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.

• Nahid Akhtar, S.S. (Math), Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School, FaridK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 159 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Nahid Akhtar, S.S. (Math), Government Girls Higher Secondary1995 PLC (C.S.) 820 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Naheed Ahmad vs Muhammad Asif Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
• Naeem Qadir Hashmi vs The State1995 MLD 781 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
• Naeem Hussain Chattha vs CH. Tawakal Ullah Virk, Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 567 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Naeem and others vs The D.I.G. and others1995 P Cr. L J 961 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
• Nadir vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 292 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Arshad vs The State1995 MLD 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
• Naazar Hussain and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 406 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sports World and others vs Latees Fabrics and others1995 MLD 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sports World And Others vs La Tees Fabrics And Other1995 MLD 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Additional Secretary, Federation1995 CLC 631 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. National Bottlers (Pvt.) lid. vs Government of Pakistan, Central Board ofPTCL1995 CL. 123 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Lone China (Pvt.) Ltd vs Additional Secretary to the Government ofPTCL 1995 CL. 415 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Lahore Textile and General Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab and1995 CLC 659 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Hatta Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Faisalabad1995 CLC 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-25
  temporary injunctionarbitration agreementrecovery of arrears of land revenuebreach of contractamount duedamagescivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeks revision of a trial court order dismissing an application for temporary injunction under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The dispute arose after the respondents cancelled a construction contract due to the petitioner's alleged breach, re-allotted it to another firm, and sought to recover the differential cost as arrears of land revenue. The core legal question was whether the respondents could recover unadjudicated damages through coercive measures as arrears of land revenue, and whether the petitioner was entitled to a temporary injunction pending arbitration. The Lahore High Court held that where liability for breach of contract is yet to be determined by an arbitrator, the amount claimed as damages is not an amount 'due' under the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976, and cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The Court laid down that disputed damages arising from a contract must be adjudicated by a competent forum before becoming recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and allowed the petition by granting a temporary injunction subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Can unadjudicated damages claimed for breach of contract be recovered as arrears of land revenue?
  • Whether a party is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining coercive recovery of disputed sums pending arbitration proceedings?
  • What constitutes an amount 'due' under section 36 of the Punjab Development of Cities Act, 1976?
  • Does a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction exist when the liability of parties for breach of contract is yet to be determined by an arbitrator?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Fatima Girls School, Multan Road. Lahore & Two Other vsK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 405 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Faisal Plaza through Mr. Saleem Khalid, Member of Association of1995 PTD 850 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Associated Cement, Wah vs Hassan Din and 2 others1995 PLC 592 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 74 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• M/s). Lahore Textile and General Mills Ltd. vs Province of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 139 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• M/s Zam Zam Traders vs Income Tax Officer1997 P.C.T..L.R. 109 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
• M/s Afzal Construction Company and others vs The Chairman,1995 PTD 1248 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzaffar Shah and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 683 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq vs The State1997 MLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1127 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-31Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain Shah vs Sanaullah EtcK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 334 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed Qadri vs Noor HussainK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 247 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-20Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Saleem and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 1900 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-23
  private complaintpolice challanpreliminary inquiryconsolidation of trialslocus standi of accuseddismissal of complaintcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, who dismissed a private complaint regarding a murder case. The petitioner had filed a complaint after the police discharged one of the accused in the corresponding FIR. The trial court dismissed the complaint, reasoning that since a police challan had been submitted against other accused and the respondent was declared innocent in the police report, further proceedings might prejudice the case. The High Court held that the trial court's dismissal was legally flawed. It emphasized that an inquiry under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a preliminary stage to determine the truth of allegations, and the accused has no locus standi to participate or be heard at this stage. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the trial court should have proceeded with the complaint case. The principle laid down is that a complaint case and a police challan case should be consolidated, with the complaint case generally taken up first to ensure a comprehensive trial, allowing for the examination of all relevant witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused person have the right to be heard or participate during a preliminary inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a private complaint and a police challan case involving the same incident be consolidated for trial?
  • Is it legally permissible for a trial court to dismiss a private complaint solely because the police report declared the accused innocent?
  • What is the correct procedure for a trial court when handling both a private complaint and a police challan case regarding the same offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Jamal DinK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Jamal Din and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1899 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Additional District. JudgeK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 429 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-07Read full judgment →
• Mushahid Hussain Syed vs The State and 2 others1995 MLD 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Mushahid Hussain Syed vs The State And 2 Other1995 MLD 1652 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Murad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1004 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Murad Shah and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muqaddar Ali, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 373 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-15Read full judgment →
• Munshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
• Munir Latif Raja vs The Multan Development Authority and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 898 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-07Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Teh StateK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1995 CLC 838 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab -K.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 55 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Rashid & Company vs Punjab Government and another1995 CLC 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-15
  arbitration awardstamp dutydeficiently stamped documentimpounding of documentadmission in evidencerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision and connected matters arose from arbitration proceedings where a contractor sought to make an arbitral award a rule of the court. The trial court found the stamp paper on the award deficient under the Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the Finance Act of 1990, and directed the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp duty along with a tenfold penalty. The core legal questions involved whether a provincial assembly could amend the federal Stamp Act, whether an award relating to money requires stamp duty, and whether a court can impound a document once it has been admitted into evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the provincial legislature was competent to amend the Stamp Act under the Concurrent Legislative List, that the stamp duty applies to monetary awards, and that under section 36 of the Stamp Act, a trial court cannot impound a document once it has been admitted into evidence. However, under section 61 of the Stamp Act, the High Court possesses revisional powers to declare the document improperly admitted and direct it to be sent to the Collector for recovery of deficient stamp duty and penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Provincial Assembly has the power to amend the Stamp Act under the Concurrent Legislative List of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Whether an arbitration award concerning a money claim attracts stamp duty under Article 12 of the Schedule of the Stamp Act 1899?
  • Can a trial court impound an instrument once it has already been admitted into evidence in view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act 1899?
  • What is the scope of a High Court's powers under Section 61 of the Stamp Act 1899 to review decisions of subordinate courts regarding the sufficiency of stamp duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 340 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 272 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1995 MLD 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain vs The State1995 MLD 231 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain vs S.H.O., Police Station Shorkot, District Jhang and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06
  reinvestigationSection 173 Cr.P.C.administrative orderF.I.R.cognizable offencedischarge vs cancellationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged the authority of the police to conduct a reinvestigation into a case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an earlier report submitted under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the case was marked as untraceable. The petitioners argued that the police could not reinvestigate without the Magistrate's permission after the previous order. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the police possess the inherent power to reinvestigate a case even after a report has been submitted, provided the F.I.R. has not been formally cancelled. The Court clarified that the terms 'discharge' and 'cancellation' are distinct, and an order passed by a Magistrate on a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is administrative in nature. Consequently, such an order does not preclude the police from conducting further investigations or submitting subsequent reports in supersession of earlier ones. The judgment affirms that no legal bar exists preventing the police from investigating a cognizable offence multiple times to ensure justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order passed by a Magistrate on a report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bar the police from conducting further investigation?
  • Is an order of discharge by a Magistrate on a police report considered an administrative or judicial order?
  • Can the police reinvestigate a case after a report has been submitted declaring the case untraceable?
  • Are the terms 'discharge' and 'cancellation' of a case synonymous under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain vs S.H.O. Shorekot, And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 175 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Criminal Cases 527 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mukarram Khan vs S.H.O., Police Station, New Multan and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammadsarwar vs The State1995 MLD 198 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zijiuiir vs Muhammad ZijiuirK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 446 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahoor and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 638 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf Ali Shah vs Federal Land Commission, Government1995 CLC 369 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02
  suo motu revisional jurisdictionland reformsvoid ordersdelegation of powersconstitutional petitionrepugnancy to Islam
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge orders passed by land revenue authorities and the Federal Land Commission regarding the resumption of agricultural land under land reform laws. The core legal questions involve whether the Land Commissioner could validly initiate suo motu revisional proceedings in mechanical obedience to a Federal Land Commission Inspection Team report, and whether the authorities possessed the requisite jurisdiction under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. The Lahore High Court held that the Land Commissioner acted without lawful authority by delegating or mechanically adopting the report without independent application of mind, and that the impugned orders and their appellate/revisional superstructures were null and void. Furthermore, because relevant provisions of the land reform legislation were declared repugnant to Islamic injunctions by the Supreme Court, remanding the matter would be futile. The petitions were accordingly accepted and the impugned orders set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrative authority can exercise statutory power mechanically on the dictation or report of another body without independent application of mind?
  • Whether the Land Commissioner has the power under section 27 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 to initiate suo motu proceedings based on a report of the Federal Land Commission Inspection Team?
  • What is the legal effect on consequential orders when the foundational order passed by a subordinate authority is held to be a nullity?
  • Whether an order passed without jurisdiction by a land commissioner renders subsequent appellate and revisional orders legally unsustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunis vs Provincial Government of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-05
  constitutional petitionpublic recruitmentjob quotaministerial interferencemerit policydepartmental selection committeeviolation of fundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the alleged Government of Punjab policy of allocating job quotas to elected representatives and Ministers, and specifically contested the Education Department circular requiring the Education Minister's prior approval (NOC) for public appointments. The core legal questions involved whether political interference and ministerial quotas in public recruitment are constitutional, and whether executive instructions can override established merit policies and departmental selection rules. The Lahore High Court held that allocating recruitment quotas to Members of the National and Provincial Assemblies or requiring ministerial NOCs violates the Constitution, service laws, and the government's own cabinet-approved merit policies, rendering such appointments and instructions void ab initio. The Court laid down the key principles that executive authorities and ministers cannot usurp the powers of designated departmental selection authorities, that binding precedents of the Supreme Court under Article 189 must be strictly followed, and that recruitment procedures must ensure complete objectivity and fairness to prevent arbitrariness and political nepotism.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the allocation of recruitment quotas to members of the assemblies or ministers is constitutional and lawful?
  • Can a provincial minister require a mandatory NOC or prior approval for public service appointments contrary to the established merit policy?
  • Whether subordinate courts and high courts are legally bound to follow the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 189 of the Constitution?
  • Does the reservation of excessive marks for interview without maintaining a proper record of assessment render the selection process arbitrary and discriminatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, LocalK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 172 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Muhammad Din And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 92 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf alias Baggi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The Deputy Commissioner_ District Collector, Khanewal and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Gull vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs The State1997 MLD 204 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs The S.H.O. Ghalib Market, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 407 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas Chishti vs The State and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1791 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1033 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1995 MLD 12 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs A.D.B.P, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 101 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 2 others1995 PLD Lahore 91 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1882 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Mst. Surriya Bibi And Another1995 MLD 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs (Mst.) Irshad BegumK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Abdullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 606 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Shariat Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Alias Chan Mahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 467 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Farooq vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 279 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Lahore Development Authority, LDA Plaza, Egerton Road, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 465 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Government of Punjab1995 MLD 1515 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad, District1995 MLD 1744 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail alias Muhammd Yasin vs Muhammad Suleman and 61995 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-18
  special leave to appealacquittal on groundless chargecomplaint casestentative assessmentquashment of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition filed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a complaint and acquittal of respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving Sections 380 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are applicable to private complaint cases and whether a Magistrate can acquit an accused under this section after issuing process without recording evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that Section 249-A is fully applicable to complaint cases and empowers a Magistrate to acquit an accused at any stage if the charge is groundless or there is no probability of conviction. The Court laid down that the summoning of an accused under Section 204 is of a tentative nature and does not bar the subsequent exercise of powers under Section 249-A to prevent frivolous proceedings and lighten the burden on higher courts.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to private complaint cases?
  • Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without recording evidence after having summoned them?
  • Is the opinion formed by a trial Magistrate while summoning an accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 of a tentative nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taufique vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 228 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 457 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs P.T.C. And Other1995 MLD 896 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Manzoor vs Muhammad Ahmad and 6 others1995 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Manzoor vs Muhammad Ahmad and 6 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taqi vs Lahore Development Authority And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir and 3 others vs Ch. Nazir Ahmad1997 MLD 71 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Superintendent of Central Jail, Mianwali and another1995 PLD Lahore 591 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiqui vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique. Ac. vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 660 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Syed Zulfiqar Haider and others1995 CLC 431 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18
  specific performanceclosing of evidenceadjournmentjudicial discretionremand of caseadjudication on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the appellant's suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale after closing his evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerns the proper exercise of judicial discretion by a trial court in refusing an adjournment and closing evidence due to counsel's personal tragedy. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court acted arbitrarily and failed to exercise its discretion judicially in the light of attending facts, specifically that the counsel's son-in-law had been murdered, leaving the counsel in an unfit state of mind. The Court reiterated the principle that procedural rules should advance the cause of justice and that the law strongly favors the adjudication of disputes on merits rather than summary disposal. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision on merits after providing a fresh opportunity for the production of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court exercises its discretion judicially when it refuses an adjournment and closes a party's evidence due to the counsel suffering a severe personal tragedy?
  • Does the law favor the adjudication of rights of parties on merits rather than their disposal summarily?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a judgment and decree dismissing a suit for want of evidence where the trial court acted arbitrarily under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Assistant Commissioner Model Town, LahoreK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 254 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Others vs Muhammad Yar and others1995 P Cr. L J 1639 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →