Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Fateh Khan vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-12Read full judgment →
- Farid vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1966-06-15Read full judgment →
- Farid and 3 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-07Read full judgment →
- Farid (Represented by Heir) vs Mst. Nur Bibi1970 PLD Lahore 502 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arose from a suit filed by a husband seeking a declaration that a gift of land made by him to his wife was invalid for lack of delivery of possession or, alternatively, was restricted to a life interest or until remarriage under the condition 'ta hain hayaat ta nikkah saani'. The trial court and District Judge dismissed the suit, holding the gift complete and the life-estate condition void under Islamic law. The Lahore High Court affirmed the concurrent findings, holding that the documentary evidence (mutation entries, jamabandis, khasra girdawaris) and oral testimony established that physical possession of the specific land was delivered to the donee at the time of the gift. Applying Islamic jurisprudence, the High Court held that where the corpus of immovable property is transferred subject to a life condition, the gift (hiba) takes effect as an absolute and complete transfer, while the restrictive condition is void. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the suit was time-barred and that the donee had alternatively established title by adverse possession. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Under Islamic law, does a gift of the corpus of immovable property burdened with a life-estate condition take effect as an absolute gift with the condition rendered void?
- Whether entries in revenue records and reports of revenue officers showing delivery of physical possession are sufficient to prove completion of a gift under Islamic law?
- Can a donee establish title through adverse possession if the donor subsequently claims the original gift was invalid or incomplete?
- Ejaz Hussain and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 361 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-13Read full judgment →
- DR: M. A. A. Aziz vs Mst. Aisha Rahim and Another1970 P Cr. L J 721 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-23Read full judgment →
- DR. Faiz Ali Shah vs (1) Province of West Pakistan, through Chief1970 PLD Lahore 137 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-11Read full judgment →
- DR. Akhtar Ali vs The State and Another1970 PLD Lahore 450 · Lahore High Court · 1969-08-13Read full judgment →
- DR. Abdus Salam and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1306 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-20Read full judgment →
- DR. Abdul Ahad vs The Political Agent, Kurram Agency and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 888 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-04Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent (Workshop), P. W. R., Lahore vs Muhammad1970 PLC 742 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-06Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad and 3 Other vs Faqir Muhammad and 2 Other1970 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal in forma pauperis arose from the dismissal of a suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, brought by the legal heirs of a tractor driver killed in a collision with a speeding bus. The trial court had dismissed the suit, holding that negligence was not established against the bus driver. Before the High Court, the insurer raised a preliminary objection that impleading it after the period prescribed by Article 21 of the Limitation Act 1908 rendered the suit time-barred, while the appellants contested the trial court's finding on negligence. The High Court rejected the limitation objection, holding that notice was duly sought under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 with the original plaint, making the insurer's formal addition within time under the doctrine of nunc pro tunc. Applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and crediting eye-witness evidence, the Court reversed the finding on negligence and held the driver liable. The Court assessed the deceased's monthly earning capacity and awarded Rs. 25,920 as damages, apportioned among his dependants according to their respective life expectancies.
Questions settled- Whether impleading an insurer company after the period of limitation renders a suit under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 time-barred when notice was sought under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 along with the original plaint?
- Whether an insurer company impleaded under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 can raise defenses beyond those explicitly provided under that subsection?
- Whether the maxim res ipsa loquitur applies to establish negligence when the undisputed physical facts and evidence clearly point to rash driving by the defendant?
- How should pecuniary loss and compensation be calculated and apportioned among surviving dependants under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
- Des Dewan vs Major Nazir Beg and Other1970 PLD Lahore 790 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-10Read full judgment →
- Col. Bashir Hussain and 10 Other vs Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore1970 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged land acquisition proceedings and the validity of an award made under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal questions centered on whether the requirement of giving immediate notice of an award under section 12(2) of the Act is mandatory or directory, and whether failure by the Collector to issue timely notice vitiates the award by depriving the landowners of their statutory right to seek a reference to the court under section 18. The Lahore High Court held that the provision requiring notice is imperative and obligatory, and that failure to notify landowners within a reasonable time—such that they are barred by the absolute six-month limitation period—amounts to a fraud on the statute. The court ruled that non-compliance vitiates the award. The key principle laid down is that where a statute prescribes a mode and time for performing a public duty intended to protect citizen's rights, failure to perform that duty which results in a complete deprivation of a statutory remedy renders the action a nullity, requiring fresh proceedings.
Questions settled- Is the requirement of giving immediate notice of an award under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 mandatory or directory?
- Does the failure of the Collector to serve notice of an award within the statutory period vitiate the award?
- Can an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be entertained after the expiry of six months from the date of the award?
- What are the legal consequences when a public functionary's omission deprives an aggrieved party of their right to seek a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Chiragh vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ch. Sardar Ali vs Ch. Ali Muhammad and Another1970 PLD Lahore 647 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the auction of residential units in a property by Settlement authorities, where the petitioners' transfer applications were ignored. The core legal questions were whether the auction order was void for lack of notice, whether limitation barred the challenge, and whether rent clearance by a specific date was a mandatory condition for eligibility. The Court held that the initial order directing the auction was void ab initio for failing to provide the petitioners an opportunity to be heard as required by Settlement Scheme No. 1. Consequently, the bar of limitation did not apply to the challenge. The Court established the principle that while rent clearance is a condition for 'possession' under the relevant notification, the Chief Settlement Commissioner lacks the power to set a final date for such clearance that negates statutory entitlement. Once arrears are cleared, the occupant becomes eligible for transfer, provided the property has not been validly transferred elsewhere. The Court set aside the auction orders and directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to consider the applications on merits.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner to provide a hearing to an applicant under Settlement Scheme No. 1 render an auction order void ab initio?
- Does the law of limitation apply to an order that is void ab initio?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the legal authority to set a final date for the clearance of rent arrears that negates an applicant's statutory eligibility for transfer?
- Is the clearance of rent arrears a condition precedent for an occupant to be deemed in possession under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
- Ch. Riasat Ali and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by the accused, Riasat Ali and Muhammad Anwar, under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings of cheating initiated against them. The prosecution's case was based on an agreement where the accused allegedly promised to sell imported chemicals to the complainants, received money, and subsequently failed to deliver the consignment. Following a compromise mediated by respectables, the accused issued a receipt acknowledging a loan and provided a post-dated cheque, which was subsequently dishonoured by the bank upon presentation. The Lahore High Court held that the facts did not disclose any criminal offence. The Court ruled that a post-dated cheque serves as an acknowledgement of a debt and a promise to pay on a future date. Consequently, a broken promise or the dishonour of such a cheque does not constitute a criminal offence, even if it represents discreditable business behavior. The petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed.
Questions settled- Does the dishonour of a post-dated cheque issued as a promise to pay a debt on a future date constitute a criminal offence?
- Can criminal proceedings for cheating be quashed if the underlying transaction and subsequent compromise represent a civil breach of promise rather than a penal offence?
- Ch. Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 109 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Farook vs The State and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a challenge to a Magistrate's order regarding the interim custody (superdari) of a vehicle seized during a criminal investigation. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant custody of the vehicle to the complainant while the case was still under investigation. The Court held that Section 516-A, Cr. P. C. is inapplicable during the investigation stage, as it requires property to be produced during an inquiry or trial. Similarly, Section 517, Cr. P. C. is inapplicable before the conclusion of proceedings. The Court determined that Section 523, Cr. P. C. is the appropriate provision for interim custody during investigation. The Court set aside the Magistrate's order, establishing the principle that, absent compelling reasons to the contrary, seized property should generally be returned to the person from whom it was recovered. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner, having paid a significant sum for the vehicle, was the greater sufferer, though the order remained subject to existing civil court injunctions.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate grant interim custody of seized property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while a case is still under investigation?
- Which provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 governs the interim custody of property seized by police during an investigation?
- Is a High Court empowered to treat a petition filed under Section 561-A as a revision petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- To whom should seized property generally be entrusted for interim custody when a case is under investigation?
- Ch. Muhammad Asif Ranjha, Advocate vs Ch. Sultan Ali Cheema and 71970 P Cr. L J 837 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-29Read full judgment →
- Ch. Ghulam Rasul Tarrar vs Election Tribunal 1, West Pakistan, Lahore1970 PLD Lahore 425 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-16Read full judgment →
- Bostan and 8 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1970-07-10Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 857 · Lahore High Court · 1970-02-09Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 87 · Lahore High Court · 1970-10-24Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali Alias Nikka and Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 136 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-05Read full judgment →
- Bahadur and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1969-09-29Read full judgment →
- Bagh Hussain and Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 899 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Aziz Ahmad vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 222 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-27Read full judgment →
- Azim Khan and Another vs The State1970 P Cr.L J 77 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-08Read full judgment →
- Atta Muhammad and Another vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 86 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-11Read full judgment →
- Ashiq vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 373 · Lahore High Court · 1969-02-24Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ahmad vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 306 · Lahore High Court · 1969-01-27Read full judgment →
- Asghar vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 878 · Lahore High Court · 1970-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant for the double murder of two individuals and the attempted murder of a third. The appellant pleaded self-defense, alleging he was attacked and fired in retaliation. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the self-defense plea given the medical evidence and whether the conviction for attempted murder was sustainable. The Court held that the plea of self-defense was untenable, as the medical evidence showed the victims were shot in the back while fleeing, indicating they were unarmed and retreating. Consequently, the Court maintained the convictions for murder and confirmed the death sentences. However, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, finding that the complainant’s injury was likely caused by a stray pellet rather than a direct shot. The key principle laid down is that a plea of self-defense is negated when medical evidence demonstrates the victims were shot while retreating, and specific intent for attempted murder cannot be inferred from injuries consistent with stray projectiles.
Questions settled- Does a plea of self-defense hold when medical evidence indicates the victims were shot in the back while fleeing?
- Is a conviction for attempted murder sustainable when the injury is consistent with a stray pellet rather than a direct shot?
- Can a court confirm a death sentence where the prosecution's recovery evidence is disbelieved but the ocular evidence is otherwise reliable?
- Asghar and 12 Other vs The State and 4 Other1970 PLD Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought to quash a Magistrate's order attaching disputed land and appointing a Station House Officer as Receiver in proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could appoint a Receiver under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before completing the inquiry mandated by Section 145 and without fulfilling the conditions of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that while a Magistrate has jurisdiction to attach property in an emergency under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending inquiry, the appointment of a Receiver is only permissible after the inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been completed and the conditions laid down in Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are met. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed, and the Magistrate's order appointing the Station House Officer as Receiver was set aside, though the attachment order itself was not challenged.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate appoint a Receiver under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before completing the inquiry under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- What are the conditions for a Magistrate to appoint a Receiver in a dispute concerning immovable property?
- Does the power to attach property under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure include the power to appoint a Receiver?
- When can a Magistrate attach disputed property under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Asghar Ali vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1019 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
- Altaf Mahmood vs Mst. Fazal UN Nisa Alias Bilqis Insari1970 PLD Lahore 654 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-04Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1969-05-16Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta vs Fateh Khan and Other1970 PLD Lahore 168 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-25Read full judgment →
- Khan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 450 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Allah Ditta and 10 Others vs THF State, Respondent1970 P Cr. L J 666 · Lahore High Court · 1969-12-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for bail filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising from a cross-version criminal incident involving land possession disputes, rioting, and subsequent death resulting in a murder charge under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of multiple accused persons to pre-trial bail where cross-cases have been registered, both parties sustained injuries, and the question of who was the aggressor remains debatable at the pre-trial stage. The Lahore High Court held that where two conflicting versions exist and injuries are sustained by both sides, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail to those petitioners not specifically and fatally implicated by the deceased, while dismissing the application of the specific assailant. The key principle laid down is that the existence of a counter-case, mutual injuries, and uncertainty regarding the aggressor at the investigatory stage warrant the concession of bail under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, barring specific fatal attributions.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be granted under Section 497(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when cross-cases are registered and both parties have sustained injuries in the same occurrence?
- Does the existence of two conflicting versions regarding physical possession and aggression warrant further inquiry for the purpose of pre-trial bail?
- Should bail be refused to an accused specifically named by the deceased as an assailant notwithstanding counter-allegations and mutual injuries?
- Allah Dad vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 826 · Lahore High Court · 1969-10-14Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs The State1970 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-21Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad and Another vs Nazeer Ahmad1970 PLD Lahore 893 · Lahore High Court · 1966-03-02Read full judgment →
- Akbar Din and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 559 · Lahore High Court · 1969-04-18Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid vs Taj Din and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 282 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-06Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rahim vs Taj Muhammad1970 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1969-07-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Butt vs United Chemicals Ltd.1970 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1969-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a suit in forma pauperis for damages amounting to Rs. 2,50,000 for severe personal injuries and permanent disability sustained due to an industrial accident caused by an explosion in the respondent's chemical plant. The trial court rejected the application, holding it barred by limitation under Article 22 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a one-year period for compensation for personal injury from the date of the injury. In revision, the Lahore High Court examined whether Article 22 or Article 36 of the Limitation Act applied, alongside issues of fraud and limitation under Section 18 and Section 24 of the Limitation Act. The Court held that injuries resulting from culpable negligence, misfeasance, or failure to maintain industrial plant safety fall under Article 36 of the Limitation Act, providing a two-year limitation period starting from when the specific injury results pursuant to Section 24. Furthermore, the Court ruled that where a question of limitation is complicated and intertwined with the merits, or involves potential amendment of the plaint regarding fraud, an in forma pauperis application should not be summarily rejected. The revision was allowed, the trial court's order set aside, and expedited trial directed.
Questions settled- Does Article 22 or Article 36 of the Limitation Act govern a suit for damages for personal injuries sustained in an industrial accident caused by the employer's negligence?
- When does the period of limitation begin to run under Section 24 of the Limitation Act for a suit for compensation where an act does not give rise to a cause of action until specific injury results?
- Can an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis be summarily rejected when the question of limitation is complicated and tied up with the merits of the case?
- Whether a plaintiff can invoke Section 18 of the Limitation Act regarding fraud to extend limitation even if the specific facts were not originally detailed in the unamended plaint?
- Abdul Aziz vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-29Read full judgment →