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.

• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Champion Paint Industries1994 PTD 713 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mst. Saeeda Nasreen1994 PTD 949 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26
  tax referencefinding of factincome tax assessmentinspecting assistant commissionerincome tax appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves tax references arising from additions made to income from immovable property under Section 4(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, following communications between the Income Tax Officer and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Commissioner deleted the additions on the ground that they could not be made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal as well as its reference application. The Lahore High Court examined the record and noted that the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the relevant letter from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not contain any valid approval or direction, and that the crucial words had been subsequently interpolated with different ink. The Court held that findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are binding in reference proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and since no question of law truly arose from the established facts, the reference applications were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding of fact recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is binding in reference proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner can originate additions under section 4(2D) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
  • Whether statutory approval granted by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for making additions is valid in the absence of prescribed language?
  Read full judgment →
• Commercial Union Insurance Company vs Collector, Customs and others1994 MLD 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-30Read full judgment →
• Chuttan Khan vs Ba.C1994 CLC 67 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Chuttan Khan vs Ba.C+D75561994 CLC 67 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Chiragh vs The State1994 MLD 1783 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab, Aiwan E Auqaf, Lahore vs Additional Secretary to the Government of Pakistan1994 CLC 628 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab vs The Federal Land Commission1994 PLD Lahore 50 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Haq Nawaz Chohan vs Chaudhry Tariq Azam And 43 Other1994 CLC 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19
  civil revisionexecution proceedingspartition decreearbitration awardexecuting court jurisdictiongoing behind the decreerule of courtSection 47 Arbitration Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from execution proceedings concerning a final partition decree of joint urban property in Rawalpindi. During execution, the executing Court, with the consent of all parties, referred the matter to a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator submitted an award that materially altered the property allocations made in the final decree. The petitioner filed objections to the award, but the executing Court made it a rule of the Court, superseding the original decree, which decision was affirmed on appeal. The core legal questions were whether an executing Court has statutory authority to refer disputes to arbitration, whether an award altering a final decree can be made a rule of Court without post-award consent under Section 47 of the Arbitration Act 1940, and whether an executing Court can go behind the decree. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision, set aside the lower courts' orders, and held that an executing Court lacks jurisdiction to refer execution disputes to arbitration. An award obtained without Court intervention requires consent of all interested parties after it is rendered to act as a compromise under Section 47, Arbitration Act 1940. Further, an executing Court cannot go behind or materially vary a final decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does an executing Court have jurisdiction to refer execution disputes to arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Can an arbitration award obtained without Court intervention in execution proceedings be made a rule of Court without post-award consent of all parties?
  • Can an executing Court go behind or materially vary a final decree passed in a suit?
  • Does participating in arbitration proceedings before an executing Court create an estoppel against challenging the Court's inherent lack of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Nazir Ahmad vs Mrs. Mariam Salauddin Khawaja and others1994 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Nazir Ahmad vs Mrs. Mariam Salauddin Khawaja And Other1994 PLD Lahore 252 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Municipal Committee, Brakkar vs Shamsi Industries And Other1994 CLC 143 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sultan Ahmad through Legal Heir and others vs Salima Begum and others1994 PLD Lahore 111 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-10
  pre-emption suitpartial pre-emptioncause titleplaintprocedural irregularitylimitationpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the defendants alleged that the omission of one vendee's name from the cause title of the plaint, later allegedly interpolated, rendered the suit time-barred and liable to dismissal for partial pre-emption. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this, finding the suit untenable. The High Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the omission of a defendant's name in the cause title, despite being mentioned in the body of the plaint, constitutes a fatal defect. The Court held that the cause title is not the sole determinant of the parties to a suit; rather, the entire plaint must be examined to discover the nature of the dispute and the parties involved. Consequently, the Court ruled that such an omission is a curable irregularity under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, provided the body of the plaint sufficiently identifies all defendants and the relief claimed, thereby preventing the suit from failing on technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the omission of a defendant's name in the cause title of a plaint render a pre-emption suit liable to dismissal for partial pre-emption?
  • Can a court look beyond the cause title of a plaint to determine the parties to a suit?
  • Is an irregularity in the cause title of a plaint curable under Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• District Council Sheikhupura vs Dost MuhammadK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 227 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shujat Hussain and anothers vs Mian Aslam Riaz Hussain and others1994 MLD 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Nazir Ahmad vs Mrs. S. Mariam Salahuddin Khawaja1994 MLD 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-02
  ejectment petitionbona fide personal uselandlord residing abroadrent restrictionburden of proofCantonments Rent Restriction Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, challenges an ejectment order passed by an Additional Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether the landlady’s requirement for the premises for personal use was bona fide, given that she and her family were residing abroad in the USA. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Rent Controller's finding that the landlady's requirement was bona fide. The Court held that a landlord residing abroad is not legally barred from seeking eviction for personal use, provided there is evidence of an intent to return. It established that the sole statement of a landlord, if credible and supported by documentation, is sufficient to prove personal need without requiring further corroboration. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that statutory safeguards, specifically Section 17(6) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, exist to prevent the misuse of personal use claims, allowing tenants to seek restoration of possession if the landlord fails to occupy the premises after obtaining vacant possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord residing abroad seek eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bona fide personal use?
  • Is the sole statement of a landlord sufficient to prove the requirement of personal use in an ejectment petition?
  • Does the law require a landlord to prove personal use through a specific number of witnesses?
  • What is the remedy for a tenant if a landlord fails to occupy the premises after obtaining possession on the grounds of personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Munir Ahmad vs Director-General, Excise and Taxation, Punjab, Lahore1994 PLC (C.S.) 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Younis vs The Province of Punjab And 3 Other1994 CLC 715 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sarwar vs The Director-General, Agriculture1994 PLC (C.S.) 173 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Saleem vs Combined Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore1994 PLD Lahore 125 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Bashir vs Divisional Canal Officer And Other1994 CLC 2302 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08
  rejection of plaintcivil revisionCanal and Drainage Acttriable issuesjurisdiction of civil courtinterim order
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from the rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning an order passed by a Divisional Canal Officer under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873. The lower courts had rejected the suit, reasoning that the impugned order was merely an interim arrangement and thus not subject to civil court review. The core legal question was whether the civil court was correct in rejecting the plaint on the basis that the Canal Officer's order was an unreviewable interim measure. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in their summary rejection of the plaint. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court determined that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 is contingent upon a pending dispute under Section 68 of the same Act. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, ruling that the plaint disclosed triable issues that required a formal trial on merits rather than summary dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court reject a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the challenged order is an interim arrangement?
  • Is the exercise of jurisdiction by a Canal Authority under Section 68-A of the Canal and Drainage Act 1873 dependent upon the existence of a pending dispute under Section 68 of the same Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Mehmood Ahmed vs Mst. Sarwar Sultana And Other.1994 CLC 1664 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ch. Khalilurrehman vs The Registrar, Cooperatives, Punjab, Bank1994 MLD 1637 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-08
  Cooperative Societies ActArbitration AwardRegistrar of Cooperative SocietiesDelegated PowersStatutory InterpretationWrit JurisdictionMaintainability of Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of an application under Section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, following an arbitration award regarding a loan dispute. The petitioner challenged an award by a panel of arbitrators before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who refused to entertain the appeal, reasoning that because the Deputy Registrar had referred the case to his nominee, the appeal should have been filed before the Deputy Registrar. The Court held that the Registrar's refusal was legally flawed. It clarified that a nominee of the Registrar does not possess the status of the Registrar himself, and thus, the exception in Section 54-A—which prohibits appeals where the Registrar is an arbitrator—does not apply when the arbitrator is merely a nominee. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Registrar retains jurisdiction to hear such applications even if the initial reference was made by a Deputy Registrar exercising delegated powers. The Court emphasized that in interpreting beneficial statutes, the construction advancing the remedy must be preferred, and set aside the Registrar's order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exception in Section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925, barring appeals where the Registrar is an arbitrator, apply when the arbitrator is merely a nominee of the Registrar?
  • Can a Registrar refuse to entertain an application under Section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 solely because the initial reference to arbitration was made by a Deputy Registrar?
  • Does the conferment of powers of a Registrar upon a person invest that person with the status of the Registrar for the purposes of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of the Registrar when the order is passed without jurisdiction, despite the availability of a revision remedy under Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Hulam Ahmed vs Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ch. Hulam Ahmed vs CH. Ghulam Ahmedpetitioner Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ch. Bashir Ahmad vs Ghulam Rasool through Legal Heirs and others1994 PLD Lahore 13 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-03
  pre-emptioneffective dateIslamic injunctionsrepugnancystatute obliterationsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal addresses the question of whether the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in Said Kamal's case became effective from 31st July 1986 or 1st August 1986. The appellant had instituted a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913, which was partly decreed by the trial court on 31st July 1986. On appeal, the first appellate court set aside the decree and dismissed the suit, holding that the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 stood obliterated from the statute book as of 31st July 1986, rendering the trial court without jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court examined the precedents, including Said Kamal's case and Sardar Ali's case, and held that the decision in Said Kamal's case became effective on 31st July 1986, obliterating the old pre-emption laws from that date. Consequently, no court could grant a pre-emption decree for the first time after that date. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to pass the decree on 31st July 1986.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench in Said Kamal's case became effective from 31st July 1986 or 1st August 1986?
  • Can a pre-emption suit not decided by the trial court before 31st July 1986 be validly decreed after that date?
  • Whether a plaintiff having obtained a pre-emption decree in the trial forum before 31st July 1986 can defend the decree in higher forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Anwar Muhammad Khan and 6 others vs The Director of Industries1994 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ch. Anwar Muhammad Khan And 6 Other vs The Director of Industries and Mineral Development,1994 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Burewala Textile Mills Limited, Burewala vs Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan And 3 Others1994 PLC 323 · Lahore High Court · -
  trade union registrationcollective bargaining agentindustrial relationslocus standi of managementconstitutional petitionintra-court appealalternate statutory remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The appellant-management contended it was wrongfully denied participation in the registration proceedings and that the trade union's members were not genuine employees of the mill. The core legal questions centered on whether the management has an absolute statutory right to be associated in trade union registration proceedings and whether a constitutional petition or intra-court appeal is competent when an alternate statutory remedy under section 10 of the Ordinance exists. The Lahore High Court held that the management has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a trade union, and its association in registration proceedings is solely at the Registrar's discretion for identification purposes. Furthermore, factual controversies regarding member status cannot be investigated in writ jurisdiction where an alternate remedy for cancellation via the Labour Court is available. The court established that the management is not a necessary party to union registration, and constitutional petitions are barred where statutory remedies exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employer have a statutory right to be associated in the proceedings before the Registrar for the registration of a trade union?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the registration of a trade union when an alternate remedy is available under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can factual controversies regarding the employment status of trade union members be resolved by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether the management of an establishment has the locus standi to question the internal business, formation, and registration of a trade union?
  Read full judgment →
• Brooke Bont? Pakistan Limited, Khanewal Factory Through Factory1994 CLC 385 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited vs Commissioner Multan DivisionK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 167 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Bootay Shah Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 270 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-16Read full judgment →
• Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education vs Muhammad1994 MLD 2208 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-17
  civil jurisdictiondate of birth correctioneducational board recordsconcurrent findingscivil revisionmaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration filed by the respondent, Muhammad Zaheer Ahmad, seeking to correct his date of birth in the records of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding his correct date of birth to be 28-1-1960, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Additional District Judge in appeal. The petitioner Board challenged these concurrent findings, primarily questioning the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain such a suit, arguing that the matter fell exclusively within the Board's domain. The High Court rejected the petitioner's arguments, noting the absence of any statutory bar ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding the respondent's date of birth and the maintainability of the civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the correction of a date of birth in educational records?
  • Is there a statutory bar preventing civil courts from adjudicating disputes regarding the correction of dates of birth in educational board records?
  • Does the Limitation Act 1908 apply to suits seeking the correction of a date of birth in educational records?
  Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Begum vs Hamida Begum And Other1994 CLC 709 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• Bilal Shah vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 43) · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Bilal Fibres Limited vs Federal Government of Pakistan And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmad and 4 others vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 141 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Bilal Ahmad And 4 Other vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 141 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Begum Zia Farhat And Others vs Government of Pakistan And Other1994 CLC 854 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Before Raja Afrasiab Khan, 1 Muhammad Ameen vs Gulzar Muhammad1994 MLD 2162 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-12
  rent defaultlandlord and tenantejectment petitionGeneral Power of Attorneybona fide mistakeappellate procedureremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the appellant-tenant regarding a shop, alleging default in rent payment and personal need. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment, finding the appellant a wilful defaulter for depositing rent in the name of the respondent's brother, who had previously acted as the respondent's General Attorney, rather than in the respondent's own name. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appellant's appeal. The High Court held that because the respondent's brother had historically acted as the General Attorney and originally rented the premises to the appellant, the appellant's deposit of rent in the brother's name constituted a bona fide mistake. The Court ruled that such a deposit is valid and does not constitute wilful default, especially absent notice from the respondent regarding the change in ownership. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellate court erred by dismissing the main appeal without hearing arguments on merits, having only addressed an application for additional issues. The case was remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be held a wilful defaulter for depositing rent in the name of a former General Attorney of the landlord?
  • Is a landlord required to give notice to a tenant regarding a change in ownership or entitlement to rent to avoid a bona fide mistake by the tenant?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal on its merits without hearing arguments on the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bata Pakistan Limited vs Muhammad Nawaz1994 CLC 959 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Bata (Pakistan) Limited vs Tahir Mahmood1994 CLC 337 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue, IslamabadPTCL 1994 CL. 308 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 49) · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 128 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 1963 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs District Collector, Multan And 5 Other1994 CLC 273 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-22
  constitutional jurisdictionloan defaultdetention of defaulterrecovery of arrearsbanking courtwrit petitionAgricultural Development Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the release of his brother, who was detained due to default in repaying a loan obtained from the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could intervene to secure the release of a loan defaulter detained for non-payment, particularly when the defaulter claimed unavoidable circumstances like crop failure. The court held that the detention of a defaulter is a valid recovery measure and does not necessarily have to be a last resort, as the creditor retains the option to choose the method of recovery. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner had bypassed the appropriate forum, specifically the Special Judge, Banking Court at Multan. The court affirmed that it would not interfere in the recovery process, noting that the petitioner's claims of calamity-affected land were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is limited in matters where alternative statutory remedies exist and where the recovery of bank dues is legally permissible through detention.

  Questions settled

  • Is the detention of a loan defaulter required to be a last resort measure for the recovery of bank dues?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to interfere in the recovery of bank dues when the petitioner has bypassed the Special Judge, Banking Court?
  • Can a creditor choose to detain a defaulter as the primary method for recovering bank dues?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan vs Commandant, Desert Rangers, Headquarter, Baghdadul Jadid And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 702 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and others vs The State1994 MLD 1788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and anothers vs The State and 2 others1994 MLD 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Fazal Din1994 CLC 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-29
  constitutional petitionsummoning of witnessagreement to sellprocedural technicalitieslist of witnessescivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application to summon a witness along with the relevant record to prove an agreement to sell. The core legal question was whether the courts below were justified in refusing to summon a witness whose name was omitted from the list of witnesses due to a bona fide mistake regarding his death. The Lahore High Court held that procedural provisions, such as Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, should be construed liberally to enable parties to produce essential evidence and avoid technical knock-outs. The Court ruled that the petitioner's explanation for the omission was reasonable and sufficient. Consequently, the petition was accepted, the impugned orders were declared without lawful authority, and the application to summon the scribe of the agreement was allowed, laying down the principle that procedural rules must advance the cause of justice rather than obstruct it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether procedural provisions regarding the submission of a list of witnesses should be construed liberally to prevent technical knock-outs?
  • Can a party be permitted to summon a witness not included in the initial list of witnesses upon showing good cause?
  • Whether the mistaken belief regarding the death of a material witness constitutes a sufficient explanation for omitting his name from the witness list?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-01Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Rehmat Ali and another1994 MLD 548 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-06Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 3 Other1994 CLC 1946 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Ishaque And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 159 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali and anothers vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and others1994 MLD 1920 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
• Bahlak Khan vs S.H.O. KurrK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 471 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-16Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan vs Deputy Land Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 2316 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali vs Muhammad Ashraf1994 MLD 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali vs Bagh Ali And 3 Other(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 96) · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-18Read full judgment →
• Babu Bashir Ahmed vs Azhar Hussain And Other1994 CLC 487 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-12Read full judgment →
• Azra Bibi vs M. RafiqK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 492 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-10Read full judgment →
• Azhar Wali Muhammad vs Mrs. Tooba Tayyab1994 MLD 1884 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Azhar Wali Mohammad vs (Mrs.) Tooba TayyabK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 239 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ayub Masih and others vs The State1994 MLD 1774 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-15Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore Cantt. And Other1994 CLC 2233 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-11Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Muhammad Aslam and others1994 MLD 464 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussain Khan vs Liaquat Ali Khan(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 102) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
• Atlas Tyres (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Its General Manager vs Arif Shakoor1994 PLC 769 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• Ataul Haq Khan vs Settlement Department1994 MLD 1908 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad and others vs The State1994 MLD 145 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Aslam vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Asim Shahhaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 329 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
• Asif Mahmood vs Muhammad Ps1,Pm Shah1994 CLC 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Asia vs Abdul Rehman And Another1994 CLC 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12
  dowerHaq-MahrFamily Court jurisdictionimmovable propertybeneficial accretionprocedural technicalityNikahnama
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two connected writ petitions arising from a suit for possession of a house claimed by the petitioner (wife) as dower (Haq-Mahr) given at the time of Nikah. The core legal questions were whether a Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of immovable property given as dower, and whether a decree passed by a judge holding dual capacities (Civil Judge and Family Court) is valid despite potential misdescription of forum. The High Court held that the Family Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction over dower matters, regardless of whether the dower is in cash, kind, or property. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where a judge exercises dual powers, the misdescription of the forum does not invalidate the proceedings. The Court restored the trial court's decree for possession, ruling that property given as dower becomes the wife's ownership, and subsequent improvements by the husband constitute beneficial accretion. The judgment emphasizes that procedural technicalities should not be used to defeat substantive rights or the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the recovery of immovable property given as dower?
  • Does the misdescription of a court's designation invalidate a judgment if the presiding judge holds the necessary jurisdiction in a dual capacity?
  • Can a husband claim that subsequent improvements to a property given as dower negate the wife's title to that property?
  Read full judgment →
• Asia Tasneem vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab,Educationdepartment And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• ASI.Am Industries vs Punjab Government And Other1994 CLC 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 730 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ijaz vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission And Other1994 CLC 2007 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and others vs Faqir Muhammad and others1994 MLD 47 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-07Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and anothers vs The State1994 MLD 1422 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs Dirctor General Lahore Development Authority(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 18) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arshad Gujjar vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 96) · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-10Read full judgment →
• Arshad Ali vs The University of Punjab, Lahore through Controller of Examinations, Punjab University, Lahore1994 MLD 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Army Welfare Food Industries Factory Area, Faisalabad Through General Manager vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Another1994 PLC 557 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Justice Division, Islamabad and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti vs The Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Justice And Parliamentary Affairs, Justice Division, Islamabad And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-05Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs Mst. Aziz Fatima and another1994 MLD 2451 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Arif Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 117 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Arif Ali vs Government of Pakistan And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 178 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ul Haq And Others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, LAHOREAnd Other1994 CLC 871 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-05Read full judgment →
• Anwar Maseeh vs The State1994 MLD 1564 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• Anwar Mahmood vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 406 · Lahore High Court · 1994-07-11Read full judgment →
• Anwar Hussain Shah vs Syed Muhammad Ishaq Shah1994 CLC 511 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Faizul Islam (Regd.), Rawalpindi through Secretary vs Messrs1994 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13
  arbitrationstay of proceedingsstep in proceedingsarbitration agreementwritten statementcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the order of the trial court refusing to stay proceedings in a suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal questions involved whether seeking or being granted time to file a written statement when a copy of the plaint was supplied for the first time constitutes a 'step in the proceedings' disentitling a party from applying for a stay, and whether the withholding of a specified amount constitutes a dispute covered by a wide arbitration clause. The Lahore High Court held that asking for or being given time to file a written statement upon receiving the plaint for the first time does not amount to taking a step in the proceedings, and that the non-payment of a definite sum under a contract falls squarely within a comprehensive arbitration clause. The appeal was consequently allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the suit proceedings were stayed.

  Questions settled

  • Does seeking or being granted time to file a written statement when a copy of the plaint is supplied for the first time constitute a step in the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Whether the withholding of a specified or determined sum of money constitutes a dispute covered by a wide arbitration clause?
  • Can proceedings in a civil suit be stayed where a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Faizul Islam (Regd.), Rawalpindi Through Secretary vs MessrsPLD 1994Lahore122 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Amroo Khan vs Dhanney Khan1994 CLC 519 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain And Other vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 124) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Amjad Husain vs Mushtaq Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-11Read full judgment →
• Amjad Atta Muhammad vs Deputy Director, Customs And 2 Other1994 CLC 1797 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04
  customs seizurelocus standiclearing agentshow-cause noticeredemption fineconfiscationstatutory periodconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge the seizure of three vehicles by Customs Intelligence outside the Dry Port, Moghalpura, Lahore. The core legal questions involve the locus standi of a clearing agent to maintain a constitutional petition against the seizure of goods from his possession, and the legality of re-seizing vehicles that were previously confiscated and released upon payment of redemption fines, or otherwise lawfully cleared, without issuing a show-cause notice within the statutory period. The Lahore High Court held that a person from whose possession goods are seized has the locus standi to seek their restoration under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969, and that failing to issue a show-cause notice within the mandated two-month period entitles that person to the return of the vehicles. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Customs Intelligence cannot legally re-seize vehicles that already vested in the Government and were released under section 181, nor can they sit in appeal over the decisions of the Collector of Customs. The petitions were consequently allowed with costs, declaring the impugned actions illegal and without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a clearing agent from whose possession goods are seized has the locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition for their restoration?
  • Does the failure to issue a show-cause notice within the statutory period under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 entitle the possessor to the return of the seized goods?
  • Can Customs Intelligence legally re-seize vehicles that have already been confiscated and released upon payment of a redemption fine under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Do subordinate customs officials possess the authority to sit in appeal over or review orders passed by the Collector of Customs?
  Read full judgment →