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 Jamil and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 252 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Mian Ejaz Ahmad1970 PLC 404 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 180 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 2 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 567 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 412 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs S. A. M. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West1970 PLD Lahore 614 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-16
  mutationrevisional jurisdictionlimitationfraudtitleaggrieved personalternative remedyrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 challenged the orders of the Revenue authorities which cancelled a mutation of land previously sanctioned in the petitioner's favour on the basis of an alleged oral gift. The respondents contended that the mutation was obtained fraudulently without their knowledge. The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to file an appeal within thirty days barred the Collector from exercising revisional jurisdiction, and that the revision application was time-barred. The High Court held that the existence of an alternative right of appeal does not bar the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 164 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967. Furthermore, since the mutation was found to be procured by fraud, the limitation period does not run, as fraud vitiates all proceedings. Crucially, the Court ruled that mutation entries are merely fiscal in nature for revenue collection and do not determine or create title. Consequently, an order setting aside a mutation does not affect substantive property rights, meaning the petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' under Article 98, especially since an adequate alternative remedy via a civil suit remained available.

  Questions settled

  • Does the availability of an alternative right of appeal bar a Revenue Officer from exercising revisional jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Does the limitation period run against an application challenging a revenue mutation that was obtained through fraud?
  • Do mutation proceedings in revenue records determine or create proprietary title to immovable property?
  • Can a party challenge a mutation order under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 when they have an alternative remedy of establishing title in a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 743 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 3 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1205 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 11 Other vs The Chief Settlement and Rehabilita1970 PLD Lahore 780 · Lahore High Court · 1968-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Alias Bala vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 111 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussatn vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 191 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mian Mahmood Ahmad and 3 Other1970 PLD Lahore 140 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-26
  interpretation of statutesurban rent restrictiondeposit of rentmeaning of beforerent controllertenant obligations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before a specially constituted Division Bench of the Lahore High Court to determine the correct interpretation of the phrase 'before the fifteenth day of each month' under subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, as amended. The core legal question was whether the word 'before' excludes or includes the fifteenth day of the month for the purpose of depositing monthly rent by tenants. The Court held that in the absence of ambiguity or a contrary statutory indication, words in a statute must be given their ordinary dictionary and natural meaning. Reviewing lexicographical authorities and comparative case law, the Court concluded that the word 'before' when preceding a specific date or point in time means earlier than or previous to that date, thereby excluding it. The ratio decidendi is that the phrase 'before the fifteenth day of each month' strictly requires the rent to be deposited on or before the fourteenth day, excluding the fifteenth day itself, and the Legislature's omission of terms like 'on or before' or 'by' confirms this restrictive interpretation.

  Questions settled

  • What is the correct interpretation of the phrase 'before the fifteenth day of each month' under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does the word 'before' when preceding a specified date include or exclude that date in statutory construction?
  • Can standard dictionaries be relied upon to interpret a word when it is not defined in the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Another vs Begum Akhtarul Islam1970 P Cr. L J 210 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 2 Others vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 1330 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The Chief Settlement and Rehabilita Tion1970 PLD Lahore 679 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-29
  police investigationcognizance of offencedouble jeopardywrit jurisdictionaudi alteram partemregistration of FIRDisplaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the registration of a criminal case and subsequent police investigation initiated by a report from an Officer on Special Duty. The petitioner contended that Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 barred the investigation, that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance upon receiving the FIR, and that the second investigation constituted double jeopardy and violated natural justice. The Court held that Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 governs the taking of cognizance by a court, not the registration or investigation of cases by the police. It further clarified that the mere receipt of an FIR by a Magistrate does not constitute the taking of cognizance. The Court affirmed that police possess a statutory right to investigate cognizable offenses, which is not subject to the principle of double jeopardy at the investigation stage. Additionally, the principle of audi alteram partem does not apply to the registration of an FIR. Consequently, the Court found the petition misconceived and dismissed it as withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 bar the police from registering or investigating a case?
  • Does the mere receipt of an FIR by a Magistrate constitute the taking of cognizance of an offence?
  • Does the principle of double jeopardy apply to the stage of police investigation?
  • Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to the registration of an FIR?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Abdul Qayyum and 4 Others1970 P Cr. L J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 845 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Khan Chughtai vs Municipal Committee, Mianwali1970 PLD Lahore 804 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 500 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 402 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Abdul Majid and Another1970 P Cr. L. J 232 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Muhammad Jamil1970 P Cr. L J 192 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Surraya Begum and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 475 · Lahore High Court · 1968-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 737 · Lahore High Court · 1959-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1970 P Cr. L J 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Amin And Another1970 P Cr. L J 362 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1056 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhabat vs Abdullah and 9 Other1970 PLD Lahore 303 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-30Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 711 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ummal Mabin Alias Mst. Umal Banin and Another vs The Claims1970 PLD Lahore 897 · Lahore High Court · 1967-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan and 8 Other vs Khan Muqarrab Khan, Settlement Commis1970 PLD Lahore 289 · Lahore High Court · 1969-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharfo and 2 Other vs Ghulam Abbas and 2 Other 'S1970 PLD Lahore 730 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ramzan Bibi vs Mst. Amina Bibi (Represented by Successors in Interest)1970 PLD Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · -
  stay orderfunctus officiowrit jurisdictionexecution of decreedispossessionbailiff authorityrent restrictioninterim relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil miscellaneous petition filed within a writ petition, challenging the dispossession of the petitioner from a property despite a High Court stay order. The core legal questions were whether a High Court stay order takes effect immediately upon being passed, rendering the executing court functus officio, and whether bailiffs retain authority to execute warrants after the executing court has formally recalled them. The Court held that a stay order issued by a superior court becomes effective the moment it is passed, suspending the jurisdiction of the executing court. Consequently, any proceedings taken in ignorance of such an order are without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found that once the executing court recalled the warrants, the bailiffs lacked legal authority to execute them, rendering the subsequent dispossession illegal. The Court affirmed the principle that the jurisdiction of an inferior tribunal is ousted when a superior court occupies the field with a stay order, and ministerial officers become functus officio immediately upon the recall of their authority, regardless of whether they were personally notified at the exact moment of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does a stay order issued by the High Court take effect from the moment it is passed or only upon communication to the lower court?
  • Does the recall of warrants by an executing court render the bailiffs functus officio immediately?
  • Can an executing court proceed with execution after a superior court has issued a stay order, even if the stay order has not yet been formally communicated to the executing court?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Article 98 of the Constitution to issue interim relief in matters pending before it?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nawab Bibi and 14 Other vs Mst. Anwar Bibi and 6 Other1970 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaniz Fatima Alias Thanedarni vs The Commissioner, Lahore1970 PLD Lahore 368 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Sakina and 6 Other vs Karim Bakhsh and 7 Other1970 PLD Lahore 412 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-23
  civil revisiondismissal for defaultrestoration of suithearing of the suitinterlocutory matterinherent jurisdictionorder without jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, restoring the plaintiffs' suit which had previously been dismissed for default under Order IX, Rule 8 and Order IX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners contended that the restoration application under Order IX, Rule 9 was barred by limitation and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was inapplicable. The High Court considered whether a suit could legally be dismissed for default on a date fixed solely for filing a replication, rather than for a substantive 'hearing of the suit'. The High Court held that the provisions of Order IX, Rule 8, C.P.C. are only attracted on dates fixed for hearing—namely, when evidence is recorded, arguments heard, or issues determining the suit are considered—and not for mere interlocutory stages. Consequently, the dismissal for default was without jurisdiction, a nullity, and amenable to rectification under Section 151, C.P.C. Furthermore, revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and not exercised where substantial justice has been achieved. The revision was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court possess jurisdiction under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to dismiss a suit for default on a date fixed merely for filing a replication rather than the substantive hearing of the suit?
  • Is an order dismissing a suit for default passed on a date not fixed for the hearing of the suit a nullity that can be set aside under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether the High Court is bound to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to overturn a subordinate court's order when substantial justice has already been achieved between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs The Federation of Pakistan through General1970 PLD Lahore 493 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bibi vs Rana Ali Hassan and 2 OTHERSs1970 P Cr. L J 178 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Sultan Begum and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 100 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ahmadi Begum vs Muhammad Mushtaq Ali Khan and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 341 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-22Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sadiq and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1066 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Miss Zarina Khan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1215 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-24
  superdaricustody of propertyinterim custodyrevision petitionjudicial discretionseizure of vehicle
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges a Magistrate's order refusing to release a car, claimed by the petitioner Miss Zarina Khan, on superdari (custody). The car was seized by police as evidence in a case involving charges under sections 406, 420, and 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against the petitioner's brother. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate exercised judicial discretion correctly in withholding the vehicle from its registered owner, given that the vehicle was not subject to decay and the petitioner was not accused of any offense. The Court held that the Magistrate's refusal was unjustified and legally flawed, noting that the Magistrate failed to consider the petitioner's legal right to use her property and relied on incorrect factual assumptions regarding pending transfer applications. The Court emphasized that under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the primary objective is to ensure proper custody of property, and denying the rightful owner possession without sufficient justification constitutes an improper exercise of judicial discretion. The impugned order was set aside, and the car was ordered to be released to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere fact that a vehicle is not subject to decay justify a Magistrate's refusal to grant its interim custody to the rightful owner?
  • Can a court withhold property from its registered owner under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the owner is not implicated in the alleged offense?
  • Is an order refusing the release of property on superdari vitiated if it is based on incorrect factual premises regarding the status of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Abdullah and Another vs The Chief Settlement and Rehabilita Tion Commissioner, Lahore and 5 Other1970 PLD Lahore 915 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mian Miraj-Ud-Din vs The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore1970 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court
  surveillancehistory sheethabitual offendernatural justiceshow-cause noticepolice ruleswrit jurisdictionlachescontinuing wrong
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a police order to open a history sheet and place the petitioner under surveillance. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner qualified as a 'habitual offender' under the Police Rules, 1934, and whether the police were required to provide a show-cause notice before taking such action. The Court held that the impugned order was unlawful and set it aside. It determined that the petitioner, having only one conviction, did not meet the definition of a 'habitual offender,' and the police failed to establish a 'reasonable belief' for the action, having ignored the petitioner's positive antecedents. Furthermore, the Court established that actions affecting a citizen's reputation and liberty, such as surveillance, are subject to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard. Consequently, the Court ruled that the failure to provide a show-cause notice rendered the order void. Additionally, the Court clarified that surveillance orders constitute a continuing wrong, thereby rejecting the plea of laches regarding the delay in filing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single criminal conviction satisfy the criteria for classifying an individual as a 'habitual offender' under the Police Rules, 1934?
  • Is the police required to issue a show-cause notice to an individual before opening a history sheet or placing them under surveillance?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to a challenge against a surveillance order, or is such an order considered a continuing wrong?
  • Can an order for surveillance be sustained if the authority fails to consider the positive antecedents of the individual?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Fazal Ahmad vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 726 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-19
  quashing of proceedingsmala fide investigationSea Customs Actmartial law jurisdictionfalse implicationtransfer of investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with clause 22 of the Letters Patent, seeking to quash allegations disclosing no offence under section 167, items 8 and 9 of the Sea Customs Act, or alternatively to transfer the investigation to an impartial police agency. The petitioner contended that he had previously sold the jeep from which contraband was recovered, and that he was falsely implicated due to his brother's exposure of local police corruption. The court examined the record, finding prima facie documentary evidence supporting the sale of the vehicle by the petitioner prior to the incident. However, noting that the case had been referred for trial before a Summary Military Court under Martial Law Regulations, and considering jurisdictional bars under the Jurisdiction of Courts (Removal of Doubts) Order, 1969, the court referred the matter to the Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'A', for review while strongly remarking on the mala fide and unfair investigation conducted by the local police.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the matter has been referred for trial to a Military Court under Martial Law Regulations?
  • Can a former owner of a vehicle be held criminally liable for contraband recovered from it after a proven bona fide sale of the vehicle to a third party?
  • What is the duty of the police and executive authorities when handling specious and spiteful criminal prosecutions arising from mala fide intentions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Faiz Ahmad vs The State and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs the Attock Oil Co. Ltd. vs The Supreme Body of Oilfields League1970 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court
  industrial disputebonussuspension of workersinterim awardsettlementfrivolous and vexatious dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous appeal arises from an industrial dispute concerning a reduction in workers' bonus and the suspension of eleven employees by the appellant-company. The core legal questions involve whether a long-term wage settlement barred the workers from demanding higher bonus or reinstatement during its operation, whether bonus disputes and employee suspensions constitute 'industrial disputes' under the law, and whether every preliminary decision under section 10(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance constitutes an interim award subject to immediate appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the settlement only covered disputes pending at its execution and did not preclude future bonus claims arising from arbitrary reductions, that bonus and suspensions directly affect terms of employment and thus constitute valid industrial disputes, and that an order overruling a preliminary objection is not an interim award. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that bonus is a deferred wage and part of remuneration, and that interlocutory orders dismissing preliminary objections do not automatically warrant publication as interim awards.

  Questions settled

  • Does a long-term settlement barring demands involving financial commitments preclude workers from claiming restoration of a previously reduced bonus?
  • Does a dispute regarding the payment or variation of bonus constitute an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1959?
  • Does the suspension of a worker without pay constitute a matter relating to employment or terms of employment under the definition of an industrial dispute?
  • Does every decision of an Industrial Court rejecting a preliminary objection under section 10(1)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance 1959 amount to an interim award?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rehman Cotton Factory-- Defendant vs Messrs Nichimen Co.1970 PLD Lahore 455 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-25
  tenant by sufferancetenant holding overrent restriction lawsindustrial factorywrongful use and occupationnotice to quitdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the Administrative Civil Judge regarding a suit for possession of a cotton factory and damages for wrongful use and occupation. The core legal questions involved whether rent restriction laws applied to an industrial factory and whether a tenant holding over without assent became a tenant by sufferance not requiring a notice to quit. The Lahore High Court held that industrial factories do not fall within the definition of buildings or rented lands under urban rent restriction legislation, meaning ordinary laws like the Transfer of Property Act govern such premises. The Court further held that a tenant remaining in possession after lease expiry without the landlord's express or implied assent is a tenant by sufferance and is not entitled to a notice to quit under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appeal was dismissed, subject to a minor rectification regarding court fees under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Do urban rent restriction laws apply to an industrial concern or a factory?
  • Whether a tenant continuing in possession after the expiry of a lease without the landlord's assent becomes a tenant holding over or a tenant by sufferance?
  • Is a notice to quit required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 when a tenant remains in possession after the lease term expires?
  • Can an appellate court rectify a deficiency in court fees under section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lyallpur-Sahiwal Bus Service (Recd.), Lahore vs Appellate1970 PLD Lahore 775 · Lahore High Court
  constitutional petitionstage carriage permitlimitation periodjurisdictionlawful authorityBoard of RevenueRegional Transport Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 challenges an appellate order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, which accepted a time-barred appeal against the grant of a stage carriage permit by the Regional Transport Authority, cancelling the petitioner's permit and granting it to a respondent. The core legal question was whether an erroneous decision by a tribunal on a question of limitation renders its resulting order without jurisdiction or without lawful authority so as to warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that limitation is a question of procedure and not of jurisdiction. A court or tribunal competent to hear a matter is competent to decide it both rightly and wrongly; an erroneous decision on limitation does not oust its jurisdiction or make the order a nullity. The key principle laid down is that an incorrect determination on a point of limitation by a competent forum is merely an error of law within jurisdiction, and not an excess or absence of jurisdiction correctable under constitutional writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does an erroneous decision by a tribunal on a question of limitation render its order without jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court interfere under Article 98 of the Constitution with a wrong decision on a point of law that does not affect the tribunal's jurisdiction?
  • Is limitation a question of procedure or a question of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mems Murree Hills Transport Company Ltd. vs Agha Ghulam Jilani1970 PLD Lahore 864 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mehr Fazal Ilahi and 2 Other vs Muhammad Ashraf1970 PLD Lahore 664 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Dastgir vs S. M. A. Kazmi, Secretary, Government of West1970 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-13
  service lawretirementdate of birthmatriculation certificateadministrative discretionwrit jurisdictiongovernment servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order retiring the petitioner from government service, based solely on the date of birth recorded in his Matriculation Certificate. The petitioner contended his true date of birth was different, supported by other documentation, and that the authorities failed to consider this evidence. The core legal question was whether the Matriculation Certificate constitutes final and irrebuttable proof of age for government service purposes, and whether the administrative decision-making process was valid. The Court held that the impugned order was without lawful authority. It established that a Matriculation Certificate is not conclusive proof of age but merely a relevant piece of evidence. Administrative authorities are legally obligated to consider all available evidence regarding a government servant's age. By treating the certificate as the sole, irrebuttable criterion and ignoring contradictory evidence, the authorities acted with a closed mind, failing to apply their minds to relevant considerations. Consequently, the Court declared the retirement order illegal and of no legal effect, emphasizing that administrative decisions must be fair, reasonable, and based on a comprehensive review of all material facts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Matriculation Certificate considered final and irrebuttable proof of age for government service purposes?
  • Can an administrative authority rely exclusively on a single document while ignoring other relevant evidence regarding a government servant's age?
  • Does the failure of an administrative authority to consider all relevant evidence vitiate an order passed in the exercise of its discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Ata Muhammad vs The State and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 875 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Majid vs Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab, Lahore and Another1970 PLD Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court
  natural justiceunfair meansstudent disciplineright of cross-examinationright of appealwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the orders of the Disciplinary Committee and the Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Punjab, whereby the petitioner, a B.A. examination candidate, was disqualified for using unfair means. The core legal question was whether the university authorities violated the principles of natural justice by utilizing statements recorded in the absence of the candidate and denying him the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Lahore High Court held that the failure to disclose the evidence used against the petitioner and to afford him an opportunity to test its veracity through cross-examination—which in this case was the only means to correct or contradict prejudicial statements—constituted a gross violation of natural justice and the minimum procedural requirements established by superior courts. The Court further held that a statutory right of appeal implicitly includes the right of being heard. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, though the university was permitted to conduct a fresh, lawful inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a university disciplinary committee to provide a candidate the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are used against him violates the principles of natural justice?
  • Does a statutory right of appeal implicitly include the right of the appellant to be heard before the appeal is dismissed?
  • Can administrative convenience override the fundamental requirement of affording a fair opportunity to a person accused to correct or contradict prejudicial statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Major Muhammad Nawaz vs Pakistan through Secretary, Communications, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1970 PLD Lahore 811 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-10
  disciplinary proceedingsnatural justicebiasgovernment servantdismissal from servicereasonable opportunityenquiry officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a government servant from service on grounds of inefficiency and misconduct. The core legal questions concerned whether the disciplinary proceedings complied with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically the provision of a statement of allegations, and whether the appointment of an allegedly biased Enquiry Officer vitiated the inquiry. The Court held that the dismissal order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It ruled that the failure to supply the statement of allegations, as required by Rule 6(5)(a) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, constituted a mandatory procedural violation that denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, the Court established that an inquiry conducted by a biased officer violates the principles of natural justice. Because the Enquiry Officer harbored long-standing enmity toward the petitioner, the entire inquiry process was rendered invalid. The Court emphasized that a competent authority must independently apply its mind to the facts rather than relying blindly on a report produced through a biased and unfair process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a statement of allegations along with a charge-sheet to a government servant violate the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960?
  • Does the appointment of a biased Enquiry Officer vitiate the entire disciplinary inquiry process?
  • Is a dismissal order passed by a competent authority invalid if the authority fails to independently apply its mind to the record and relies solely on a biased inquiry report?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ilahi vs Ghulam Rasul and 5 Others1970 P Cr. L J 956 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-15Read full judgment →
• M. S. Faruki, Chief Officer, Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore vs The Province of West Pakistan and Othesrs1970 PLD Lahore 195 · Lahore High Court · 1969-01-09
  transfer of municipal officersultra vires ruleslegislation by referencemunicipal administration ordinancebasic democracies orderwrit jurisdictionservice of pakistanlocal authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns consolidated writ petitions challenging the transfer orders of municipal officers—holding the posts of Chief Officer, Accounts Officer, and Deputy Chief Officer of the Lahore Corporation—who were transferred to various District Councils by the Secretary, Basic Democracies, Social Welfare and Local Government Department. The core legal question revolves around whether municipal employees can be transferred outside the municipal committee to local councils and whether the West Pakistan Local Council and Municipal Committees (Service) Rules, 1963, validly weld municipal committees and local councils into a single service. The Lahore High Court held that while servants of a municipal committee can be transferred from one municipal committee to another within the jurisdiction of the controlling authority, they cannot be transferred to local councils. The court ruled that rule 2(h) and rule 6 of the West Pakistan Local Council and Municipal Committees (Service) Rules, 1963, in attempting to widen the definition of local councils to include municipal committees for inter-service transfers, are ultra vires the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, and the Basic Democracies Order, 1959. The key legal principle laid down is that subordinate rules cannot expand or conflict with the parent statute by way of legislation by reference, and municipal employees do not fall within the 'Service of Pakistan' so as to bar writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether municipal committee employees can be lawfully transferred to local councils under the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees (Service) Rules, 1963?
  • Does rule 2(h) and rule 6 of the West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees (Service) Rules, 1963, go beyond the scope of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960?
  • Are servants of a municipal committee considered to be persons in the 'Service of Pakistan' under the Constitution?
  • Can subordinate legislation amend or widen definitions established in a parent statute by way of legislation by reference?
  Read full judgment →
• M. G. Hasan, Superintendent Officer on Special Duty, Pakistan1970 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• LT.-Col. Safdar Ali Malik and Another vs Khadim Hussain and 6 Other1970 PLD Lahore 629 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-05Read full judgment →
• Lahore Improvement Trust vs The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West1970 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-26
  evacuee propertyacquisition of landdevelopment schemeultra viresprior approvaltown improvementcustodian of evacuee propertywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore Improvement Trust filed a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the sale of evacuee land by the Custodian of Evacuee Property to a co-operative society. The Trust asserted that it had previously acquired the land for a Development Scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922. The core questions before the High Court were whether a valid Development Scheme had been framed and sanctioned, whether the Trust could compulsorily acquire land on behalf of an external statutory body without complying with statutory procedures, and whether acquisition proceedings regarding evacuee land initiated without prior Central Government approval were legally valid. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Trust failed to prepare a proper layout and scheme as required by law, rendering the Government's approval and subsequent proceedings null and void. Furthermore, initiating acquisition of evacuee property without prior Central Government permission violated statutory protections under evacuee property laws, rendering the acquisition void ab initio and leaving the Custodian's transfer intact.

  Questions settled

  • Does a notification under town improvement laws operate as conclusive evidence of a scheme's validity if no layout plan or statutory scheme was actually prepared?
  • Can an improvement trust exercise its compulsory acquisition powers to acquire land solely for the use of another statutory body without framing a genuine statutory development scheme?
  • Are land acquisition proceedings in respect of evacuee property void ab initio if initiated prior to obtaining the statutory mandatory approval of the Central Government?
  • Does a notice issued under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act 1922 mark the commencement of acquisition proceedings that affect rights in evacuee property?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 797 · Lahore High Court · 1969-02-24Read full judgment →
• Khurshed vs Khushi Muhammad1970 P Cr. L J 401 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-26Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1970 P Cr. LJ 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-13Read full judgment →
• Khanun vs Mathela and Another1970 P Cr. L J 480 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-30Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood and Another vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 470 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-14
  bail before arrestmartial law regulationsjurisdiction of high courtcriminal procedure codeprovisional constitution order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions for bail before arrest arising from a criminal case registered at Police Station Gojra, involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and contraventions of Martial Law Regulations and Orders. The core legal question is whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant pre-arrest bail in respect of offences created by Martial Law Regulations. The Court held that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to grant bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for offences created by Martial Law Regulations, as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are excluded by virtue of special regimes, Martial Law provisions, and the Provisional Constitution Order. The key principle laid down is that where special procedures and bars are established under Martial Law Regulations and Orders, ordinary criminal court jurisdictions and the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are ousted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail before arrest in respect of offences created by Martial Law Regulations?
  • Does the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 stand excluded when special procedures are prescribed under Martial Law Regulations and Orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Khali D Pervez vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 264 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khadim and 16 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 166 · Lahore High Court · 1969-01-20Read full judgment →
• Khadam Husain Arts 4 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 735 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-22Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh vs Ghulam Rasool and 13 Others1970 P Cr. L J 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• Karam Din vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore1970 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kaisar Mustafa and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1128 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-02Read full judgment →
• Javid Ur Rehman vs THF State-1970 P Cr. L J 248 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-07Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ishaque vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 531 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-03Read full judgment →
• Hyder and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-30Read full judgment →
• Hamida vs The State and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 267 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad vs High Court Bar Association1970 PLD Lahore 45 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-09Read full judgment →
• Hafizullah and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1242 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-02Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Azim Bakhsh (Represented by 11 Heirs) vs District Judge, Lyallpur1970 PLD Lahore 720 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-03Read full judgment →
• Habib Ismail Bajwa vs Khawaja Ghulam Mohy Ud Din1970 PLD Lahore 428 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-01
  ex parte proceedingsright of cross-examinationurban rent restrictioncourt-feedecreeremand of casenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an eviction application filed under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Rent Controller proceeded ex parte against the tenant who arrived late due to engagement in the Supreme Court, and subsequently refused to allow the tenant to participate or cross-examine witnesses upon his physical appearance during ongoing proceedings. The Additional District Judge allowed the landlord's appeal and ordered eviction. The High Court examined whether a defendant rendered ex parte can join subsequent proceedings upon appearance, and whether orders under the Ordinance bear the force of a decree attracting ad valorem court fees. The Court held that a defendant does not become a dead person upon default and may participate in proceedings from the stage of appearance, and that orders of the Rent Controller possess the force of a decree under section 17 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, requiring ad valorem court-fee under the Court Fees Act 1870. The impugned orders were set aside and the case remanded for fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant who has been proceeded against ex parte join and participate in judicial proceedings from the stage at which he subsequently appears in court?
  • Does an order passed by a Rent Controller under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 have the force of a decree passed by a civil court?
  • Whether an appeal arising from an order of the Rent Controller requires ad valorem court-fee under the Court Fees Act 1870?
  • Is a Rent Controller justified in refusing a defendant the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence when the defendant appears before the close of the plaintiff's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmad. vs The State1970 PCr. L J 983 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-02Read full judgment →
• Gulzar and 2 Others vs The State--1970 PCr.LJ 1145 · Lahore High Court · 1970-12-08Read full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan vs Subedar Muhammad Hussain and 31970 PLD Lahore 463 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 941 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and 3 Otrers vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 832 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and Another vs The State.1970 P Cr. L J 919 · Lahore High Court · 1970-09-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 765 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jillani and 6 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 619 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani and 6 Other vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 73 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jaffer vs Agha Azhar Hussain and 4 Other1970 PLD Lahore 753 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1093 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and Another vs The State .1970 P Cr. L J 165 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 640 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar vs "The State '1970 P Cr. L J 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1970-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ghalib Hussain vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 969 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-30Read full judgment →
• G. M. Pfaff A. G.S vs Sartaj Engineeezing Co. Ltd., Lahore and 3 Other1970 PLD Lahore 184 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-24
  stay of suitforeign arbitrationinternational chamber of commercewritten statementstep in the proceedingsarticles of associationtrademark infringementtemporary injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal from order was filed against the decision of the District Judge, Lahore, which stayed a suit brought by the appellant (a foreign public company) against respondent No. 3 (a joint venture company) pursuant to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and discharged an ad interim temporary injunction. The appellant had sued for trademark infringement, seeking damages and injunctions. Respondent No. 3 resisted the suit relying on arbitration clauses in its Articles of Association providing for settlement of disputes under the International Chamber of Commerce rules. The appellant argued that the arbitration clause violated Section 152 of the Companies Act 1913, that no formal application under Section 34 had been filed, and that submitting a reply to an injunction application constituted a step in the proceedings.

  The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 47 of the Arbitration Act 1940 saves arbitrations governed by other laws, specifically the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937, under which foreign arbitral agreements and awards are valid and enforceable. Filing a reply to a temporary injunction application does not constitute a 'written statement' or a 'step in the proceedings' that disentitles a defendant from seeking a stay. A formal application under Section 34 is not strictly required if non-submission to the court's jurisdiction is unequivocally raised.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration clause in the Articles of Association specifying International Chamber of Commerce rules violate Section 152 of the Companies Act 1913?
  • Does filing a reply to a temporary injunction application constitute filing a written statement or taking a step in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Is a formal separate application mandatory for seeking a stay of suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Are foreign arbitration agreements governed by the International Chamber of Commerce rules recognized and enforceable under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
  Read full judgment →
• G Haffar vs Tim State-1970 P Cr. L J 696 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-14Read full judgment →
• Feroze Khan vs THB State1970 P Cr. L J 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-27Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad vs Muhammad Usman1970 PLD Lahore 560 · Lahore High Court · 1968-12-03
  specific reliefrestoration of possessiondisplaced personsrevisional jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionagreement to sellcompensation pool
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges a trial court decree in a suit for restoration of possession filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The petitioner contended that the suit was barred by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, arguing that the property formed part of the compensation pool and that the underlying sale agreement was void. The core legal questions concerned whether civil courts possess jurisdiction to entertain such suits despite the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, and whether an agreement to sell property pending the issuance of a permanent transfer order is legally enforceable. The Court held that the suit was competent, ruling that Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 does not conflict with the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, as the former concerns possessory rights rather than title or settlement claims. It further established that agreements to sell property in anticipation of future title are not void. Finally, the Court affirmed that findings of fact regarding possession are not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for restoration of possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 barred by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Is an agreement to sell property, made pending the issuance of a permanent transfer order, void?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to determine a suit for possession of property that is part of a compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can findings of fact regarding possession be challenged in revisional proceedings under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →