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.

• Amjad Ali vs Mst. Hafeezan Begum and others1994 MLD 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Amiruddin Khan vs Atta Mohyud Din Khan and others1994 MLD 377 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh vs The State1994 MLD 92 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh vs Director-General, Health Services, Punjab, Lahore And 3 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Amer Khan vs The State1994 MLD 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ameer Afghan vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 126) · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
• Altaful Haq vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Education1994 PLC (C.S.) 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-30Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 129 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Almas Khanum vs Federation of Pakistan and others1994 MLD 6 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-07
  Wafaqi Mohtasibmaladministrationjurisdictionconstitutional petitionalternative remedyright of hearingservice selection
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib declaring the selection of the petitioner as Headmistress of an Embassy School in Jeddah null and void on the ground of maladministration and favoring an alternative candidate, respondent No. 5. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib to investigate employment selections, the necessity of issuing notice to a beneficiary of an impugned order, and the maintainability of a constitutional petition where an alternative statutory remedy of representation before the President exists. The Lahore High Court held that the Wafaqi Mohtasib acted within his jurisdiction under the relevant statutory framework when examining arbitrary and unjust selection processes amounting to maladministration, that the Mohtasib was not legally bound to personally implead or hear the beneficiary where the grievance and inquiry targeted the official agency's conduct, and that the petition was not maintainable due to failure to exhaust the alternative remedy under section 32 of the Ombudsman Order. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to investigate allegations of maladministration in government employment selection processes?
  • Is the Wafaqi Mohtasib legally bound to issue a personal notice of hearing to a beneficiary of an impugned administrative action during an inquiry against an official agency?
  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 is maintainable when a statutory remedy of representation before the President under the Ombudsman Order has not been availed?
  • What constitutes maladministration under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib Order 1983 in matters of public appointments?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Akram And Others1994 PLC 519 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Allama Muhammad Inayat Ullah vs Ghulam Rasool and others1994 MLD 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar And Others vs Rehmat Ali Alias Rehman1994 CLC 306 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya And Others vs Yousuf And Other1994CLC 124 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaee and anothers vs Qasim Ali1994 MLD 114 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Shahbaz Ahmad and 6 others1994 MLD 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha And Other vs Muhammad Boota And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 CivU Cases 346 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha And Another vs Muhammad Boota And Another1994 CLC 1961 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 511 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Mahboob Ali and others1994 MLD 734 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Director General Multan Development Authority1994 CLC 572 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Through Legal Heirs And 5 Others vs Hassan Din And 26 Other1994 CLC 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-25
  consolidation schemelimitationwrit jurisdictionrevenue authoritiesmutual exchange agreementimpleadmentfraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of writ petitions challenging orders passed by revenue authorities regarding a consolidation scheme in Tehsil Sialkot. The core legal question was whether the revenue authorities, specifically the Member, Board of Revenue, acted lawfully in affirming orders that permitted the impleadment of parties in an appeal that was prima facie time-barred, and whether findings of fraud could override the terms of a mutual exchange agreement between the parties. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned orders were passed without lawful authority. The Court determined that the lower revenue courts failed to address the critical issue of limitation regarding the impleadment of the petitioners, which was a mandatory duty regardless of whether the plea was raised by the parties. Relying on the principle established in Ahsan Ali v. District Judge, the Court emphasized that a Settlement Court is duty-bound to notice the point of limitation, and waiver of this question is not permissible even under special or local laws. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Settlement Court duty-bound to notice the point of limitation even if it is not raised by the parties?
  • Can the question of limitation be waived in proceedings governed by special or local laws?
  • Does the impleadment of new parties in an appeal require compliance with the law of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 2 others vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta And 2 Other vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Mst. Sher Khanum Bibi and 3 others1994 MLD 1059 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Mst. Fateh Bibi1994 CLC 91 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs (Mst.) Sher Khanum Etc.K.L.R 1994 Civil Cases 408 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh And Others vs Muhammad Boota And Other1994 CLC 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh And Others vs Mst. Bhagan1994 C L- C 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-18Read full judgment →
• Aliirtaza Khan vs Principal, Lawrence College, Gorah Gali, Murree, District Rawalpindi And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 316 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Shah vs Allah Ditta And 6 Other1994 CLC 800 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06
  pre-emptionexecution of decreeco-sharersymbolic possessionactual physical possessionpartitionExecuting CourtOrder XXI Rule 35
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three connected civil revisions filed against the decisions of the Executing Court and Appellate Court, which had directed the Tehsildar to partition suit land and grant actual physical possession of a half-share to the rival pre-emptor/respondent. The petitioner had initially obtained physical possession of the suit land following an earlier trial decree, but subsequent post-remand proceedings resulted in both rival pre-emptors being granted a decree for a 1/2 share each. The core legal question was whether an Executing Court can direct the partition of joint land and grant actual physical possession to a co-decree-holder, or whether it is limited to issuing a warrant for symbolic joint possession under Order XXI Rule 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the petitioner, as a co-sharer in physical possession, cannot be dispossessed until actual partition takes place via a partition suit. Furthermore, the Executing Court cannot go behind or vary the decree by ordering a partition. The High Court allowed the revisions, set aside the impugned orders, and ordered the issuance of symbolic joint possession to the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Executing Court order the partition of joint land to deliver actual physical possession where a decree is only for a fractional share?
  • Whether a pre-emptor decree-holder granted an undivided share in joint property is entitled to actual physical possession or merely symbolic joint possession under Order XXI Rule 35(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a co-sharer in established physical possession of joint land be dispossessed prior to formal partition by metes and bounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Afzal and others1994 MLD 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Others vs M.B.R./C.S.C.1994 CLC 2299 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain NL&Lik vs Province of Punjab And Another1994 CLC 965 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Aslam vs Mst. Mujahida Afzal1994 MLD 1931 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 138 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali Mir vs The State1994 MLD 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and others vs Municipal Committee, Mandi Bahauddin1994 MLD 589 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 164 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and others vs The State1994 MLD 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
• Aitzaz Ahsan And 2 Other vs Municipal Committee, GujratK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 271 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Aisha vs Nasir Mehmood And Another1994 CLC 493 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Aisha Begum vs Kamran Food- Industry1994 PLC 743 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Shabhir Bukhari vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Eiahi vs Malik Nasrullah1994 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar vs (Mst) Parveen AkhtarK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 418 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1994 CLC 484 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Riaz vs Mst. Qaisera Minhas And Other1994 CLC 2403 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-30
  past maintenanceArbitration Councillimitationbeneficial legislationnotice of divorceex parte decreewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the orders of the Chairman, Arbitration Council, and the District Collector, Lahore, which granted maintenance allowance to respondent No. 1 (his wife) for a past period of 37 months and fixed future maintenance. The petitioner contended that the Arbitration Council lacked jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to award past maintenance, and that he had divorced the respondent. The Lahore High Court examined whether the Arbitration Council could grant past maintenance. The Court held that Section 9 of the Ordinance is a beneficial provision of law aimed at providing an expeditious remedy to a neglected wife. Applying a beneficial construction, and relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that the Arbitration Council is fully competent to award past maintenance, subject to the limitation period of six years under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court also rejected the petitioner's claim of divorce due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirements of Section 7 of the Ordinance, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Arbitration Council constituted under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 has the jurisdiction to award past maintenance to a wife?
  • Which provision of the Limitation Act 1908 governs the limitation period for claiming past maintenance before an Arbitration Council?
  • Can a husband escape the liability of maintenance by asserting an oral or unregistered divorce without complying with the notice requirements of Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • Can a divorced wife claim maintenance from the Arbitration Council for the period during which the marriage was still subsisting?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Latif Qureshi vs Controller of Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 3 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-14
  unfair meansexamination boardsupplementary examinationaverage marksconstitutional petitionfirst attemptexoneration
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a matriculate student whose mathematics answer book was forcibly confiscated by an inspection team member during the 1st Annual Examination 1993 on unfounded allegations of using unfair means. Although the Appellate Committee subsequently exonerated the petitioner of all charges, the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, refused to award average marks or allow him to be declared as having passed the examination in his first attempt, insisting that his subsequent appearance in the supplementary examination would classify his result as having passed "in parts". The Lahore High Court held that while the petitioner was not entitled to average marks under the Board's rules (as the paper was not lost after submission), he could not be made to suffer for the illegal actions of the authorities. Invoking Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the principle of restoring an injured party to their original position, the Court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner's supplementary examination result as part of his first Annual Examination and declare him to have passed in the first attempt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a student be penalized by having their examination result classified as passing "in parts" when they were prevented from completing their paper due to an unfounded accusation of using unfair means?
  • Is a student entitled to average marks under the rules of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education if their paper was forcibly confiscated rather than being lost after submission?
  • Can the High Court invoke Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to fill a vacuum in statutory rules to prevent an injustice and restore an innocent party to their original position?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and others vs The State1994 MLD 101 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan And Others vs Member (Cons.), Board of Revenue And Other1994 CLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din And 2 Others vs Abdul Ghani Through Legal Heirs And Other1994 CLC 1263 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31
  property disputesale deedburden of proofsecondary evidenceconcurrent findingssecond appealexecution of document
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a property dispute concerning the ownership of land, where two sets of vendees claimed title based on competing sale deeds from the same vendor. The core legal question was whether the appellants had successfully established the valid execution and registration of their sale deed, particularly when the vendor explicitly denied the transaction and the original document was not produced. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It held that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the execution of the sale deed. The court emphasized that when a vendor denies execution, the onus lies heavily on the vendee to prove the transaction. Furthermore, in the absence of the original document, secondary evidence must be scrutinized alongside surrounding circumstances and probabilities to determine the trustworthiness of witnesses, rather than relying solely on oral testimony, which in this instance was found to be contradictory and insufficient to establish the appellants' claim.

  Questions settled

  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a vendor denies the execution of a sale deed?
  • Can a court rely on secondary evidence to prove a sale deed when the original document is not produced?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact by lower courts subject to interference in a second appeal?
  • How should a court evaluate the credibility of witness testimony in the context of disputed property transactions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bakhsh And Others vs Member, Board of RFVFMTF And Other1994 CLC 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Agha Dilshad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 82) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 64) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Shahin And Other vs University of the Punjab And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 805 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-23Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan Etc vs Mohammad Sadiq(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 125) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• Abu Saeed A. Islahi vs Mrs. Talat Mir and 2 others1994 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27
  child custodyguardian and wardscitizenship by descentres judicataforeign custody decreewelfare of minorsterritorial jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of child custody proceedings initiated by the petitioner father against the respondent mother. The core legal questions involved the citizenship status of the minors born abroad to a Pakistani father, the territorial jurisdiction of the Guardian Judge at Lahore, and whether an ex parte foreign custody decree from the United States operated as res judicata. The Lahore High Court held that the children, being born to a Pakistani father, are citizens of Pakistan by descent under the Citizenship Act, 1951, notwithstanding holding foreign passports. The Court further ruled that foreign custody decrees do not operate as strict res judicata in custody matters, as the paramount and overriding consideration is always the welfare of the minors, which can be re-examined upon a change of circumstances. The impugned appellate judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether children born abroad to a Pakistani father are deemed to be citizens of Pakistan by descent under the Citizenship Act, 1951?
  • Does an ex parte custody decree passed by a foreign court operate as res judicata to bar an application under the Guardians and Wards Act in Pakistan?
  • What is the effect of a foreign court's custody order when determining the custody of minors under Pakistani law?
  • Whether a Guardian Judge at Lahore has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a custody petition when the minors were residing within Lahore at the time of institution?
  • How does the subsequent removal of minors from Pakistan during pending litigation impact the determination of their custody and welfare?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid Masood And 10 Other vs The Government of Punjab-And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 796 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali vs Mst. Mussarat Bibi1994 MLD 312 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 83 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Siddiqui vs Mst. Naseem Bibi1994 MLD 2188 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs S.H.O, EtcK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 360 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel Etc. vs Sardar MohammadK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 406 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel and 2 others vs Sardar Muhammad1994 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel And 2 Other vs Sardar Muhammad1994 PLD Lahore 249 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed And Other vs Noor Mohammad And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 507 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khan vs Government of Punjab, Lahore and 5 others1994 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab Khan vs Government of Punjab, Lahore And 5 OtherP. L D 1994 Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Vakil Malik vs Ashfaq Ahmad Qureshi And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1438 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Muhammad Akbar1994 MLD 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 569 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman And Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And Other1994 CLC 394 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 130 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State1994 MLD 1796 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq And Other vs Pakistan Agirucltural Storage And Services Corporation Ltd. And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 119 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf And Others vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Case 15 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs A.C./Collector1994 CLC 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Jillani vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and others vs The State1994 MLD 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Alias Shida Gadi vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim And Others vs Muhammad Khalid,1994 CLC 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Badar vs Lahore Development Authority1994 CLC 1293 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum and others vs Mst. Salma Khanam and others1994 MLD 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Oayyum vs Evacuee Trust Properties Board and others1994 MLD 358 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Muhammad Iobal And Another1994 CLC 788 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-21
  revisional jurisdictionchange of forumretrospective effect of procedural lawamendment of plaintpre-emption suitZaroorat and Zarar
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order of the Civil Judge allowing an amendment of the plaint in a pre-emption suit to include assertions of 'Zaroorat'. The petitioner had initially approached the District Judge in revision, but the District Judge dismissed it for want of jurisdiction following the promulgation of Ordinance XXXIII of 1993, which omitted subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby denuding the District Courts of revisional powers. The Lahore High Court examined the effect of the Ordinance on pending proceedings and held that a change of forum is a matter of procedure and applies retrospectively, meaning the District Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the pending revision and should have returned the petition for presentation before the High Court rather than dismissing it. On the merits regarding the necessity of pleading 'Zaroorat' or 'Zarar' under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the Court noted that subsection (2) of section 6 of the said Act was declared repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam by the Appellate Shariat Bench of the Supreme Court, and therefore a pre-emption suit cannot be dismissed for failing to plead 'Zaroorat'. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order and dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission of subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by Ordinance XXXIII of 1993 deprives the District Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate pending revision petitions?
  • What is the correct order to be passed by a District Court when it is denuded of revisional jurisdiction while a revision petition is pending before it?
  • Does a change of forum through legislative enactment constitute a matter of procedure having retrospective effect?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be dismissed for want of pleading 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' in view of the judgment of the Appellate Shariat Bench striking down section 6(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Sandhu And Other vs Government of Punjab Through Secretary, Finance Department And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1330 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Mst. Sughran Mai And Other1994 CLC 125 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif And Other vs The District Controller of Stores, Pakistan1994 PLC 411 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and others vs The State1994 MLD 2023 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and 2 others vs The Province of the Punjab through the Collector, Muzaffargarh and anothers1994 PLD Lahore 334 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and 3 others vs Abdul Razzaq and 2 others1994 MLD 804 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim And 2 Other vs The Province of the Punjab Through The Collector, Muzaffargarh. And Another1994 PLD Lahore 334 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State1994 MLD 1429 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haque Azad vs Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Finance1994 PLC (C.S.) 186 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Province of Punjab1994 MLD 2262 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →