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.

• Muhammad Sadiq And Another vs Muhammad Nawaz And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 25) · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadio vs Aslam Baig And Other1994 CLC 75 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs The State1994 MLD 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Muhammad Abid Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 514 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Razia Nishat and others1994 MLD 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-18
  restoration of suitnon-prosecutionabatementlegal representativeslimitationconstitutional petitioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts restoring a civil suit for possession that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The original plaintiff had died, and despite the counsel informing the court of the demise, the suit was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance. The legal representatives later applied for restoration, which was allowed. The petitioner argued that the restoration application was barred by limitation and lacked sufficient cause. The High Court analyzed the post-1972 amendments to Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, noting that the concept of abatement was abolished and the list of legal representatives was already on record. The Court held that since the plaintiff was dead, the counsel's authority had terminated, and default in appearance could not ground a dismissal for non-prosecution. Consequently, Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applied instead of Order XXII Rule 9, making Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable. Finding sufficient cause for delay, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a sole plaintiff terminate the authority of their counsel such that subsequent non-appearance cannot ground a dismissal for non-prosecution?
  • Which provision of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to the restoration of a suit dismissed for default after the death of the plaintiff where the names of legal representatives are already on file?
  • Is Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to applications for restoration of a suit filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in circumstances involving the death of a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Judge, Family Court And Another1994 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Aslam vs Muhammad Akhtar And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 232 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Reran Tayyab vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education and 2 others1994 MLD 539 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid And Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1994 CLC 62 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and 4 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 others1994 MLD 161 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 68) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs S.H.O. and others1994 MLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Rahim Bakhsh And Other1994 CLC 1587 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 183 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs The State1994 MLD 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqi and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Salim Ahmad And Other1994 CLC 1683 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12
  consolidation of suitsmisjoinder of causes of actionwaiver of objectionprocedural irregularitycivil revisionsecond revision barred
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute arose over land measuring 8 kanals, involving a regular declaratory suit filed by the petitioner and a possessory suit filed by the respondents under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The trial court consolidated the suits, recorded evidence, dismissed the petitioner's suit, and decreed the respondents' suit. The lower appellate court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent appeal and revision. In the present civil revision, the petitioner contended that the consolidation of the suits was illegal because no appeal lies against a decree under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Lahore High Court held that any procedural irregularity regarding the consolidation of suits is cured under section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if not objected to at the earliest opportunity, and that such an objection is deemed waived under Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court further ruled that a second revision petition is barred under section 115(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the consolidation of a regular suit with a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 constitutes a curable procedural irregularity under section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does failure to object to the consolidation of suits at the earliest opportunity amount to a waiver under Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a second civil revision petition maintainable in view of section 115(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Mst. Nawab Begum and 5 others1994 MLD 142 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Malik Sikandar And Other1994 CLC 2300 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14
  property transfersettlement schemeground to sky principleownership rightswrit jurisdictioncomposite building
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition concerns a property dispute regarding the ownership of the roof of Shop No. 5, situated within a composite building in Lahore. The petitioner, having been transferred Shop No. 5 by the Settlement Authorities in 1974, challenged subsequent orders from 1980 and 1981 that transferred the roofs of all seven ground-floor shops, including his own, to the respondent. The core legal question was whether the transfer of a shop under the Settlement Scheme, without explicit mention of the roof, includes the roof by operation of law. The Court held that the transfer of a shop inherently includes the space from ground to sky unless specified otherwise. Consequently, the impugned orders transferring the roof of the petitioner's shop to the respondent were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court affirmed the principle that the transfer of a shop, absent specific exclusion, conveys ownership from the ground to the sky, entitling the shop owner to the roof above their specific unit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transfer of a shop under the Settlement Scheme include the roof of that shop if not explicitly mentioned?
  • Is the transfer of a shop considered a transfer from ground to sky in the absence of contrary specifications?
  • Can settlement authorities transfer the roof of a shop to a third party after the shop has already been transferred to the occupant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Khan vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq (Died) Etc. vs (Mst.) Nawab Begum (Died) Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi vs The Provincial Chief (Punjab) M.E.B., Habib Bank1994 PLC 690 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Yaqoob Khan And Other1994 CLC 12 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02
  temporary injunctionspecific performancebalance considerationagreement to sellcivil appealdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged the trial court order granting a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, subject to the condition of depositing the balance sale consideration by a specified date. The core legal question was whether a court can lawfully subject the grant of a temporary injunction in a specific performance suit to the deposit of outstanding sale consideration, and whether the time for such deposit could be extended. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's approach was correct and well-founded, reaffirming the principle that equitable relief of temporary injunction in specific performance matters must be conditioned upon the deposit of the balance consideration to safeguard the property owner's interests and test the plaintiff's earnestness. The appeal was dismissed in limine, with the observation that the appellant could approach the trial court for a fresh application or extension of time.

  Questions settled

  • Can the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance be subjected to the deposit of the balance sale consideration?
  • What is the effect of a default in depositing the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time under a conditional temporary injunction order?
  • Can a plaintiff move a fresh application for a temporary injunction or seek an extension of time after defaulting on the initial conditional order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir And Others vs Malli1994 CLC 1687 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12
  mortgage redemptionsecond appealconcurrent findingsregistration of documentsoral mortgagemortgagee rightsadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a dispute regarding the redemption of a mortgage on agricultural land. The appellants challenged concurrent findings of the lower courts, which held that the mortgage had been redeemed upon payment of the mortgage money, as evidenced by a receipt. The core legal questions were whether the concurrent findings of fact suffered from illegality and whether the receipt evidencing the redemption required registration under the Registration Act 1908. The Court held that the concurrent findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from misreading or non-reading of material facts. Regarding the registration issue, the Court determined that since the Transfer of Property Act 1882 provisions requiring registered mortgage deeds were not applicable to rural Punjab, the mortgage could be created orally. Consequently, the extinguishment of such mortgagee rights did not necessitate a registered document. The Court affirmed that a receipt evidencing payment of mortgage money is admissible to prove redemption even if it mentions the extinguishment of rights, provided the underlying mortgage did not require registration. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a receipt evidencing the payment of mortgage money require registration if the original mortgage was created orally?
  • Are the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 regarding registered mortgages applicable to rural areas in Punjab?
  • Can a document that is not registered be used to prove the payment of mortgage money?
  • Does a concurrent finding of fact regarding mortgage redemption require interference in a second appeal if no misreading of evidence is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazar Qureshi Hashmi vs Shaukat Ali And 3 OtherPLD 1994 Lahore 374. · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-21
  civil revisionclosing of evidencesummoned witnesscoercive measuresexpeditious disposaldue processtrial court management
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Civil Judge, Faisalabad, which closed the plaintiff-petitioner's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in closing a party's evidence when a summoned witness fails to appear, despite the court's prior direction to dispose of the suit within a specific timeframe. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's order was illegal. The Court established that when a party has summoned a witness who fails to appear, the primary duty lies with the court to secure that witness's attendance through coercive measures, such as warrants, rather than penalizing the party by closing their evidence. The Court further clarified that directions from superior courts to expedite case disposal are intended to facilitate justice, not to serve as a pretext for 'guillotining' a case or denying parties their right to present evidence. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the trial court was directed to secure the witness's attendance via special messenger.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority to close a party's evidence when a summoned witness fails to appear?
  • Is it the duty of the court or the party to secure the attendance of a summoned witness who fails to appear?
  • Can a court use a superior court's direction for expeditious disposal of a suit as a justification to close a party's evidence prematurely?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R.1994 Criminal Cases 361 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Sh. Muhammad Gulzar and another1994 MLD 569 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Fida Hussain And Another1994 CLC 1487 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-09
  pre-emptionspecific performanceco-sharertenancylimitationregular second appealsuperior pre-emptive right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Regular Second Appeals arising from a suit for pre-emption filed by the respondents against the appellant. The appellant acquired land through a court decree for specific performance of a contract. The respondents, as heirs of the vendors, sought to pre-empt the sale. The core legal questions were whether a sale executed via a specific performance decree is exempt from pre-emption, whether a co-sharer in possession of land qualifies as a tenant to claim superior pre-emptive rights, and whether the suit was time-barred. The Lahore High Court held that sales executed in pursuance of a decree for specific performance are not exempt from pre-emption, as such transactions are effectively voluntary sales. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a co-sharer in possession of land does not hold the status of a tenant, and thus cannot claim superior pre-emptive rights based on tenancy. The Court concluded that the suit was filed within the limitation period, as time runs from the execution of the sale-deed, and dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower appellate court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sale-deed executed in pursuance of a decree for specific performance of contract exempt from pre-emption?
  • Does a co-sharer in possession of land qualify as a tenant for the purpose of claiming superior pre-emptive rights?
  • From what date does the limitation period commence for a pre-emption suit involving a sale-deed executed under a court decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Others vs Mutalli And Other1994 CLC 894 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 82 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasib vs Hajan Janat Bibi1994 MLD 57 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustaq vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 39) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs Divisional Canal Officer EtcK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 570 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq Bhutta vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1994 PLC 745 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz Ul Islam And 4 Others vs Additional Settlement1994 CLC 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muazzam Tanvir vs Province of the Punjab Through Secretary, Communication And Works Department, Lahore And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin vs Umar HayatK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 334 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moezzem Tanveer vs Government of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 209 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs Mst. Irshad and others1994 MLD 136 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs S.H.O, And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 58 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 189 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Din1994 CLC 52 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Amir And 3 Other1994 CLC 2238 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Mst. Akbari And 10 Other1994 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-21
  civil revisionconstructive res judicataland allotmentfinality of judgmentre-litigationrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from the dismissal of a suit by the trial court and the appellate court, wherein the petitioner challenged the respondents' land allotment. The petitioner, claiming possession since 1958 and an allotment in his favor, sought to contest the respondents' title, which had been upheld in previous litigation culminating in a Supreme Court decision. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could re-litigate the validity of the respondents' allotment and assert his own title based on subsequent mutations and payments, despite the finality of the previous judicial proceedings. The Court held that the petitioner's claims were barred by the principle of constructive res judicata, as the controversy had been finalized at the highest forum. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could not re-agitate issues that were or could have been raised in earlier proceedings. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine, with the Court noting that the petitioner's attempt to repudiate the findings of the High Court and the Supreme Court was legally untenable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata bar a party from re-litigating land allotment issues already decided by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a party challenge a land title based on new arguments that were available but not raised in previous rounds of litigation?
  • Is a civil suit maintainable to challenge the implementation of a final judgment passed by the High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 316 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and others vs Muhammad Boota and others1994 MLD 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27
  specific performanceagreement to sellburden of proofadverse inferenceexecution of documentcivil revisionappellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the appellate court's judgment which reversed a trial court's decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs had sufficiently proved the execution of the alleged agreement to sell (Exh.P1) in light of suspicious circumstances and conflicting evidence. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, holding that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the document's execution. The Court emphasized that the failure to produce the scribe and key marginal witnesses, the use of plain paper instead of a formal deed, and the lack of expert verification of thumb impressions created significant doubts. The key principle laid down is that where the execution of a document is disputed, the burden of proof lies squarely on the party relying on it, and they must exhaust all satisfactory modes of proof, including producing the scribe and marginal witnesses, to remove doubts and suspicions surrounding the document's authenticity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to produce the scribe and marginal witnesses of a disputed agreement to sell create an adverse inference against the party relying on the document?
  • Is a party required to prove the execution of an agreement to sell by expert verification of thumb impressions when the document's genuineness is challenged?
  • Can a party rely on the opposing party's failure to call a witness when the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the document's validity?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Numan Alias Kaku Butt vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 267 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 185 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Sabir Hussain And 12 Other1994 CLC 1343 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Qureshi vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment Division, Civil Secretariat, Islamabad And 4 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 582 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jewan Bhatti vs Muhammad Raf10 Chaudhary1994 CLC 1782 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jawaid vs Haji Suleman Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 234 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1994 PLC 696 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid and others vs Water and Power Development1994 PLD Lahore 163 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid And Other vs Water and Power Development1994 PLD Lahore 163 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid And Other vs Water and Power DevelopmentK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 372 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 81) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Pakistan Railways1994 PLC 537 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Pakistan Railway Board And Other1994 CLC 848 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01
  writ jurisdictioncontractual obligationsconstitutional petitionspecific performancemaintainabilitytender cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the cancellation of a letter of acceptance for a container handling contract by Pakistan Railways. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its constitutional writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations or adjudicate the validity of a contract's cancellation. The Court held that the dispute was fundamentally contractual in nature, arising from the exchange of correspondence between the parties. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, as the High Court does not exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations or adjudicate disputes where an alternative remedy lies in a suit for damages. The key principle laid down is that matters involving the specific enforcement of contracts or the legality of their cancellation are outside the scope of writ jurisdiction and must be pursued through courts of plenary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to seek appropriate civil remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to enforce contractual obligations?
  • Is a petition challenging the cancellation of a contract by a state entity maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the remedy for the alleged illegal cancellation of a contract lie in a writ petition or a suit for damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir vs Secretary, Education Department1994 PLC (C.S.) 290 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Mukhtar Ahmad1994 CLC 365 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Mukhtar Ahmad and another1994 MLD 402 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02
  pre-emption suitcourt-fee deficiencyminority statusvaluation of suitcivil revisionrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land, where the petitioner challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts that had decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. The core legal questions involved whether the plaintiffs were minors at the time of filing, thereby lacking the capacity to sue without a next friend, and whether the plaint was properly valued for court-fee purposes. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of minority, as no evidence was tendered, and identity documents confirmed the respondents were of legal age. Regarding the court-fee, the Court determined that the initial assessment was insufficient under the Punjab Finance Act, 1973. The Court affirmed that penal action for insufficient court-fee is improper without a prior judicial determination of the precise deficiency and an opportunity for the party to rectify it. Consequently, the Court exercised its power under Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, directing the respondents to pay the deficit court-fee by a specified date, failing which the plaint would be rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reject a plaint for insufficient court-fee without first determining the precise deficiency and granting an opportunity to make it good?
  • Does the failure of a defendant to press an issue regarding the minority of plaintiffs at the trial stage preclude raising it in revision?
  • Is a court empowered to allow the payment of deficit court-fee in a pre-emption suit under Section 12(2) of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Member (Judicial II), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 3 Other1994 CLC 913 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail And Others vs Additional Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 109 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Islam vs Muhammad Rafiq1994 CLC 2293 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishfaq Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 153 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Administrator (PR) And Other1994 CLC 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13
  civil revisionlimitationrefiling delayfake medical certificatesEvacuee Trust Propertynon-joinder of necessary partydismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision was filed against concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the plaintiff-petitioner's suit challenging orders passed by the Administrator (Residual Properties) and the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board. The petitioner claimed ownership of a plot transferred to him by a Deputy Administrator, which was subsequently cancelled upon finding that the plot constituted Evacuee Trust Property already dealt with under an earlier order. The High Court observed that the revision petition was heavily time-barred. The delay was inadequately explained, as the petitioner relied on consecutive medical certificates found by the Court to be fake documents, and failed to account for a three-month delay in refiling after objection removal. On the merits, the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned administrative orders or the lower courts' concurrent findings, noting also that the petitioner had failed to implead a necessary party who had previously obtained an ejectment order against him. The High Court dismissed the revision both on limitation and on merits, while directing disciplinary proceedings against the medical practitioner for issuing false certificates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil revision petition can be dismissed on the ground of limitation where delay in filing and refiling is supported by false medical certificates?
  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing a civil suit challenging administrative orders regarding evacuee trust property warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and others vs The State1994 MLD 1299 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 169 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Faisal vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1994 MLD 1499 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Vice Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur1994 CLC 1922 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 125) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 151 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Jamadar Ghulam Ghaus Through Legal Heirs1994 CLC 436 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Khalid vs Chairman, P.L.A.T. And Others1994 PLC 535 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And Others vs Deputy Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 2304 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others vs The State1994 MLD 973 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ijazulislam vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1994 MLD 1232 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ihsan vs Muhammad Imran Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 188 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ihsan vs Muhammad HafeezK.L.R. 1994 CivU Cases 442 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim And Others vs Chief Settlement Commisshoner And Other1994 CLC 2206 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 226 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Kamalia And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 793 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Butt vs Zii.a Council And Other1994 CLC 502 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs Sultan Ahmad and others1994 MLD 566 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs Mst.Rasool Bibi1994 MLD 745 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 441 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 380 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 395 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1994 MLD 1777 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Nishat Ahmad1994 CLC 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22
  second appealland reformssubsistence holdingseverability of contractmutation reviewaudi alteram partemlimitationdeclaration of ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This second civil appeal arose from a suit for a declaration of ownership and possession over 35 Kanals and 11 Marlas of agricultural land purchased by the appellants via a registered sale-deed. The sale mutation was subsequently reviewed and rejected en bloc by the revenue authorities on the ground that it violated the subsistence holding restrictions under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1959. Consequently, the vendor sold the entire holding to the contesting respondents. The trial court partially decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed it in its entirety. The High Court analyzed the severability of the transaction and held that only the portion of the sale reducing the vendor's holding below the subsistence level (4 Kanals, 8 Marlas) was invalid, while the remaining 31 Kanals and 3 Marlas constituted a valid transaction. The Court further ruled that the review of the mutation was illegal as it was conducted without notice to the appellants. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed to the extent of 31 Kanals and 3 Marlas.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sale transaction that partially violates the subsistence holding restrictions under the Land Reforms Regulation 1959 is void in its entirety or can be severed to protect the valid portion?
  • Can a revenue officer review and reject a registered sale mutation without providing notice or an opportunity of being heard to the affected vendees?
  • Whether an alternative plea for the return of the sale price in an amended plaint operates as an abandonment of the primary relief of declaration of ownership?
  • Can a party re-urge an objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in a second appeal if they had expressly conceded the point before the trial court and abandoned it in the first appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Qasmi vs Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Proprietor, Sial1994 MLD 268 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Khan vs The Administrator (Residual Property), Rawalpindi And 11 Other1994 CLC 633 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat And Others vs Addl. S.C./D.C., Sialkot And Other1994 CLC 170 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →