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.

• Ittehad & Co. vs The Commissioner, Faisalabad and 3 others1994 PLD Lahore 29 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ittehad & Co. vs The Commissioner, Faisalabad And 3 Other1994 PLD Lahore 29 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
• Islamuddin vs Muniruddin and others1994 MLD 368 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Irshad Bibi vs AsadullahK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 420 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmad and others vs Muhammad Jamil and others1994 PLD Lahore 583 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmad And Other vs Muhammad Jamil And Other1994 PLD Lahore 583 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs Ashiq Hussain And Other1994 CLC 506 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs M/s. Brothers Sugar Mills1994 MLD 609 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-08Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Sheikh Impex1994 CLC 2334 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-18
  winding upcommercial insolvencyinability to pay debtsstatutory noticecorporate litigationcompetency of signatoryrecovery suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner-Bank sought the winding up of the respondent-Company, alleging its inability to pay debts under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The respondent contested the petition, challenging the competency of the signatory, arguing that winding-up proceedings are not a substitute for recovery suits, and claiming the loan was not yet due. The Court held that the petition was validly signed and filed by an authorized officer, noting that the principal is the only party with standing to challenge an agent's authority. Regarding the debt, the Court ruled that the respondent's failure to respond to a statutory notice under Section 306 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, coupled with evidence of substantial outstanding liabilities and the failure of the company's business model, rendered it unable to pay its debts. The Court affirmed that winding-up proceedings are a valid remedy for creditors and are not precluded by the availability of recovery suits. Consequently, the Court ordered the winding up of the respondent-Company on the grounds of commercial insolvency and the equitable necessity of the measure.

  Questions settled

  • Can a company be wound up if it fails to pay its debts after receiving a statutory notice under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Is a winding-up petition a valid legal remedy for a creditor, or is it precluded by the availability of a recovery suit?
  • Who has the locus standi to challenge the authority of an officer signing a legal petition on behalf of a corporation?
  • Does the failure to specify payment dates in a loan agreement prevent a creditor from seeking winding up if the borrower is otherwise insolvent?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Butt vs Umar Hayat Khan And 2 Other1994 CLC 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11
  ejectment applicationlandlord-tenant relationshipidentity of propertyrent controller jurisdictiontitle disputewrit petitionrent note
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an appellate order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which had reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment application. The core dispute involved the identity of the property and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord alleged the petitioner was a tenant based on a rent note, while the petitioner claimed ownership of the property in his possession, asserting it was built on land purchased in 1965. The High Court observed that the rent note lacked specific property identification, and the evidence regarding the property's description was contradictory and confusing. The Court held that while a Rent Controller may inquire into title to determine jurisdiction, they must refrain from deciding complex title disputes. When the question of title becomes intricate and fundamental to the litigation, the Rent Controller should stay proceedings and refer the parties to a civil court. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate order, and directed the landlord to establish title before a competent civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller decide complex questions of title in an ejectment proceeding?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for a Rent Controller when a dispute regarding property title becomes complex?
  • Does the service of process at a specific address by itself determine the identity of the property in a rent dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminall Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• In the matter of Taj Company vs N/APTCL 1994 CL. 136 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-26Read full judgment →
• In Re: Taj Company Ltd. vs Not1994 CLC 2197 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-22Read full judgment →
• Import Agencies and others vs Special Judge1994 MLD 2207 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
• Ilam Din Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 519 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-10Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs Muhammad Afzal Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 211 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad vs Government of Punjab1994 PLC (C.S.) 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ihtisijamul Haq vs Rent Controller, Sialkot And Another1994 CLC 465 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Alias Tinda vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 344 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar alias Gutto vs The State1994 MLD 988 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ali vs Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Subdivision, Tehsil1994 MLD 2364 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Idrees Ahmad Nasir vs The State1994 MLD 982 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-23Read full judgment →
• ICI Pakistan Ltd./Soda Ash Works, Khewra, District Jhelum vs Zila1994 MLD 235 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
• I Fazal Muhammad Khan Through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Biro And Other1994 CLC 2147 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Hydari Construction Co. Ltd. vs D.G. Khan Cement Ltd.1994 MLD 98 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bakhsh And 12 Others vs Abdul Hamid And 4 Other1994 CLC 644 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-01Read full judgment →
• Hiroku Muhammad vs Muhammad Latif1994 MLD 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-30
  habeas corpuschild custodynatural guardianSection 491 Cr.P.C.welfare of the minorsummary jurisdictionGuardians and Wards Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the restoration of a six-year-old minor to the petitioner-mother, alleging the respondent-father forcibly removed the child. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the father is the natural guardian and that concurrent proceedings were pending before the Guardian Judge. The Court rejected these objections, holding that the pendency of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed that while Section 491 proceedings are summary and do not constitute a final determination of custody, the Court may intervene in exceptional circumstances, particularly where a minor is removed from custody through force, fraud, or deceit, or where the welfare of the minor demands immediate action. Consequently, the Court ordered the restoration of custody to the mother, noting the minor's tender age and the absence of a suitable substitute for maternal care, without prejudice to the respondent’s right to seek permanent custody through the appropriate family court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 bar the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding minor custody?
  • Can a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained against a natural guardian for the restoration of a minor's custody?
  • In what circumstances can a High Court exercise its summary jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Heeray Khan vs Khushi Muhammad1994 MLD 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Hedayat Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 494 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Gul Khan vs Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 459 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
• Hassu Khan alias Ghulam Hassan Khan vs Muhammad Amin and 6 others1994 PLD Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Hassu Khan Alias Ghulam Hassan Khan vs Muhammad Amin And 6 Other1994 PLD Lahore 24 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Hassan Nawaz Khan vs Municipal Corporation, Multan through Mayor1994 MLD 1495 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
• Hassan Muhammad and 6 others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and 5 others1994 MLD 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• Hassan Masood Malik vs Additional District Judge and others1994 MLD 1877 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Hassan Din And Another vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Lahore1994 CLC 1660 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
• Hassan Amir and others vs Collector and others1994 MLD 552 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Hass an Masood Malik vs Addl. Distt. Judge, Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 332 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Hashir Ahmad vs (Ms!) Uozlna ShaheenK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 508 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs Malik Gul Hussain through Legal Heirs and another1994 MLD 585 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26
  Regular Second Appeallis pendensconfessional decreeRoznamcha waqiatipublic documentbona fide purchaserTransfer of Property Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arose from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which had decreed the respondents' suit challenging a confessional decree obtained by the appellant. The core legal question concerned the priority between two competing confessional decrees and transactions over the same land, specifically involving the doctrine of lis pendens and the admissibility of public documents. The Lahore High Court held that a transaction and subsequent decree obtained by the respondents during the pendency of the appellant's earlier-filed suit were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, and that an entry in the Roznamcha waqiati maintained under the Land Record Manual was a public document admissible per se under the Qanun-e-Shahadat without formal proof by the Patwari. The court laid down the principle that a transaction by a party during the pendency of a rival suit cannot create rights to the detriment of the other party, and that copies of official revenue Roznamchas are admissible in evidence as public documents without requiring the authoring Patwari to be examined.

  Questions settled

  • Does a transaction made by a party during the pendency of a rival suit create rights affecting the opposite side?
  • Whether a copy of the Roznamcha waqiati maintained under the Land Record Manual is admissible as a public document without formal examination of the Patwari?
  • Can a plea regarding the applicability of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act be raised in second appeal if it was pleaded in the written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Dad vs Mst. Sawani And 2 Other1994 CLC 32 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
• Hamid Ullah Shah vs House Building Finance Corporation1994 MLD 717 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Saif-Ur-Rehman vs D.H.O., Sargodha And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 447 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Saeed vs House Building Finance Corporation1994 CLC 183 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-21Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs Zafar Iqbal And Other1994 CLC 198 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-12Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs Din Muhamnlad1994 CLC 879 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali And Others vs Muhammad Ashraf1994 CLC 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Karim And 7 Others vs Chairman/Members, Ushr and Zakat1994 CLC 272 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs Govt. Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 413 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Siddique vs Province of Punjab and others1994 MLD 821 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Khalid Alais Khalu And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 157 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Latif vs Farman Ali1994 PLD Lahore 40 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Din And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 208 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad And Another vs Government of the Punjab Through Collector, District Kasur And Another1994 CLC 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07
  civil revisionplaint rejectionOrder VII Rule 11 CPCinherent jurisdictionfrivolous litigationstate landsub-tenancytitle to landperpetual injunctiondeclaration suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition, filed under Section 115, Civil P.C., challenged the concurrent decisions of the lower courts to summarily reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Civil P.C. The petitioners, claiming to be sub-tenants of State land, sought a declaration and perpetual injunction after the original allotment to Muhammad Sharif was resumed and upheld through the revenue hierarchy, a withdrawn writ petition, and a civil suit whose rejection was upheld up to the High Court. The core legal question was whether the plaint, lacking a discernible title, could be summarily rejected. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that the lower courts rightly rejected the meritless litigation at its inception. The judgment held that courts can summarily reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Civil P.C., or by exercising inherent jurisdiction, to prevent frivolous litigation, especially when plaintiffs lack a recognizable right or title to the property.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court summarily reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when the plaintiffs lack a recognizable title to the property?
  • Are the provisions of Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, exhaustive of all situations where a plaint can be summarily rejected?
  • Can a court exercise its inherent jurisdiction to reject a plaint at its inception to prevent frivolous litigation?
  • Whether alleged sub-tenants can maintain a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction over State land when the original allotment to their lessor has been lawfully resumed and upheld through various forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Afzal And Others vs Cantonment Board1994 CLC 220 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Inayat Ali vs Mineral Development and Industry Department1994 CLC 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Majid vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1994 PLD Lahore 267 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-22Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Asif And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 161 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Haji Ahmad vs Mst. Kishwar Sultana1994 MLD 1144 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Abdul Rehman and 3 others vs Rent Controller, Lahore and 21994 MLD 1945 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and others vs The State1994 MLD 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• Habib-Ul-Wahab-Al Khar1 vs Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 28 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Habib Ur Rehman vs Haji Muhammad Saleem And 2 Other1994 CLC 1885 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah And Others vs Additional Commissioner. (Revenue) And Other1994 CLC 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
• Habib Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 155 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-20Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank vs Humayun Badsha1994 PLC 403 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs P.L.A.T. And Others.1994 PLC 766 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited and 2 others vs Major Nasim Ahmad1994 PLD Lahore 119 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05
  doctrine of mergerdismissal in liminefraud and misrepresentationwant of jurisdictioncivil revisionappellate decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision matter addresses the proper forum for filing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in cases where judgments have been appealed or subject to revision. The core legal question was whether a trial court judgment merges into an appellate or revisional order when the revision is dismissed in limine, thereby determining which court holds jurisdiction to entertain an application challenging a decree on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that for the doctrine of merger to apply and render an appellate or revisional court's judgment the 'final' one, the matter must have been heard and decided on merits after notice to the opposing party. If a revision petition is dismissed in limine without a hearing on merits, the decree of the lower appellate court remains the final judgment. The key principle laid down is that an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be filed before the court that passed the final judgment or decree, which, in the case of a limine dismissal of a revision, is the lower appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a civil revision in limine attract the principle of merger?
  • Which court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an appellate decree is challenged?
  • Does a judgment passed in a revision dismissed without notice and hearing on merits constitute a final judgment for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited And 2 Other vs Major Nasim AhmadK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 293 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 163 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Lahore1994 MLD 640 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab and others vs Abdul Jabbar and others1994 MLD 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
• Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited through General Manager vs Syed Manzar Abbas through Legal Heirs1994 MLD 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yaseen and 2 others vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29
  ghairatgrave and sudden provocationqatl-e-amdislamic injunctionsreduction of sentenceocular testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected revision petition arose from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting three appellants under section 302(b)(c)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of one Ghulam Akbar Khan, sentencing each to twenty-five years' rigorous imprisonment, while the complainant sought death enhancement. The core legal question was whether a murder committed on account of grave and sudden provocation arising from 'Ghairat' (grave and sudden provocation/honor) upon finding the deceased in an objectionable condition with a close female relative justifies a lesser punishment under Islamic injunctions pursuant to section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court held that while the statute lacked explicit provisions for Qatl committed under Ghairat, courts are bound under section 338-F to be guided by the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. The Court concluded that such homicide does not constitute pure Qatl-e-Amd punishable with Qisas and converted the conviction to section 302(c)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence of each appellant to five years' rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a murder committed on account of Ghairat upon discovering a close female relative in an objectionable condition warrants a lesser punishment under Islamic injunctions?
  • Can courts be guided by the Injunctions of Islam under section 338-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when specific statutory provisions are silent regarding homicides committed under grave and sudden provocation?
  • Whether a conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be converted to section 302(c) in cases of Qatl committed due to grave and sudden provocation?
  • Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when their sentence is reduced on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar and 3 others vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1994 MLD 1927 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sakina Alias Sakina Bibi vs Muhammad Salim1994 CLC 1355 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and others vs Sher Muhammad and others1994 MLD 950 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1994 MLD 1531 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Azhar And Other1994 CLC 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Govt. of PunjabK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 415 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Additional District Judge, Narowal And Another1994 CLC 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-24
  pre-emptionfunctus officiodeposit of pre-emption moneyconstitutional jurisdictionex parte decreeextension of timecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by an Additional District Judge, which granted an extension of time to a pre-emptor for depositing pre-emption money. The core legal question is whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to extend the time fixed for depositing pre-emption money after a decree has been passed, or if the court becomes functus officio. The Lahore High Court held that once a pre-emption decree is passed, the trial court becomes functus officio and lacks the jurisdiction to extend the time prescribed for the deposit of pre-emption money. The court emphasized that a pre-emptor is bound to comply with the terms of the decree at their own peril; failure to deposit the money within the stipulated time results in the dismissal of the suit. Consequently, the High Court set aside the revisional order, affirming that the trial court correctly refused the extension. The judgment reaffirms the principle that statutory time limits in pre-emption decrees cannot be extended by the trial court under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the jurisdiction to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money after passing a decree?
  • Does the filing of an appeal against a decree automatically suspend the operation of the decree or stay the proceedings?
  • Is an order refusing to extend the time for the deposit of pre-emption money appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 2 others vs Mst. Moondan and 3 others1994 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool And 2 Other vs Mst. Moondan And 3 Other1994 PLD Lahore 274 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim Etc. vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 65) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Nawab Din and others1994 MLD 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Khan And Others vs Ahmad Nawaz Khan And Other1994 CLC 1118 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Gul Mohammad And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 251 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Mst. Manzooran Bibi and others1994 MLD 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs District Education Officer1994 PLC (C.S.) 795 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Karim Bibi1994 MLD 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Baloch vs Muhammad Latif And Another1994 CLC 472 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad And Others vs Munir Ahmad Shah And Other1994 CLC 14 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25
  withdrawal of suitformal defectsprocedural justiceinterlocutory orderwrit jurisdictionplaint amendmentcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the trial court and the revisional court, which had refused the petitioners' application to withdraw their civil suit with permission to file a fresh one. The core legal question was whether the court should allow the withdrawal of a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when the plaint contains formal defects, omissions, or incorrect averments, even after evidence has been recorded. The Court held that procedural provisions should not obstruct the administration of justice. It determined that where a plaint suffers from formal defects or inaccuracies that would necessitate a fresh suit to resolve the controversy on merits, the court should be liberal in granting permission to withdraw. The Court concluded that the lower courts acted against the spirit of the law by prioritizing technicalities over justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, allowing the petitioners to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one, emphasizing that procedural rules are meant to facilitate, not hinder, the resolution of disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court allow the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh one if the plaint contains formal defects or omissions?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order if the alleged wrong cannot be remedied in subsequent appellate proceedings?
  • Does the recording of evidence in a civil suit automatically bar the court from granting permission to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Under what circumstances should a court exercise its discretion to allow the withdrawal of a suit to prevent a technical knock-out of a party's claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and others vs Mst. Sharifan Bibi1994 MLD 1978 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad And Others vs Allah Wasaya Through Legal Heirs1994 CLC 1162 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohy-Ud-Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Khalid vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 564 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jeelani And Others vs Member, Board of Revenue1994 CLC 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The StateK.L.R 1994 Criminal Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Deceased Representd by His Leagal Heir Mst. HamidK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 252 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →