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.

• (M/s.) Aziz Book Depot vs Inspecting Addl. Commissioner EtcK.L.R. 1995 Tax and Costam 84 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Avari Hotel Ltd. vs Employees Old Age Benefits InstitutionK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Amin Bricks Company, Faisalabad vs Commissioner of Income-1997 P.C.T.L.R. 516 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s) Friends Corporation Perticides Dealers And Another vs (M/s)K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 28 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Zahida And Another vs Captain (Retd.) Shahid Ali KhanK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 171 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Tehmina Khan vs Muhammad Jehanzeb Khan BharwalaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 598 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Sughran Bibi vs Phool SinghK.L.R, 1997 Civil Cases 688 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-10Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shehla Rubab vs Nighat Saif Ullah Khan, Principal Govt. DegreeK.L.F 1997 Civil Cases 692 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shazia Anjum vs Govt. of the Punjab EtcK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 426 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shahida Parveen vs The State1995 KLR Shariat Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shaheen Bibi vs Zulfiqar Ali Shah Kazmi And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 255 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shafqat Begum vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 395 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Shabana Hussain vs Shafaqat Hussain, Etc.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 397 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Salma And Another vs Manzoor Hussain And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 84 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• A vs B'K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 725 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-05Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Saleha Ihtisam vs Chairman, Admission Committee, Pakistan KingK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 380 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Saima Rashid vs Emran Riaz ImaniK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 148 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Safia Begum vs Noor MuhammadK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Ruqia Begun vs Muhammad IshtiaqK.L.R.1995 Civil Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Razia Bibi vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 45 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Nasim Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Najma Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases l2 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-17Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Mussarrat Bano Alias Daro And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 517 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Mukhtar Bibi vs S.H.O. Police Station Nawaz Shehr TehsilK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 565 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-06Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Mukhtair Bibi And Another vs The State And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 700 · Lahore High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Masood Begum vs Muhammad Maroof And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 726 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Maryam vs District Magistrate/CONTROLLING Authority,K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 488 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Manzoor Elahi vs CH. Muhammad Anwar, Inspector/SHO PoliceK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 550 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Khurshid Begum vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 429 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-26Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Kausar Parvin And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases I6 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Imtiaz Begum vs Tariq MahmoodK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 274 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Hamidan Begum vs Abdul Riaz And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Fazal Bibi vs (M/s) Asian Body Building Works And OtherK.LR. 1995 Civil Cases 30 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-26Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Daulat Bibi Deceased Represented by Muhammad Sharif And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 69 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Bilquees Parveen vs Additional District and Sessions Judge And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 31 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Bashiran Bibi And Other vs Muhammad Kashif Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 372 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Aziz Bibi vs Karam DinK.L.R 1955 Civil Cases 165 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Asia Iqbal vs Board of Intermediat Secondary EducationK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 313 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Aisha vs Rahim Bakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 116 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-07Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Raz1a Begum vs District JudgeK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 296 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Neghat Naz vs Govt. of Punjab, through Secretary EducationK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 275 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Naziran Bibi vs The State1997 K.L.R. Criminal Cases 619 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Kalsoom Bibi vs The StateK.L.R 1995 Shariat Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• (Haji) Sheikh Ijaz Ahmad vs Inam NaqshbandKX.R. 1995 Civil Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• (Haji) Iqbal Baig vs Govt. of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 491 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• (DR.) Sher Dil Batra And 2 Other vs Director, Federal InvestigationK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 168 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• (CH.) Pervaiz Ellahi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• (CH.) Parvez Elahi vs Federation of Pakistan, Etc.K.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-04Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar All vs Mst. Irshad Bibi And Other1994 CLC 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 232 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Mst. Sajida Begum1994 MLD 1020 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Khan vs D.C./District Collector, Pakpattan Sharif And 21994 CLC 574 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali And Other vs Director, Housing And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1442 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Zobia Jamal vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and another1994 MLD 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Zii.a Council, Sargodha vs Haji Irshad Ahmad1994 CLC 79 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-18
  rejection of plaintcourt-feedeficiency in court-feelost court-fee stampGovernment Treasuryremandframing of issues
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil appeal arose out of a judgment and decree dated 9-1-1991 whereby the trial court rejected the appellant's plaint for non-compliance with an order to make up a deficiency in court-fee. The appellant contended that the requisite amount had been deposited in the Government Treasury, a court-fee stamp was issued but subsequently lost, and a photostat copy was produced. Despite a request to frame an issue and provide an opportunity to lead evidence, the trial court held that the appellant was mandatorily required to purchase a fresh court-fee stamp. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remanded the matter. It held that if a party deposits the requisite court-fee in the Government Treasury, obtains the stamp, and proves its loss without subsequent withdrawal of funds, the plaint is deemed duly stamped unless the adverse party proves that the stamp was utilized elsewhere. The appellant could only be directed to make up the deficiency if it failed to prove such facts after evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff whose court-fee stamp is lost after deposit of the requisite amount in the Government Treasury is automatically required to purchase a fresh court-fee stamp?
  • Whether a trial court can reject a plaint for non-payment of court-fee without framing an issue and recording evidence when the plaintiff claims the purchased court-fee stamp was lost?
  • Under what circumstances can a plaint be deemed duly stamped when the physical court-fee stamp has been lost?
  • Upon whom does the burden lie to prove that a lost court-fee stamp was utilized for another purpose or case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziaulhaq vs Dr. Kh. Maqbool Hussain Butt and 2 others1994 MLD 2215 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Zawar vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1994 MLD 554 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
• Zarina Kausar vs Liaqat Ali,K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-18Read full judgment →
• Zargham Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Arshad And Other1994 CLC 70 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
• Zarar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 427 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs Mehra (Deceased) Rep. By Amir Muhammad And Other1994 CLC 1679 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Dar vs Ahmad Shaukat Dar 3 and others1994 MLD 574 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05
  constitutional petitionmaintenancefamily lawappellate courtremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Family Court and the Additional District Judge directing the petitioner to pay past and future maintenance to his sons at the rate of Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 4,000 per month respectively. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court failed to properly determine the monthly income of the petitioner and appraise the evidence while upholding the maintenance rate. The Lahore High Court held that the appellate court decided the matter in a cursory and slipshod manner without determining the petitioner's monthly income or appraising the evidence on record, thereby failing to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the appeal for a fresh decision in accordance with law, while recording the petitioner's undertaking to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month pending the fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is required to independently appraise evidence and determine the monthly income of a petitioner when deciding an appeal regarding the rate of maintenance?
  • Can a judgment and decree of an appellate court be declared without lawful authority if it fails to consider the core question regarding the rate of maintenance?
  • What is the legal effect when an appellate court decides an appeal in a cursory and slipshod manner without discussing the evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid And 6 Others vs Muhammad Akram1994 CLC 453 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02
  Customary LawAncestral LandAlienationMuslim Personal LawAbatement of SuitReversionary InterestLegal Necessity
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a suit originally filed under Customary Law challenging the sale of ancestral land by the plaintiff's father, alleging a lack of legal necessity and consideration. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting a conditional decree for possession. During the pendency of the second appeal, the legal landscape shifted significantly with the promulgation of the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983, which inserted Section 2-A into the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962. The Lahore High Court held that this amendment fundamentally altered the status of the alienor, deeming them the absolute owner of the land under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), thereby removing the restrictions previously imposed by Customary Law on inter-vivos transfers. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellate decree, which relied on Customary Law, became void and inexecutable. The Court held that the suit abated by operation of law, as the dispute was not a past and closed transaction, and allowed the appeal accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962 render suits based on Customary Law regarding ancestral land alienation liable to abatement?
  • Does Muslim Personal Law impose restrictions on the inter-vivos transfer of property by an owner?
  • Can a decree based on Customary Law be rendered inexecutable following the enactment of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Hussain Shirazi vs Vicechancellor, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and 2 others1994 MLD 279 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 222 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs D.E.O.1994 PLC (C.S.) 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-18Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal and anothers vs Inspectorgeneral of Police and others1994 MLD 374 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Zafar Baig vs Director of Education1994 PLC (C.S.) 1088 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Shad And Others vs Amina Begum1994 CLC 985 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
• Yasin Alias Muhammad Hussain And 7 Other vs Muhammad Siddique And 5 Other_S1994 CLC 836 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
• Yameen vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
• West Punjab, Textile Mills, Limited vs Govt. of the Punjab(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 20) · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali vs Allah Ditta And 6 Other1994 CLC 1135 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10
  civil revisionfraud and misrepresentationarbitration awardlimitation periodSection 12(2) CPCdiscovery of fraudsetting aside decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged a trial court order that set aside a previous decree based on an arbitration award. The original decree, which made an arbitration award a rule of the court, was challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging that the entire arbitration agreement and subsequent court proceedings were fabricated through fraud and misrepresentation. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree based on an arbitration award, and whether such an application was time-barred. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, holding that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is applicable to such situations. The Court further affirmed that the limitation period for challenging a fraudulent decree commences from the date of discovery of the fraud, pursuant to Section 18 of the Limitation Act 1908. As the petitioner failed to rebut the evidence of fraud, the Court dismissed the revision, confirming the setting aside of the fraudulent decree.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable to set aside a decree based on an arbitration award?
  • When does the limitation period commence for an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in cases involving fraud?
  • Does the failure of a party to appear as a witness to rebut allegations of fraud in civil proceedings create an adverse inference?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority through Executive Engineer vs Ch. Bashir Ahmad and another1994 MLD 808 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• Water & Power Development Authority through Its Chairman vs Barkat AliK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 392 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wasim vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 37) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Waseem Azam vs Qudratullah and others1994 MLD 827 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Waseem Aslam vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 380 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
• Waryam vs M.B.R:1994 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
• Waliuddin vs Muhammad Tufail and others1994 MLD 159 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• Waleed Haider vs Additional District Judge and others1994 MLD 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Walayat vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima1994 MLD 1955 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08
  civil revisiongift deedfraudburden of proofilliterate womanfiduciary relationshiplimitationvoid instrument
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a concurring judgment of the District Judge setting aside a gift deed of agricultural land executed by the respondent in favour of her father, the petitioner. The core legal questions involved whether the gift deed was voluntarily executed and validly registered, and whether the suit for its cancellation was barred by limitation under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The High Court held that transactions involving illiterate or vulnerable women under a fiduciary relationship place the burden of proving absence of undue influence and good faith strictly upon the beneficiary. Since the petitioner failed to prove voluntary execution and valid registration, and given that the instrument was void ab initio as a result of fraud, Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply, rendering the suit within time. The key principle laid down is that the protective cloak surrounding illiterate or pardahnashin women shifts the burden of proof to the recipient of a benefit, and void or non-existent instruments do not require cancellation or setting aside under Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to a suit challenging a gift deed that is void ab initio as a result of fraud?
  • Where an illiterate woman enters into a transaction with a person in a fiduciary relationship, upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the voluntary nature of the transaction?
  • Does an instrument that is fundamentally different from what the executant intended to sign require cancellation or setting aside before relief can be claimed?
  Read full judgment →
• Walayat Hussain vs Dost Muhammad And Other '1994 CLC 544 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04
  abatement of suitsubstitution of legal representativeslimitationcondonation of delayfraud on courtmiscarriage of justicesecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a suit for possession of land, which was dismissed by the trial and appellate courts on the ground that the suit had abated in toto following the death of a defendant, Haitum. The plaintiff had filed an application to set aside the abatement and substitute the legal representatives of the deceased, but the lower courts rejected this as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the suit should be deemed abated when the defendants had actively misrepresented the deceased defendant as alive by filing a power of attorney and a written statement on his behalf after his death. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in penalizing the plaintiff for the defendants' sharp practice. The Court found that the plaintiff could not have known of the death while the defendants were actively concealing it on the court record. Consequently, the Court set aside the abatement, allowed the substitution of legal representatives, and remanded the case for trial, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not facilitate a miscarriage of justice or reward fraudulent conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit be held to have abated when the defendants have actively misrepresented a deceased party as alive in court proceedings?
  • Should delay in filing an application to set aside abatement be condoned when the delay was caused by the opposing party's fraudulent concealment of a death?
  • Does the filing of a written statement on behalf of a deceased defendant by the remaining defendants constitute a ground for setting aside an abatement order?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali vs Walayat Shah and 4 others1994 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali vs Walayat Shah And 4 Other1994 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Allah Diwaya and another1994 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-26Read full judgment →
• Waheed vs The State1994 MLD 197 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad and 5 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Production, Islamabad and 6 others1994 MLD 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-30
  Section 12(2) CPCconsent decreemisrepresentationcompromise agreementcontractual liabilityprivatizationfraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed to set aside a court order dated 27-7-1993, which had disposed of a Constitutional petition based on a compromise agreement. The petitioners alleged that their consent to the compromise was obtained through misrepresentation regarding the financial liabilities of the company they were acquiring, specifically concerning a debt to NDFC. The core legal question was whether an innocent misrepresentation regarding the substance of an agreement constitutes sufficient grounds to set aside a consent order under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the agreement was vitiated by misrepresentation, as the petitioners were misled about the extent of the company's liabilities, regardless of whether the misstatement was intentional. The Court established that a consent order is essentially a contract with the court's command superadded; therefore, if the underlying agreement is flawed due to misrepresentation, the resulting order must also be set aside. The application was allowed, the compromise was set aside, and the original petition was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Can a consent order or decree be set aside if the underlying agreement was based on misrepresentation?
  • Does an innocent misstatement regarding the subject matter of an agreement constitute misrepresentation under Section 18(3) of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable to challenge a consent order obtained through misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman and others vs The State1994 MLD 2033 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab through ViceChancellor and anothers_Defendants vs Malik Jehangir Khan_Plaintiff1994 MLD 452 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab And Another vs Malik Jehangir Khan1994 PLC (C.S.) 314 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-17
  date of birth correctionservice matternon-joinder of necessary partysuperannuationcivil revisionrejection of plaintjurisdiction of civil courts
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent filed a civil suit seeking a declaration to correct his date of birth in his matriculation certificate, aiming to postpone his superannuation. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in his favor. The University of the Punjab filed a revision petition, challenging the decree on grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of cause of action, and lack of jurisdiction. The High Court held that the Provincial Government was a necessary party as the correction directly affected the respondent's terms and conditions of service and retirement date. Furthermore, the Court determined that the suit was essentially a service matter, and under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the civil court lacked jurisdiction, as such disputes must be adjudicated by the Service Tribunal. Additionally, the Court found no cause of action, as the respondent had not approached the University for correction before filing suit. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Provincial Government a necessary party in a civil suit filed by a civil servant seeking correction of his date of birth?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the correction of a date of birth that affects the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for lack of cause of action when the plaintiff has not approached the relevant authority before filing suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs Taj Muhammad1994 PLC (C.S.) 286 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Umar and others vs Settlement Department1994 MLD 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
• Ulfat Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ujala Cotton Mills vs E.O.A.B. Institution And Others1994 PLC 560 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zakir HussainK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 430 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Riaz Hussain ShahK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 574 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shahbaz Khan and others1994 MLD 1700 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Riaz Alias GhanjiK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 240 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →