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. 79,415 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Asghar and 12 Other vs The State and 4 Other1970 PLD Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-27
  Section 145 Cr.P.C.attachment of propertyappointment of receiverbreach of peacequashment of orderemergency powersinquiry into possessiondisputed land
  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?
  Read full judgment →
• 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 · 1969-12-19
  bailcross-casescriminal trespassmurderfurther inquiryaggressor
  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?
  Read full judgment →
• 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 · 1969-03-20
  forma pauperislimitation periodpersonal injurymisfeasanceculpable negligenceindustrial accidentfraud and limitationamendment of plaint
  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?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-29Read full judgment →