainable under section 115, C.P.C. The ratio laid down is that by virtue of section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is expressly excluded in proceedings before Family Courts (save for sections 10 and 11), thereby barring the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code, in order to fulfill the legislative intent of providing a speedy, simplified, and flexible remedy for family disputes without being hampered by procedural technicalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interlocutory orders passed by a Family Court are revisable under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Is a Family Court established under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to proceedings before Family Courts in light of section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat and Another vs Abdul Shakoor and Another1970 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-12Read full judgment →
• The United Bank Ltd. Messrs Commerce Bank Ltd. Paxistan Ltd. vs1970 PLD Lahore 235 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-09
  winding-up petitionprovisional liquidatorborrowing powersultra viresbona fide disputeinability to pay debtscompany law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns winding-up petitions filed by creditor banks against a private limited company, 'Pak Wheat Products Limited,' under the Companies Act (VII of 1913). The core legal questions involved whether the company possessed the power to borrow, whether the loans were ultra vires, and whether the company's denial of debt constituted a bona fide dispute. The Court held that the company’s Memorandum and Articles of Association expressly granted borrowing powers, and the loans were validly incurred. The Court further determined that the company’s denial of liability was not a bona fide dispute but a mere cloak to avoid payment, as the company was unable to meet its current financial obligations. Consequently, the Court ordered the appointment of a provisional liquidator to take charge of the company’s assets and records. The key principle laid down is that a winding-up petition cannot be defeated by a frivolous or non-bona fide dispute regarding debt, and the Court must assess whether such a denial is a genuine defense or merely a tactic to delay payment of undisputed liabilities.

  Questions settled

  • Does a company have implied borrowing powers if its Memorandum of Association allows for mortgaging and pledging assets?
  • Can a company avoid winding-up proceedings by claiming that a debt is disputed when the dispute is not bona fide?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit regarding a debt bar the filing of a winding-up petition against a company?
  • Is a person dealing with a company entitled to assume that the company's internal management and delegation of powers to a Managing Director are regular?
  Read full judgment →
• The West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore1970 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1969-02-24
  arbitration agreementappointment of arbitratorlimitation periodright to applyresiduary articlesubsisting disputerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal, treated as a revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, arose from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to resolve disputes concerning the Gujranwala Hydel Project. The petitioner, the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, argued that the contractor's application was barred by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, having been filed more than three years after completion of the works, and that no subsisting dispute existed. The Lahore High Court held that the right to apply for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940 accrues only upon the expiry of fifteen days from the service of the statutory notice to concur, and not from the date of completion of the contract. The Court further ruled that pleas of limitation and whether claims are subsisting are matters falling within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide. The revision was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • When does the right to apply for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940 accrue for the purpose of limitation?
  • Whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to applications made under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Can a court refuse to refer a dispute to arbitration on the ground that the underlying claim is barred by limitation?
  • Whether an order passed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940 is appealable under Section 39 of the said Act?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mian Fazal Elahi1970 PLD Lahore 383 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Jagmal Singh Alias Madhu Singh and 4 Others1970 P Cr. L J 649 · Lahore High Court · 1968-07-02Read full judgment →
• The Punjab Commerce Bank Ltd. (in, Liquidation) vs Sh. Maqbool Elahi1970 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 1968-09-16Read full judgment →
• The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. vs Pakistan and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 821 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
• The Colony Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore, Petitioner vs The Best Pakistan1970 PLC 735 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-30Read full judgment →
• The Asian Mutual Insurance Company Ltd., Lahore vs Naseer Ahmad1970 P Cr. L J 847 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-17Read full judgment →
• Taj Din and Another vs Muhammad Sharif and Another1970 PLD Lahore 840 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Yousuf and Another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Rehabilitation, Karachi and Other1970 PLD Lahore 581 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Mahmud Alam vs Syed Mehdi Hussain and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 6 · Lahore High Court · 1968-10-08
  limitationcondonation of delaydisplaced persons land settlementrevisional jurisdictionnullityfraudaudi alteram partem
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference arises from a set of writ petitions involving the question of whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals filed under section 18 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question addresses the availability of condonation of delay under special and local laws where section 5 has not been explicitly incorporated. Examining the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1908 and its section 29(2), the Lahore High Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, either expressly or impliedly, to appeals filed under section 18 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. However, the Court laid down key principles that an appellate authority may still entertain a time-barred matter if the impugned order is a nullity, tainted by fraud under section 18 of the Limitation Act, or passed without notice violating the principle of audi alteram partem, in which case limitation runs from the date of knowledge. Furthermore, a revisional authority possesses wide powers under section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of subordinate orders regardless of whether a lower appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals filed under section 18 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
  • Can an appellate authority entertain a time-barred appeal if the impugned order is a nullity or tainted with fraud?
  • Does time for filing an appeal run from the date of the order or the date of knowledge when the affected party had no notice of the proceedings?
  • Whether a revisional authority can interfere with an order on merits despite the fact that the appeal before the lower forum was dismissed as time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 801 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-08Read full judgment →
• Sultan Alias Sullah vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 751 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-21Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali vs The STATEs1970 P Cr. L J 806 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-14Read full judgment →
• Shera and 4 Other vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 735 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-30Read full judgment →
• Shera and 2 Other vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 59 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-19Read full judgment →
• Shahmad Alias Shamoo vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 853 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-24Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 757 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-13
  culpable homicideintention to killknowledge of fatal injuryalteration of convictionsingle blowcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, Shah Muhammad, was convicted by the Sessions Judge for the murder of his nephew, Muhammad Saleem, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged the appellant struck the deceased on the head with a stick following a dispute over suspected witchcraft. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the appellant possessed the requisite intent for murder. The Court noted that an altercation preceded the incident, suggesting the appellant intended to punish the deceased for perceived misbehavior rather than kill him. While rejecting the argument that the offense fell under Section 325, the Court held that the appellant, having struck a fatal blow to the head, possessed the knowledge that such an injury was likely to cause death. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single blow to the head with a blunt weapon necessarily imply an intention to commit murder?
  • When should a conviction for murder under Section 302 be altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, Part II?
  • Is the knowledge that a specific injury is likely to cause death sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 304, Part II, in the absence of a specific intent to kill?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Maqbool Ellahi and 3 Other vs Rasool & Co. Ltd. and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-24
  provisional liquidatorwinding-upprivate limited companycompany deadlockreceiverpartnership analogyjust and equitable
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application filed under section 175 of the Companies Act 1913 for the appointment of a provisional liquidator for a private limited company, pending a main petition for its winding-up under section 162 of the Act. The core legal question concerns whether a provisional liquidator or a receiver should be appointed when a deadlock arises in a two-man-type private company due to severe disputes and evenly divided control between two groups of shareholders and directors. The court held that while the conditions for a winding-up under the 'just and equitable' clause may prima facie exist based on partnership principles, the appointment of a provisional liquidator is a drastic measure that should be avoided if business can be preserved, and opted instead to appoint a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that private limited companies resembling partnerships may warrant equitable winding-up or receivership upon a complete deadlock, but courts must exercise extreme caution and prefer less drastic remedies like receivership to protect company assets without paralyzing ongoing business.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a provisional liquidator should be appointed when a deadlock occurs in a private limited company?
  • Can the court appoint a receiver under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the management of a company pending a winding-up petition?
  • Does the principle of partnership dissolution apply to the winding-up of a private limited company with equal shareholding?
  • What are the grounds for the appointment of a provisional liquidator under the Companies Act 1913?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Manzur Ahmad and 8 Other vs Muhammad Hanif and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-06Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 773 · Lahore High Court · 1970-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and 4 Other vs Municipal Committee, Jhelum City1970 PLD Lahore 99 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-02Read full judgment →
• Sarang vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 338 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-17Read full judgment →
• Said Hussain and Other vs (1) Mst. Mahboob Begum and (2) Settlement1970 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-27Read full judgment →
• Saes and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 901 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-24Read full judgment →
• S. Barkat Iiayat Khan vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 891 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-25Read full judgment →
• Rustam vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-04Read full judgment →
• Rukan-Ud-Din vs Ghulam Mustafa and Another1970 PLD Lahore 797 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-28Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Alias Rajoo and Another vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 689 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-24Read full judgment →
• Rawalpindi Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi vs (1) The Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works, Rawalpindi,1970 PLD Lahore 760 · Lahore High Court
  writ petitionnecessary partiesevacuee propertynon-joinder of partiesright to be heardnatural justiceland acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Improvement Trust, challenged the Central Government’s decision to modify a land acquisition sanction, which excluded certain evacuee property already transferred to third parties under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the writ petition was maintainable in the absence of these transferees, who were not impleaded as respondents. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. The ratio is that the transferees possessed valuable property rights that would be directly and adversely affected by the success of the petition; therefore, they were necessary parties who were entitled to be heard. The Court affirmed the fundamental principle that no person should be deprived of valuable rights without an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court refused the petitioner’s belated request to implead these parties, noting that the Trust had been aware of the transfers for years. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, emphasizing that such defects cannot be cured after an inordinate delay.

  Questions settled

  • Are transferees of evacuee property necessary parties in a writ petition challenging the acquisition of that same property?
  • Can a petitioner be permitted to implead necessary parties after an inordinate delay when the petitioner was aware of their interest from the start?
  • Does the existence of a legal infirmity in a transfer of property deprive the transferee of the right to be heard in proceedings affecting that property?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid vs The State and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 389 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-22
  habeas corpusillegal detentionremandpolice custodyjudicial custodycharge-sheet
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the release of an illegally or improperly detained person, Rashid. The core legal question concerns the legality of remanding an accused to custody under sections 167 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without assigning reasons, and whether such illegal detention is cured by the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet and a valid remand order. The Lahore High Court held that while remanding an accused is a judicial function requiring the application of mind and the recording of reasons, an initially illegal detention is validated once a charge-sheet is subsequently filed and a proper remand order is passed by the Magistrate. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down are that remand orders under sections 167 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must not be granted mechanically without assigning reasons, but a subsequent lawful remand and filing of a charge-sheet cures any initial defect in detention.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate is required to assign reasons when remanding an accused to custody under section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the subsequent filing of a charge-sheet and a valid remand order cure an initially illegal detention?
  • Is the function of granting a remand under sections 167 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a judicial function?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajab Ali Alias Rajoo vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 668 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-29Read full judgment →
• Qazi Mushtaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Ramzan And Another1970 P Cr. L J 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-13Read full judgment →
• Qamar vs THG State1970 P Cr. L J 195 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-30Read full judgment →
• President, High Court Bar Association, Lahore vs Raja Maula Dad Alias1970 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-07Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh and 3 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 442 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-17Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Western Railway, Lahore vs Muhammad Usman1970 PLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-10Read full judgment →
• Noora and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-19Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din (Represented by 14 Heirs vs Mst. Nawab Bibi1970 PLD Lahore 923 · Lahore High Court · 1970-05-04
  statutory tenantejectmentrent enhancementmunicipal assessmentretrospective rentDisplaced Persons ActRent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against a statutory tenant regarding a shop. The core legal question was whether a transferee landlord is entitled to retrospectively demand rent at an enhanced rate based on the latest municipal assessment under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the Rent Controller correctly ordered the deposit of such rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Court held that while a transferee has the right to charge rent based on the latest municipal assessment, this right cannot be enforced retrospectively. The tenant remains liable for the previous rent rate until a valid notice is served, after which the enhanced rate applies prospectively. Consequently, the Rent Controller's order requiring the deposit of arrears at the enhanced rate for the entire period was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh order. The key principle laid down is that a landlord cannot unilaterally increase rent retrospectively; the right to charge rent based on the latest municipal assessment applies only prospectively from the date of notice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord retrospectively charge enhanced rent to a statutory tenant based on the latest municipal assessment?
  • Does a previous Rent Controller's order fixing tentative rent operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to determine if a tenant is a defaulter before ordering the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-14Read full judgment →
• Nemat Ali vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 789 · Lahore High Court · 1969-02-18Read full judgment →
• Nazra vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 163 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-24Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 865 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-26Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1080 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-02Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs S. R. Rehmatullah and Another1970 PLD Lahore 330 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-25Read full judgment →
• Nasim Alias Seema and 5 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan and 3 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 483 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Riasat Ali and Another1970 P Cr. L J 680 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-15Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Jalalpur Jattan vs The STATEs1970 P Cr. L J 994 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Hussain vs District Magistrate, Jhang and Another1970 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-22Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ali and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 94 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and 444 Other vs (1) Government of West Pakistan1970 PLD Lahore 157 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 498 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Nargis Sultana1970 PLD Lahore 41 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-03
  restitution of conjugal rightsdissolution of marriageres judicatastay of suitKhulafamily court jurisdictiontransfer of cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the stay of a suit for dissolution of marriage pending in the Family Court at Sialkot, filed against a prior suit for restitution of conjugal rights in Gujrat. The petitioner argued that the subsequent suit was barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and should be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that res judicata did not apply because the issues in the two suits were not identical, particularly regarding the claim for Khula, which constitutes a distinct ground for dissolution not present in the restitution suit. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was inapplicable because the subject matter of the two suits was not identical, as only the issue of cruelty overlapped. The Court established the principle that for a stay of proceedings under Section 10, there must be an identity of the entire subject matter, not merely commonality of one or two issues. The Court ultimately ordered the transfer of the restitution suit to Sialkot for joint disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit for restitution of conjugal rights bar a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of res judicata?
  • Is a suit for dissolution of marriage liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 due to a pending suit for restitution of conjugal rights?
  • Does the presence of a common issue of cruelty between two family court suits necessitate the stay of the subsequent suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and 7 Other vs Province of West Pakistan and 21970 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and Another vs Salim and 2 Others1970 P Cr. L J 268 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Siddiqi vs Mst. Aziz Bibi and 3 Other1970 PLD Lahore 596 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-07
  guardianshipordinary residencecustody of minorsjurisdictionGuardians and Wards Actunauthorized removalconstructive custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a guardianship dispute concerning four minors, originally residing in Rawalpindi with their father. While the father was abroad, the maternal grandmother removed the minors to Lahore and filed an application for guardianship. The core legal question is whether the Lahore Court possessed jurisdiction under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, given the minors' physical presence in Lahore at the time of filing. The Court held that the Lahore Court lacked jurisdiction, as the minors' ordinary residence remained Rawalpindi. The Court determined that the removal of the minors was clandestine and unauthorized, intended to defeat the father's custody. Consequently, the proceedings in Lahore were quashed. The key principle laid down is that ordinary residence for the purposes of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 is not determined by the minor's physical location at the time of filing if such location results from an unauthorized or stealthy removal; rather, the court from whose jurisdiction the minor was removed retains the authority to adjudicate the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the physical presence of a minor in a city at the time of filing a guardianship application automatically establish ordinary residence under Section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • Can a court exercise jurisdiction over a guardianship application if the minor was removed from the jurisdiction of another court without the guardian's consent?
  • Does the unauthorized removal of a minor from one district to another by a relative alter the ordinary residence of the minor for the purpose of determining jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Sh. Muhammad Amin and Othbrs1970 PLD Lahore 283 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 868 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1966-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State.1970 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1221 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Hussain vs Mst. Iftikhar Bang and 2 Others1970 P Cr. L J 999 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 909 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Khan Muhammad and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 111 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and Another vs The State:1970 P Cr. L J 297 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and Others vs The, State1970 P Cr. L J 225 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-16Read full judgment →