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.

• Ghulam Sher and another vs District Judge, Bhakkar and 3 others1999 YLR 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Tehsildar, Recovery and others1999 MLD 3096 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Mst. Zanib Bibi and anothers1999 MLD 585 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Allah Din and another1999 YLR 919 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir And Another vs Sikandar Shah And Another1999 CLC 576 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 844 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Atta Muhammad and another1999 YLR 2333 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Shazia Parveen and anothers1999 MLD 2176 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Shazia Parveen And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 493 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Ghulam Mustafa and others1999 YLR 398 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-15
  civil revisiongift deedfraud and undue influencedelivery of possessionadmission in pleadingsjoint propertyjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging a registered gift deed and subsequent mutations. The plaintiff/petitioner alleged that the gift deed was procured through undue influence, collusion, and fraud, and that possession of the disputed land was never delivered during the donor's lifetime. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to produce the original gift deed vitiates the transfer when its execution is otherwise admitted in the pleadings, whether the burden of proving fraud was discharged, and whether delivery of possession was established in the case of joint property cultivated by a tenant. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the execution of the document stood admitted by the plaintiff, that the plaintiff failed to prove allegations of fraud, and that possession by a tenant of joint property satisfies the requirement of delivery of possession. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked against mere conclusions of law or fact unless jurisdictional error is shown.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the original gift deed must be produced when its execution is admitted by the plaintiff in the pleadings?
  • Does the possession of a tenant over joint property satisfy the legal requirement of delivery of possession in a gift?
  • Can the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked against concurrent findings of fact or law that do not involve a question of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Abdul Ghani and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 2090 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and others Ls vs The State1999 YLR 1407 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1793 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1631 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Muhammad Yaseen1999 MLD 2852 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1999 YLR 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Butt vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa (Deceased) Rep. by L.R.S And Other vs Noor MuhammadK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 357 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 672 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Additional District Judge (II), D.G. Khan And 21999 CLC 81 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10
  Family Court executionmoney decreearrears of land revenueWest Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964procedural technicalitiesinherent jurisdictionexecution petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the execution of a money decree passed by a Family Court. The petitioner contended that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to execute the decree because it failed to specify a time for payment under Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and argued that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was inapplicable. The High Court held that Section 13(3) is an enabling provision providing an additional mode of recovery—as arrears of land revenue—but does not oust the Family Court's general jurisdiction to execute its own decrees under Section 13(4). The Court affirmed that Family Courts possess inherent power to regulate proceedings to ensure justice, and the absence of a specified time for payment in a decree does not render it inexecutable. The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not hinder the advancement of justice, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applies only where it does not conflict with the special provisions of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, restrict a Family Court's jurisdiction to execute a money decree solely to recovery as arrears of land revenue?
  • Can a Family Court execute its own decrees under Section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, even if the decree does not specify a time for payment?
  • To what extent do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • Does the failure of a Family Court to specify a time for payment in a money decree render the decree inexecutable?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza alias Tajo vs The State1999 YLR 658 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Murid1999 P.C.T.L.R. 862 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs District Multan and another A.C./S,D.M Jalalpur1999 P Cr. L J 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Allah Ditta and 2 others1999 MLD 1468 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others vs Additional District Judge, Multan1999 YLR 469 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-24
  proper partynecessary partySection 12(2) CPCmultiplicity of proceedingssubsequent purchaserjoinder of partieswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from a dispute over land inheritance and subsequent property transfers. The petitioners, who purchased land from a respondent following a compromise decree, sought to be impleaded as parties in a pending application filed by another respondent under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which challenged the original decree. The Trial Court and the District Court dismissed the petitioners' application to be impleaded, arguing they were not necessary parties. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers in possession of the suit property, qualified as 'proper parties' to the proceedings. The High Court held that while the petitioners might not be 'necessary' parties, they were 'proper' parties because their interests would be directly affected by the outcome of the Section 12(2) application. The Court emphasized that courts must consider subsequent events and that allowing such joinder prevents the multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' orders and directed the Trial Court to implead the petitioners as defendants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent purchaser of property in possession is a 'proper party' to proceedings challenging the title of their predecessor-in-interest?
  • Does the court have an obligation to consider subsequent events when determining whether to implead a party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a High Court exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to set aside concurrent findings of lower courts that misread the law?
  • What is the distinction between a 'necessary party' and a 'proper party' in the context of civil litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Alias Modi vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohy-Ud-Din vs Administrator, Secretary Etc.K.L .R. 1999 Civil Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mehdi and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 296 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jalani vs Mansab Khan1999 MLD 3335 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Rab Nawaz1999 YLR 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Fateh Sher and 3 others1999 MLD 748 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 2 others vs Muhammad Naseem Akhtar Khan and 21999 P Cr. L J 249 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The State1999 MLD 339 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Asghar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,Establishment Division, Islamabad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Asghar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others1999 YLR 2182 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 299 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Shah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1213 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Shah vs Saghir Ahmad1999 CLC 310 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Ganwar and others vs Na'za and others1999 YLR 2687 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-18Read full judgment →
• Frazand Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1999 CLC 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-03Read full judgment →
• For The Petitioner: Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate vs For The Respondent:K.L.R, 1999 Revenue Cases 36 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fiaz Hussain and 7 others vs Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs1999 MLD 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
• Fiaz Ahmed Bokhari vs Government of Punjab through Secretary1999 PLC (C.S.) 1508 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fazil Noor Khan And 6 Others vs Assistant Commissioner, Tehsil1999 CLC 10 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
• Fazalurrehman vs The State1999 MLD 741 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
• Fazalurrehman and others vs Abdul Ghafoor and others1999 YLR 2423 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-09Read full judgment →
• Fazal Noor Khan And Other vs Assistant Commissioner, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 171 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad vs The State and others1999 MLD 382 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain through Special Attorney vs Karim and 11 others1999 YLR 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
• Fazal Din vs The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 135 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fazal Din vs The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 2 others1999 MLD 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-06Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sher/ vs Mst. Niaz Bibi and 4 others1999 PLD Lahore 43 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-18Read full judgment →
• Fateh Sher vs (Mst.). Niaz Bibi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Mst. Arshad Afza1999 MLD 1481 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15
  Succession CertificateSuccession Act 1925Summary procedureEstoppelWaiverLegal heirsMovable assets
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which granted a Succession Certificate to the respondent, a daughter of the deceased, for her share in specific assets. The petitioner, another legal heir, contended that the application was collusive, barred by estoppel and waiver due to a previously withdrawn application by the widow, and that the court should have consolidated all pending applications. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Succession Act 1925 provides a summary procedure intended to facilitate the speedy disbursement of assets to heirs. It ruled that an heir is not legally compelled to include the entire estate in a single application, and separate applications for portions of an estate are permissible. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the withdrawal of a prior application by another heir does not create an estoppel against subsequent independent applications by other heirs. The judgment affirms that the primary objective of the Act is to enable heirs to obtain a valid discharge for their shares without unnecessary delay, and separate certificates for portions of an estate are legally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a legal heir file an application for a Succession Certificate for only a portion of the deceased's estate?
  • Does the withdrawal of a prior application for a Succession Certificate by one heir create an estoppel against other heirs filing independent applications?
  • Is a court required to consolidate all pending applications for Succession Certificates regarding the same estate?
  • What is the primary objective of the summary procedure prescribed under Part X of the Succession Act 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Barkat Ali1999 YLR 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-24Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs (Mst.) Arshad Afzal And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad And 6 Others vs Fazala Through Legal Heirs1999 CLC 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 5 others vs Muhammad Arshad and anothers1999 MLD 3390 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore1999 MLD 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Fatah Khan vs Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 4 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Farooq Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 327 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs State1999 YLR 2119 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2102 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-26Read full judgment →
• Farid Bakhsh vs Allah Bakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-24Read full judgment →
• Farid Bakhsh Alias Ghulam Farid vs Niaz Muhammad And Other1999 CLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-24
  partition suitpreliminary decreefinal decreecivil revisionSection 97 CPCcurable irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a partition suit where the trial court, following appellate directions, determined the shares of the parties and appointed a Local Commissioner to effect partition. The petitioner challenged the final decree, arguing that the trial court's earlier order determining shares was not a preliminary decree and that the final decree was flawed. The core legal question was whether an order determining shares, which lacked the explicit label of 'preliminary decree,' could still be treated as such under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby triggering the bar under Section 97 against challenging the final decree if the preliminary decree was not appealed. The Court held that the substance of the order, rather than its nomenclature, determines its legal character. Since the order conclusively determined the rights of the parties, it constituted a preliminary decree. The failure to label it as such was a mere irregularity curable under Section 99. Consequently, the petitioner, having failed to appeal the preliminary decree, was precluded by Section 97 from challenging the final decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order determining the shares of parties in a partition suit constitute a preliminary decree even if it is not explicitly labeled as such?
  • Can a party challenge the validity of a preliminary decree in an appeal filed against the final decree if the preliminary decree was not appealed?
  • Does the failure to label an order as a 'preliminary decree' constitute a material irregularity that vitiates the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Farid Ahmad Bhatti vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1237 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-16
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencymedical groundssick personheart ailmenthypertension
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Farid Ahmad Bhatti, who was accused in a case registered under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly printing and dealing in counterfeit currency. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a sixty-year-old accused suffering from chronic hypertension and heart ailments, was entitled to post-arrest bail as a sick person under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail. The court held that the medical reports, including the Thallium Stress Test from the Punjab Institute of Cardiology, established that the petitioner was suffering from heart ailments and chronic hypertension, thereby bringing his case within the ambit of the humanitarian proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for sick persons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused suffering from heart ailments and chronic hypertension is entitled to bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a medical report showing minimal ischemic changes qualify an accused as a sick person for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhatullah Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue1999 MLD 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-07Read full judgment →
• Fareeha Naz vs Muhammad Faisal Hayat Khan1999 YLR 757 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-19Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad And Other vs Muhammad Yousaf Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 505 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Faqir Hussain Dogar vs Chairman/Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad1999 MLD 3408 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 591 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur1999 YLR 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-03Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Ali Ahmad Noor And Other1999 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-23Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher alias Phalli vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 947 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Faizullah Khan and others vs The State1999 MLD 666 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• Faiza Butt vs Sheikh Adnan Sheraz Sandal and others1999 YLR 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-19Read full judgment →
• Faiz Rasool through Attorney and anothers vs Mst. Nousheen Aslam and 2 others1999 MLD 943 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-08Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 991 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs A. Rauf and others1999 P Cr. L J 864 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-30Read full judgment →
• Faiz Bakhsh vs Muhammad Ramzan1999 YLR 584 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-30Read full judgment →
• Faiz Bakhsh and 34 others vs The Deputy Commissioner/ Acquisition1999 YLR 444 · Lahore High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Fahim Saulat through Special Attorney vs Additional District Judge, Islamabad and another1999 YLR 184 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer, Pak P.W.D., Central Civil Division No. 3, Lahore vs Agha Saleem Khurshid, Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore and 2 others1999 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board vs Umar Din1999 YLR 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-18Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Trust Property Board and others vs Sh. Abdul Sattar and others1999 YLR 1838 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-18Read full judgment →
• Eric And Others vs Hakim Muhammad Younas And Other1999 CLC 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• En-Em Stores (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and others1999 PTD 2762 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Emirates Bank International and another vs Rana Zahid Iqbal and 21999 PLC 302 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantworkmandismissal from servicelabour court jurisdictionsubstantial justiceindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had modified the dismissal of an Assistant Manager of a bank into a resignation. The petitioners argued that the lower forums failed to provide adequate reasoning, lacked the authority to convert dismissal into resignation, and that the respondent was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the master-servant relationship precluded Labour Court interference. The Court held that dismissing an employee without an inquiry, which attaches a permanent stigma, is unjust. It affirmed that Labour Courts possess the jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to pass just and proper orders to safeguard workmen's rights, even within a master-servant relationship. The Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned orders, finding them to be fair and based on substantial justice, despite the petitioners' hyper-technical objections regarding the form of the lower courts' judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Labour Court convert an order of dismissal from service into an order of resignation?
  • Does the master-servant relationship divest a Labour Court of its jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is an employer justified in dismissing an employee without holding an inquiry?
  • Can the High Court refuse to exercise writ jurisdiction against a technically flawed order if the order achieves substantial justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ellahi Bakhsh and 8 others vs Ahmad Bakhsh and 2 others1999 YLR 777 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-22
  civil revisionlimitationcondonation of delayoffice objectionscertified copiesre-filing delayproperly constituted petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from an objection raised by the High Court office regarding the failure of the petitioners to file certified copies of the evidence and other trial court annexures. The petitioners had re-filed the revision petition after a delay of 228 days without submitting an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, arguing that the documents were already placed on record in a connected revision petition. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petitions, holding that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is mandatory for a petitioner to annex certified copies of the pleadings, documents, and orders of the subordinate court. The Court ruled that any extra time taken beyond the period allowed by the office to remove objections cannot be excluded when computing the limitation period. Consequently, the failure to re-file the petition within the stipulated time, coupled with the absence of a condonation application, rendered the petitions time-barred and improperly constituted.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for a petitioner to annex certified copies of the pleadings and documents of the subordinate court?
  • Can the extra time taken by a party to remove office objections and re-file a petition be excluded when computing the period of limitation under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to re-file a memorandum of appeal or revision within the time allowed by the High Court office to remove objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Rahim vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 38 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Javed and 4 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-22Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Hussain And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed alias Gandhi and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 439 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab And Other1999 CLC 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →