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.

• Rana Muhammad Saryvar vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 474 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Asif vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Revenue Department, Punjab, Lahore And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
• Rana Gulzar Ahmad vs Additional District Judge J Hang And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 399 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Rana Farhat Ali vs The State1994 MLD 990 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Majid and others vs Faisalabad Development Authority1994 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Bari vs Mst. Khalida Parveen and 2 others1994 MLD 150 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 85) · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
• Ramzan alias Khushi Muhammad vs Awamunna S and others1994 MLD 1764 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Rajab vs Manzoor and others1994 MLD 266 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Raja vs The State1994 MLD 133 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Union Council Thatha Khalil, District Rawalpindi1994 MLD 930 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-08
  constitutional petitionexhaustion of alternative remedieslocal council taxationwrit petitionadequate statutory remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the imposition and recovery of a levy on the import and export of certain items by respondent Union Councils within their territorial jurisdiction, allegedly in violation of a government memorandum and procedural formalities under the Taxation Rules. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked directly when adequate alternative statutory remedies were available under the governing law. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petitions in limine, holding that the petitioners must exhaust the efficacious alternative statutory remedies of appeal and representation provided under section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 before approaching the High Court. The key principle laid down is that the well-settled rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies must be strictly observed to allow statutory functionaries to perform their functions and to prevent the unnecessary congestion of cases in the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition can be maintained against the imposition of a tax by a Union Council without exhausting the statutory remedies of appeal and representation?
  • Do the appellate and controlling authorities possess all-pervasive powers under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 to check excesses of local councils?
  • Is the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies mandatory before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Nawaz vs Chairman, B.I.&S.E. And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 894 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Raja Mansoor Sadiq vs Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 1332 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Rai Ahmad Nawaz and anothers vs Municipal Committee, Murree1994 PLD Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
• Rai Ahmad Nawaz And Another vs Municipal Committee, Murree Through Administrator _A.C. And 3 OtherP LD1994 Lahore 1 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
• Rahim Ud Din and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Rahat Sadiq vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman and 2 others1994 MLD 818 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Rafiullah vs The State1994 MLD 2042 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-02Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Muhammad Nawaz And 2 Other1994 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13
  specific performanceproduction of documentsadditional evidencecivil revisionnegligence of counseladjudication on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1, wherein subsequent purchasers were impleaded as parties. During the pendency of the suit and at the stage of the petitioner's evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Order XIII, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to place on record a copy of a receipt regarding earnest money, which was inadvertently omitted by the petitioner's now-deceased counsel due to work pressure. The trial Court dismissed the application. The core legal question was whether a party should be permitted to produce a document at the evidence stage despite failing to annex it with the plaint or list of documents. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that law leans in favour of adjudication on merits and technicalities should be avoided, and that a litigant should not suffer for the default or negligence of their counsel, provided the opposing party can be compensated through costs. The Court set aside the trial Court's order and allowed the document to be placed on record subject to the payment of costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can be permitted to produce a document at the evidence stage after failing to annex it to the plaint?
  • Should a litigant suffer for the inadvertent omission or negligence of their counsel in failing to produce documents in time?
  • Can a trial court allow the production of a belated document by compensating the opposing party through costs?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 515 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-28Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz (Alias) Zafra vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Muhammad Anwar And 6 Others vs S.A. Qureshi And 3 Other1994 CLC 733 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30
  specific performancefrustration of contractcantonment leaseveto powerearnest moneyimperfect titlediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale concerning leasehold rights in sub-divided plots of a bungalow in Kharian Cantonment. The core legal question was whether specific performance could be enforced when the proposed transfer of leasehold rights was vetoed by the military authorities under the terms of the original perpetual lease and where the authorities' subsequent conditional willingness required converting the perpetual lease into a limited lease under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules 1937 on payment of exorbitant rent and premium. The Court held that the contract stood frustrated due to the lawful exercise of the veto by the military authorities and that the court cannot compel specific performance by varying the contract or forcing the vendor to accept disadvantageous terms. The key principle laid down is that where an agreement for sale is contingent upon a cantonment authority's approval or non-exercise of veto, and the transfer is validly vetoed or rendered impossible without fundamentally altering the nature of the tenure, the contract stands frustrated and cannot be specifically enforced under sections 21 and 22 of the Specific Relief Act 1877.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement for the sale of cantonment leasehold rights stand frustrated when the competent military authority validly exercises its power to veto the proposed transfer?
  • Can a court direct specific performance of a contract by compelling a vendor to alter the fundamental nature of their tenure, such as converting a perpetual lease into a limited lease under the Cantonment Land Administration Rules?
  • Whether section 18 of the Specific Relief Act applies where a vendor possesses complete title at the time of the contract but the transfer is blocked by a third party's lawful veto?
  • Is a vendor entitled to retain earnest money when a contract stands frustrated through no fault of either party?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 76 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 385 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-16
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionvicarious liabilityLalkarafurther inquirycriminal proceduremurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the grant of post-arrest bail to two accused persons charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of their bail application by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were alleged to have uttered a 'Lalkara' (instigation) during a sudden altercation, were vicariously liable for the murders committed by their co-accused, or if their case necessitated further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, determining that the mere utterance of a 'Lalkara' does not invariably establish common intention or effective participation, and that the petitioners' liability required deeper evidentiary scrutiny. The court affirmed the principle that bail is a right under Section 497(2) when reasonable grounds for guilt are absent, emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment and that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere uttering of a 'Lalkara' by an accused person automatically constitute sufficient evidence of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances does a case fall within the ambit of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the refusal of bail permissible solely on the ground that the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 317 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
• Qudsia Nawaz vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1994 CLC 1174 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Quarban Ali vs The Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 53) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qazi Zaheeruddin vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and another1994 MLD 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Qazi Zaheer-Ud-Din vs Additional District Judge And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Qazi Abdullah vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 144 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
• Qari Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Shagufta Naz and another1994 MLD 605 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Qari Hafiz Altaf Hassain vs The State1994 MLD 1776 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Qari Hafiz Altaf Hasain vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 56) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Qamar-Ud-Din And Other vs Settlement Commissioner Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 384 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Abbas And 2 Others vs Muhammad Sarwar1994 CLC 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh Through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Nawaz1994 CLC 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh And Others vs Khawaja Ghulam Moeen Ud Din1994 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20
  pre-emption suitzar-e-panjamdeficient court-feelimitationgeneral power of attorneyextension of timeinterlocutory orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed on 20-4-1976 regarding agricultural land, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but decreed by the first appellate court on 19-7-1984. The defendants-vendees challenged the appellate decree, primarily raising technical objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal through a general attorney, the deficiency of court fees, and the validity of orders extending time for the deposit of one-fifth pre-emption money (Zar-e-Panjam) and substituting it with security. The Lahore High Court held that minor defects in a general power of attorney are mere irregularities that do not prejudice the opposing party or defeat a valid claim. Furthermore, following settled precedents, the court affirmed that the institution of a suit with a deficient court-fee, subsequently made good, does not bar the suit by limitation, and that interlocutory orders granting extensions or permitting security for Zar-e-Panjam, having attained finality without being challenged in revision, cannot be reviewed by a successor trial judge. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a minor defect in a general power of attorney can vitiate an appeal filed on behalf of a pre-emptor?
  • Does the subsequent making good of a deficient court-fee save a pre-emption suit from being barred by limitation?
  • Whether a trial court can subsequently review or undo interlocutory orders passed by its predecessor regarding the extension of time and substitution of cash deposit of Zar-e-Panjam with security?
  • Does a trial court possess the discretion to vary or substitute its original orders concerning the deposit of pre-emption money?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Urban Transport Corporation vs Umar Hayat And Others1994 PLC 278 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Punjab Urban Transport Corporation vs Umar Bakhsh Through Legal1994 PLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan (Now Punjab) vs Maqbool Hussain &1994 CLC 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan (Now Punjab) vs Haji Sultan Ahmad1994 CLC 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab vs Muhammad Sharif & Co.1994 MLD 543 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Shafi1994 MLD 718 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Ghulam Hussain1994 MLD 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department and anothers vs Malik Muhammad Ilyas and 2 others1994 MLD 476 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08
  arbitration awardrule of the courtcontract interpretationextra payment claimborrow arealead areascheduled ratescivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Faisalabad, making an arbitral award the rule of the court. The core dispute involved a claim by a contractor-firm for extra payment for transporting fill material (earth) from distant areas beyond one mile to the venue of a road construction project. The appellant Province of Punjab contended that under the contract terms, particularly Clause 14, the contractor was bound to arrange the borrow area at its own expense without any prescribed lead area limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the contract was a scheduled-rate/lump-sum agreement requiring the contractor to arrange its borrow area at its own cost, and that neither the contract nor the schedule provided any specific lead area entitling the contractor to extra transportation charges. The court ruled that the arbitrators and the civil judge erred in law in allowing the claim, concluding that the award suffered from an illegality apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment and the arbitral award were set aside, and the contractor's claim was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a contractor is entitled to claim extra payment for transporting fill material from distant areas when the contract obligates the contractor to arrange a borrow area at its own expense?
  • Under what circumstances can an arbitral award be set aside under the Arbitration Act 1940 due to an error of law apparent on the face of the award?
  • Whether the interpretation of a contract by arbitrators regarding lead and borrow areas is subject to judicial scrutiny by a court?
  • Can a contractor recover additional expenses for work that is indispensably necessary to complete the entire contractual scope of work at scheduled rates?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector, District Attock And 4 Others vs Muhammad Nawaz1994 CLC 666 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and 4 others vs Mst. Robina Begum1994 MLD 579 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
• Prof. S.M. Ashrafali vs Bahawalpur Gazetted Officers Cooperative1994 CLC 36 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-12Read full judgment →
• Presson Manufacturing Limited And Another vs The Secretary MinistryK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 158 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
• President, Habib Bank Ltd. And Other vs Manzoor Hussain And Others1994 PLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-10
  constitutional petitionbogus educational certificatemisconducttermination of servicelabour courtreinstatementbank employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent findings of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of respondent No.1 as a Cashier in Habib Bank Limited. The core legal question was whether the submission of a bogus educational certificate by an employee at the time of regularisation in service constitutes valid grounds for termination or misconduct, even if the minimum qualification for the post was lower and no direct advantage was procured. The Lahore High Court held that the employee admittedly provided false information regarding his intermediate qualification, which formed part of his employment record upon induction and regularisation, contrary to the express terms of his appointment letter. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal as without lawful authority, establishing that furnishing false educational credentials to an employer justifies revocation of appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the submission of a bogus educational certificate by an employee at the time of regularisation constitutes valid grounds for termination of service?
  • Does furnishing false information regarding qualifications in an employment bio-data justify the revocation of an appointment under the terms of service?
  • Whether an employee can be reinstated when their induction into service was secured through admitted misrepresentation of educational credentials?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Sabir Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 563 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Pir Sabir Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others1994 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Pir Sabir Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan And Other1994 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh and others vs The State1994 MLD 854 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Pervez Masih vs Director, Atomic Energy Medical Centre, Nishtar1994 PLC (C.S.) 273 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Afzal And Others vs SH, Hussan Ali And Another1994 CLC 951 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17
  specific performanceagreement of saleright of defenseopportunity of hearingadjournmentexpert witnessremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The core legal question was whether the trial Court was justified in refusing adjournments and denying the appellants the opportunity to produce their defense evidence solely on the ground of complying with an administrative time-limit fixed by the High Court for deciding the suit. The Lahore High Court held that administrative directions given by a superior court to expedite proceedings do not curtail or abridge the trial court's statutory discretion and jurisdiction under Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant reasonable adjournments for producing evidence. The Court ruled that denying a party reasonable opportunity to examine expert evidence and summon necessary witnesses amounts to condemning them unheard. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal with directions to afford the appellants adequate opportunities to produce their evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an administrative direction by a High Court to a trial court to decide a suit within a specified timeframe divest the trial court of its judicial discretion to grant adjournments under the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Whether refusing a party the opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence and examine witnesses solely due to paucity of time constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice?
  • Does the expiry of a time-limit fixed by a superior court for the disposal of a suit adversely affect the validity of proceedings or judgments rendered thereafter?
  • Can a trial court's refusal to allow an expert witness sufficient time to prepare photographs and reports on disputed documents be sustained when it effectively denies a fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Parveen Akhtar vs Daniel Gulzar And AnotherK.L.R.1994 Civil Cases 438 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• Parks Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Director, Excise and Taxation And Other1994 CLC 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-08
  entertainment dutywrit petitionstatutory interpretationtax liabilitychair-lift operationspublic amusement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions challenging the imposition of entertainment duty by the Excise and Taxation Department on Chair-lift operations in Murree and Patriota. The petitioners argued that Chair-lift rides do not constitute 'entertainment' as defined under Section 2(d) of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, and therefore, they are not liable for such levies. The core legal question was whether the operation of a Chair-lift, which provides a joy-ride to the public upon payment, falls within the statutory ambit of entertainment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Chair-lift operations constitute entertainment subject to duty. The Court established that the statutory definition of 'entertainment' is not exhaustive and encompasses any organized amusement, recreation, or pastime where the public is admitted upon payment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual clauses cannot override statutory provisions regarding tax liability. Consequently, the Chair-lift service, being a form of public amusement and recreation, is liable to entertainment duty under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the operation of a Chair-lift constitute 'entertainment' under the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958?
  • Is the definition of 'entertainment' provided in the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, exhaustive?
  • Can contractual terms between a lessor and lessee override the statutory liability to pay entertainment duty under the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Defence Secretary vs Messrs Desert Cat And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 527 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1994 PLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21
  essential serviceslabour court jurisdictiongrievance petitionindustrial relationswrit jurisdictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain a grievance petition filed by an employee of the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, whose employment was governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, because the establishment was covered by the Essential Services Act. The core legal question was whether the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to an establishment automatically ousts the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to adjudicate grievance petitions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman, the High Court held that the Act only supersedes other laws to the extent of direct contrariety. It affirmed that the mere application of the Essential Services Act does not ipso facto oust the Labour Court's jurisdiction. The court established the principle that the Act's regulatory and punitive provisions do not encroach upon the adjudicatory setup for matters not specifically covered by the Act, allowing ordinary labour laws to apply.

  Questions settled

  • Does the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to an establishment automatically oust the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to hear grievance petitions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • To what extent do the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, supersede the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can a Labour Court adjudicate a grievance petition for an employee whose employment is covered by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others Med1994 PLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Sakiii Muhammad and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 338 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Sakhi Muhammad And 2 Others1994 PLC 383 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Sakhi Muhammad And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 338 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1994 PLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Javed Nasim & Co.1994 MLD 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Through The Divisional Superintendent, Lahore vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Through Chairman And 2 Others1994 PLC 505 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz Bibi vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 7) · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways And Another vs Muhammad Ilyas And 61 Other1994 CLC 795 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railway vs Kohinoor Oil Mills1994 MLD 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad And Others1994 PLC 573 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Fruit Juice Company Ltd., vs Zila Council Multan & KhaniwalK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 155 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Fruit Juice Company Ltd., Multan vs Zila Council Multan and Khanewal1994 MLD 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Packages Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1994 PLC 273 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
• P vs vK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
• P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Orient Match Company Limited, Shahdara, Lahore Through Managing1994PLC 517 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Oasim vs Fateh Sher Through Legal Heirs And Another1994 CLC 467 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Nusrat alias Nusree vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-29
  coram non judiceSpecial Court jurisdictionfirearms expertadditional evidenceactive role of courtillegal possession of armsremand for fresh trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 by a Special Court established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, for being in possession of an unlicensed Klashnikov rifle and ammunition. The appellant contended that the trial was coram non judice as the recovered weapon was neither a Klashnikov nor an automatic or semi-automatic weapon, which are prerequisites to invoke the jurisdiction of the Special Court. To resolve this, the High Court summoned an armourer as a firearms expert under additional evidence, who confirmed the weapon was an ordinary rifle. The High Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offence. The conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that courts must not act as passive spectators but have an active obligation under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 to unearth the truth, especially on jurisdictional facts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 has jurisdiction to try an offence involving a weapon that is neither automatic nor semi-automatic?
  • Can the testimony of ordinary police officers, who are not firearms experts, be sufficient to establish the specific nature and classification of a recovered weapon?
  • What is the duty of a trial court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 161 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 when the prosecution fails to produce expert evidence on a fact that determines the court's jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Nowsher vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Noor-Ul-Hassan vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 93) · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 556 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Chakwal and 7 others1994 PLD Lahore 170 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Chakwal And 7 Other1994 PLD Lahore 170 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad And 6 Other vs KhameesahK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 571 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Mohammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Mohammad vs Additional District Judge Aud OtherK.L.R.1994 Civil Cases 281 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Mahi vs Border Area Committee And Other.1994 CLC 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs Meraj Bibi1994 C L. C 479 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-17Read full judgment →
• Nishat Tek Limited, Lahore vs The Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Education,Islamabad And 3 Other1994 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Nishat Tek Limited, Lahore vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Education, Islamabad and 3 others1994 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Nishat Tek Limited Nishat House 53-Lawrence Road, Lahore vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Education Ministry of Education, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad, And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 111 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue through Member1994 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue Through Member1994 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Ltd. Nishatabad, Faisalabad vs The Federation of Pakistan1994 PLD Lahore 175 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Limited, Faisalabad vs The Central Board Of Revenue Through Member (Judicial) And OtherPTCL 1994 CL. 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Niaz Mohyuddin And Others vs Muhammad Yar And Other1994 CLC 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12
  civil revisionpart performanceunregistered sale agreementconcurrent findings of factrevisional jurisdictionconfirmation of possessionhandwriting expert
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court, which had decreed the respondent's suit for confirmation of possession and declaration of rights over a plot based on an unregistered sale agreement. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was maintainable in its present form given the unregistered nature of the document, and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's belated application to produce a handwriting expert. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the sale receipt, supported by consistent testimony of attesting witnesses, could not be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. The Court further held that the suit was maintainable because the plaintiff was using the doctrine of part performance as a shield to defend existing possession rather than as a sword to attack title. The key principle laid down is that a transferee in possession under an unregistered agreement to sell may maintain a suit for confirmation of possession under the doctrine of part performance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transferee in possession under an unregistered agreement to sell maintain a suit for confirmation of possession?
  • Does the doctrine of part performance allow a plaintiff to use an unregistered contract as a shield to defend possession?
  • Can a court in revisional jurisdiction interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a document?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Case 236 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs Secretary, Industries, Punjab1994 MLD 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →