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.

• Wali Muhammad and others vs Noor Muhammad and others1993 PLD Lahore 572 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2417 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
• Wali Mohammad and 2 others vs Hafiz Karim Bakhsh and 11 others1993 CLC 1164 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Walayat Khan vs Muhammad Sadiq and others1993 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-09
  court feesdeficiency in court feecivil revisionlimitation periodappellate courtdecree-sheetprocedural technicality
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges the dismissal of an appeal by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, due to the non-payment of court fees on a decree-sheet. The core legal question is whether an appellate court can summarily dismiss an appeal for an inadvertent deficiency in court fees without providing the appellant an opportunity to rectify the error, and whether such rectification after the limitation period renders the appeal time-barred. The Court held that the dismissal was illegal. Relying on Section 28 of the Court Fees Act 1870 and Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court ruled that courts must allow parties to cure such inadvertent deficiencies. Once the fee is paid, the document is deemed valid from the date of initial filing. The key principle laid down is that the Court Fees Act is a fiscal statute to be construed in favor of the subject, not as a technical weapon to non-suit litigants; courts have a duty to assist parties in rectifying procedural omissions rather than dismissing matters on hyper-technical grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal for insufficient court fees on a decree-sheet without providing the appellant an opportunity to cure the deficiency?
  • Does the payment of deficient court fees after the expiration of the limitation period render an appeal time-barred if the appeal was initially filed within time?
  • Can one of several defendants appeal against a decree that proceeds on a ground common to all defendants?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Tariq vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 26 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab vs Messrs M.S. Dar1993 MLD 443 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
• Union of Civil Aviation Employees, Lahore and another vs Civil Aviation1993 PLD Lahore 306 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-17
  freedom of associationfundamental rightstrade unioncollective bargainingconstitutional petitionservice regulationsultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of Section 23 of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, and Regulations 6.22 and 6.26 of the Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 1983, which restricted the rights of Civil Aviation Authority employees to form and operate a trade union. The core legal question was whether the exclusion of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the imposition of restrictive service regulations violated the fundamental right to freedom of association guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that while the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was inapplicable to the Authority, the fundamental right to form an association and a union exists independently. Consequently, regulations granting arbitrary, unguided power to the employer to permit or refuse union formation were declared ultra vires of the Constitution. The Court established that the right to form a union inherently implies the right to function and operate; therefore, restrictions on this fundamental right must be reasonable and strictly limited to the specific grounds enumerated in Article 17, such as sovereignty, integrity, public order, or morality.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fundamental right to form a union under Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 include the right of the union to function and operate?
  • Can an employer impose regulations requiring prior permission for the formation of an employee association without violating the constitutional right to freedom of association?
  • Does the exclusion of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 from an organization's employees negate their fundamental right to form a trade union?
  • Are restrictions on the functioning of a trade union valid if they are not based on the specific grounds of sovereignty, integrity, public order, or morality mentioned in Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Union of Civil Aviation Employees, And Another vs Civil Aviation1993 K.L.R. Labour & Services Cases 238 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. vs M.Y. Malik Co. Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 169 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
• Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. vs M.Y. Malik Co. and others1993 MLD 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
• Umer Farooq Syed vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Lahore and 2 othersPTCL 1993 CL. 57 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2407 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat alias Umra and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2634 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 709 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 648 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
• Umar Draz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 107 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-16Read full judgment →
• Umar Draz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 293 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-22Read full judgment →
• Top-Star, Company vs Mirza Amad-Ud-Din1993 MLD 1964 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zahoor Din1993 P Cr. L J 2590 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs S.S.P., Islamabad and others1993 PLD Lahore 112 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Younas and others1993-P Cr. L J 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hussain and others1993 P Cr. L J 835 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Aslam and others1993 P Cr. L J 1288 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khawaja Manzoor Hassan And 13 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 71 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khawaja Manzoor Hassan and 10 others1993 MLD 544 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Haji Ghulam Nabi Khan and 2 others1993 P Cr. L1 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Shabbir1993-P Cr. L J 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Fayyaz Ahmed and another1993 P Cr. L J 2257 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Fayyaz Ahmad And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 258 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Anees Javid1993 P Cr. L J 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Anees Javed1993 P Cr. L J 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aftab Ahmad Warsi1993 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Qayyum1993 P Cr. L J 319 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul GhafoorK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 363 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Ghafoor and another1993 P Cr. L J 2456 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs 'A'K.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 465 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• The Registrar of Companies, Pakistan through Joint Registrar of Companies vs Tau Company Ltd. and 8 others1993 CLC 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27
  misfeasancebreach of trustfraudulent conduct of businessdirectors' liabilitypublic depositsfiduciary dutyCompanies Ordinance 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns proceedings initiated by the Registrar of Companies against the Managing Directors and Directors of Taj Company Ltd. for misfeasance, breach of trust, and fraudulent conduct of business under Sections 412 and 413 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions involved determining the extent of the directors' personal liability for the company's financial collapse, the misappropriation of public deposits, and the deliberate manipulation of financial accounts to conceal losses. The Court held the respondents guilty of misfeasance and breach of trust, ordering them to contribute substantial sums to the company's assets to cover the massive financial shortfall. Furthermore, the Court sentenced the directors to imprisonment and fines under Section 413(4) of the Ordinance. The judgment establishes that directors act as fiduciaries and trustees of company funds, rendering them personally liable for losses resulting from ultra vires activities, mismanagement, and fraudulent conduct. It further clarifies that passive or "dummy" directorship does not absolve individuals of their duty to exercise reasonable care, and that recycling public deposits to pay fictitious profits constitutes fraudulent conduct intended to defraud creditors.

  Questions settled

  • Are directors personally liable for company losses resulting from ultra vires activities and mismanagement?
  • Does the recycling of public deposits to pay fictitious profits constitute fraudulent conduct under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Can a director escape liability for corporate mismanagement by claiming to be a passive or 'dummy' director?
  • What is the scope of a court's power to punish directors for fraudulent conduct under Section 413 of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sardar Muhammad and others1993 P Cr. L J 1780 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore (Now at Multan) vs Messrs1993P T D 386 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faisalabad vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima1993 PTD 1104 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s. SH. Muhammad Saeed &1993 PTD 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• The Capital Development Authority, Islamabad vs Rana Muhammad1993 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• The Capital Development Authority vs Rana Muhammad Sarwar, AdvocateK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 131 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad vs M/s.1993 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
• Tauqeer Shahid vs Additional District Judge and others1993 CLC 2435 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10
  constitutional petitionrent restrictiontentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in rentejectment petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the legality of orders passed by the lower appellate court and the Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant's defence was struck off and an ejectment order was issued for non-deposit of rent for the month of July 1990 under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was bound to resolve controversies regarding default or the period for which rent was due before passing a tentative rent deposit order, and whether non-compliance with a flawed tentative order warranted striking off the defence. The Lahore High Court held that the Rent Controller is legally required to resolve disputes concerning from which month rent is due and to issue a speaking order before directing rent deposits. The court ruled that an interim order passed without determining such existing controversies is not in accordance with law, and its non-compliance cannot lawfully be visited with the penalty of striking off the defence. The petition was accepted, setting aside the orders of the lower forums and directing the Rent Controller to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Rent Controller is bound to resolve any controversy regarding from which month rent is due before passing a tentative rent deposit order?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order that was passed without determining existing disputes regarding prior rent payments?
  • Is an interim rent deposit order under the Rent Restriction Ordinance appealable?
  Read full judgment →
• Tauqeer Batool P.T.C. vs Deputy District Education Oficer (W) MailsiK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 257 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• Tariq Saeed and others vs Settlement Department1993 MLD 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain Shah vs The State1993 MLD 2481 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-13Read full judgment →
• Taqi Muhammad and 3 others vs Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan1993 MLD 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-01
  civil revisionspecific performancemortgage by conditional saleguardian ad-litemadministrative transfer of suitprocedural irregularityPunjab Alienation of Land Actremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the appellate court's decree in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, which originated from a mortgage dispute. The core legal questions concerned the procedural validity of the trial court’s proceedings—specifically regarding the appointment of a guardian ad-litem for minors who attained majority, the propriety of ex-parte orders, and the failure to notify parties upon the administrative transfer of the suit—and the substantive legality of a mortgage containing a conditional sale clause under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900. The High Court held that the trial court committed material irregularities by failing to issue notices upon administrative transfer and by improperly appointing an official guardian for defendants who had attained majority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Section 10 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, any mortgage condition stipulating a conditional sale is null and void. Consequently, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded for a de novo trial with an opportunity for the petitioners to present their defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does the administrative transfer of a civil suit require the court to issue notice to the parties to ensure their appearance?
  • Is a condition in a mortgage agreement stipulating a conditional sale valid under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900?
  • Can a court appoint a guardian ad-litem for a defendant who has already attained the age of majority?
  • Does an order for ex parte proceedings against a defendant preclude their right to receive notice upon the administrative transfer of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmad vs Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan and others1993 CLC 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-25Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 642 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2264 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and another vs The State1993 MLD 357 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Raza Haider and another1993 MLD 2450 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Taj Din and others vs Mst. Sardar Begum and others1993 MLD 724 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Tairi Khan and others vs The State1993 MLD 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
• Tahir Rashid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1826 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 142 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tahir Mahmood vs Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore &K.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 158 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tahir Jawaid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 859 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain and 2 others vs Khan1993 CLC 2161 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Wajih-Ul-Hassan Naqvi vs Auqaf Department, Punjab1993 MLD 1794 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Naim Haider vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 645 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Muddassar Altaf vs The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Lahore1993 PLD Lahore 810 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-23
  maintenancepast maintenanceex parte orderlimitation periodarbitration councilfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a maintenance dispute under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961. The petitioner challenged an ex parte maintenance order passed by the Arbitration Council, which had been upheld by the Collector. The petitioner contended that he was condemned unheard, that his wife had voluntarily left his house, and that the grant of past maintenance beyond three years was unlawful. The High Court found that the petitioner had active knowledge of the proceedings and had failed to appear on the adjourned date, thereby justifying the ex parte proceedings. On the core legal question of the limitation period for past maintenance, the Court examined conflicting precedents and held that an application for maintenance under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 is not governed by the three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, as that article applies only to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Instead, following Supreme Court precedent, the Court ruled that such claims are governed by the six-year residuary period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte maintenance order is valid if the husband had actual notice of the adjourned hearing date but failed to appear?
  • Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications for maintenance filed under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • What is the limitation period for a wife to claim past maintenance under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Raza Bukhari and 4 others vs Syed Azra Zenab Bukhari1993 CLC 31 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29
  civil revisionpartition suitreplicationamendment of plainttitle paramountgiftunity of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an order of the Civil Judge striking off a replication and issues in a partition suit. The plaintiffs filed for partition of a property based on inheritance, while the defendant set up an exclusive title by way of gift from their deceased father. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the gift through their replication. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff in a partition suit can challenge the validity of an independent or paramount title set up by a defendant through a replication rather than by seeking an amendment to the plaint. The Lahore High Court held that where a defendant in a partition suit sets up a paramount title denying unity of title, the question cannot be decided without amending the plaint to seek a declaration or cancellation of the deed, and a new case cannot be introduced via a replication. The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that a replication is merely a supplement to clarify ambiguities in the plaint and cannot be used to present a fundamentally new case or bypass the requirement of amending the pleadings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff challenge the validity of a paramount title or gift set up by a defendant in a partition suit through a replication without amending the plaint?
  • What are the necessary preconditions for maintaining a suit for partition?
  • Does a replication allow the introduction of a new case or cause of action that was not pleaded in the original plaint?
  • How should a trial court proceed when a defendant in a partition suit sets up an exclusive title or title paramount denying unity of title?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohsin Raza Bukhari And 4 Other vs Syed Azra Zeneb BukhariK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahmood Ali Gerdezi and another vs Syeda Rabia Beg Um and 101993 MLD 814 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceCode of Civil Procedureinterlocutory reliefalienation of propertystatus quocivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether a court can grant a temporary injunction in a suit where the plaintiff has not explicitly prayed for a permanent injunction. The appellants filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit property. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that a temporary injunction is not maintainable without a prayer for a permanent injunction. Upon review, the High Court held that the trial court's view was erroneous. The Court reasoned that Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 uses the phrase 'in any suit,' which is all-embracing and not limited to suits for permanent injunctions. The Court affirmed that temporary injunctions are ancillary to the main relief and can be granted to preserve the status quo of property during the pendency of various types of litigation, including specific performance suits, to prevent irreparable injury. The appeal was allowed, and the case remanded for a fresh decision on the injunction application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction in a suit where the plaintiff has not prayed for a permanent injunction?
  • Does the phrase 'in any suit' in Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 limit the court's power to grant temporary injunctions to suits for permanent injunctions?
  • Is a temporary injunction considered an ancillary relief in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Imran Shah through Legal Heirs vs The Deputy Administrator1993 CLC 299 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Faqir Hussain Shah Bokhari vs Mst. Asmat Bibi and others1993 CLC 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-17
  order of remandsuit valuationcourt-fee and jurisdictionappellate jurisdictionunnecessary remandscivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged an appellate remand order passed by the District Court directing the trial court to re-determine issue No. 2 concerning the proper valuation of the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether an appellate court should remand a case for the decision of a specific issue regarding valuation when sufficient material exists on record for the appellate court to decide the matter finally, thereby avoiding prolonged litigation. The High Court held that unnecessary remands cause undue delay and expense, and appellate courts should make every effort to resolve controversies finally in appellate or revisional jurisdiction rather than sending cases back for open remands. The court set aside the remand order and directed the District Judge to decide issue No. 2 himself along with the other issues on merits, laying down the principle that open remands which entail further rounds of litigation are inexpedient and must be avoided to ensure the quicker administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court should remand a case for re-determination of suit valuation when sufficient material is available on record for a final decision?
  • Can an appellate court avoid an open remand in favor of resolving an issue regarding court-fee and jurisdiction directly in its own jurisdiction?
  • Whether unnecessary remands by appellate courts are deprecated in the interest of a quicker administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Bashir Hussain Shah and anothers vs Administrator, Thal1993 CLC 1013 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-02
  necessary partyimparison of parties in appealinherent powers of appellate courtlis pendensremand of caseallotment disputeprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises two first appeals arising from suits for declaration and possession filed by the appellants concerning land lots granted under a tubewell sinking scheme, which the Thal Authorities had attempted to cancel through a communication later alleged to be fraudulent. The trial court decreed the suits in favour of the appellants. During the pendency of the first appeals, third parties who had been allotted the same lots as affectees of another project applied to be impleaded as necessary parties, and the lower appellate court allowed the applications, setting aside the decrees and remanding the cases for a de novo trial. The core legal question examined was whether an appellate court possesses the power to implead a person as a party in an appeal who was not a party to the original suit. The Lahore High Court held that Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not exhaustive, and appellate courts possess inherent powers under Section 151 and Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead necessary parties even if they were not arrayed in the primary suit. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the power under the Code of Civil Procedure to implead a person as a party in an appeal who was not a party to the original suit?
  • Are the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure exhaustive regarding the impleadment of parties in an appeal?
  • Can an appellate court utilize its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to add a necessary party after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal?
  • What is the effect on a suit or appeal if a necessary party is omitted from being impleaded?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Azhar Hussain Shah vs D.S.P.1993 P Cr. L J 2618 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashfaq Ali Shah vs Syed Akhtar Ali Shah and others1993 MLD 889 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06
  ex parte decreesubstituted servicelimitation periodcivil revisionprocedural irregularityservice of summonsrestoration of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil revisions challenging the dismissal of applications to set aside ex parte decrees. The core legal questions were whether the substituted service effected by the trial court was legally valid and whether the application to set aside the ex parte decree was time-barred. The court held that the trial court acted with material irregularity by ordering substituted service without exhausting ordinary modes of service or conducting a proper inquiry into the process-server's report, which lacked required witness attestation and compliance with procedural rules. Furthermore, the court clarified that where an ex parte decree is passed during an adjourned hearing rather than the first hearing, the limitation period for an application to set it aside is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 (three years) rather than Article 164. Consequently, the ex parte decrees were set aside, and the cases were remanded for trial on merits. The principle established is that procedural requirements for service must be strictly construed, and ex parte proceedings based on defective service are void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period under Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed at an adjourned hearing?
  • Can a court order substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without first exhausting ordinary modes of service or conducting a proper inquiry into the process-server's report?
  • Is an application to set aside an ex parte decree governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the decree was passed during an adjourned hearing?
  • Does an appellate or revisional court have the power under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass orders benefiting a party who did not file an appeal or revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza Asad Abadi vs Wasim Sajjad1993 MLD 2494 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Hassan Shah vs Additional District Judge, Multan and others1993 MLD 180 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Qadeer vs Mst. Naseem Akhtar1993 MLD 2512 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
• Surraya Begum vs Muhammad Latif and others1993 P Cr. L J 30 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sunny Woollen Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of the Punjab1993 MLD 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
• Sunni View Cooperative Housing Society vs Irshad Hussain and others1993 CLC 2336 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19
  civil revisionlis pendenscollusive decreependente lite purchaserjurisdictional defectremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed against the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner sought to challenge a judgment and decree on the ground of collusion. The trial court had dismissed the application solely because the petitioner was not a party to the original suit and was affected by the principle of lis pendens, having purchased the property during the pendency of the litigation. The High Court examined whether a pendente lite purchaser has the standing to challenge a decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of collusion. The High Court held that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit is entitled to challenge a decree obtained through collusion under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court concluded that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by dismissing the application summarily. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the trial court for a decision on the merits after framing issues and recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a purchaser of property during the pendency of a suit challenge a decree obtained in that suit on the ground of collusion under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the principle of lis pendens bar a pendente lite purchaser from filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge a collusive decree?
  • Is a trial court required to frame issues and record evidence before deciding an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when collusion is alleged by a third-party purchaser?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultana Qamar vs Mst. Rasulan1993 MLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-17Read full judgment →
• Sultan and others vs Nazar Sultan1993 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Sultan and others vs Muhammad Sharif1993 MLD 326 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
• Suleman and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sufi Zaheer Ahmad vs Langa And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 150 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sufi Zaheer Ahmad (deceased) through Legal Heir vs Chief Settlement1993 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01
  evacuee propertyfraudulent allotmentdiscretionary jurisdictionbona fide purchasercompensation poolnatural justicesettlement laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns multiple settlement revisions and a writ petition challenging the cancellation of land allotments by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The core issue was whether the cancellation of allotments, originally secured by the petitioner Sufi Zaheer Ahmad through a bogus claim, was legally sustainable, and whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with such cancellations. The petitioners, including subsequent purchasers, argued that the proceedings violated natural justice and that they were bona fide purchasers for value. The Court held that the initial allotment was obtained through fraud, rendering the subsequent titles void. Relying on established precedents, the Court ruled that its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction is intended to foster justice and right wrongs, not to protect rights derived from fraud or to perpetuate illegalities. Furthermore, the Court clarified that protections under the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to evacuee property within the compensation pool. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, as the Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction in aid of an allotment established to be fraudulent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court's discretionary constitutional jurisdiction extend to protecting rights derived from fraudulent allotments?
  • Are the protections under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 applicable to evacuee property forming part of the compensation pool?
  • Can a petitioner successfully challenge a settlement order in the High Court if the underlying claim for the allotment is proven to be bogus?
  • Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 remove the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Sufi Habib Ullah Havi vs Muhammad Rafiq1993 MLD 332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Subedar Pensioner Dauran Khan vs Dr. Nazir Ahmad through Legal Heirs1993 MLD 2427 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Suba vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 160 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
• Suba KHAN/Plaintiff vs Muhammad Bashir1993 MLD 1958 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27
  pre-emptionTalb-i-Ishhadcivil revisionstatutory complianceregistered noticeburden of prooffeeble right
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of agricultural land, which was dismissed by both the trial court and the appellate court due to the plaintiff's failure to prove the timely performance of Talb-i-Ishhad. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff satisfied the mandatory statutory requirements for Talb-i-Ishhad under Section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissing the revision. The court held that the right of pre-emption is a 'feeble right,' necessitating strict adherence to all prescribed formalities. Specifically, the court affirmed that Talb-i-Ishhad must be executed through a registered notice attested by two truthful witnesses, and failure to provide documentary evidence of such service is fatal to the claim. Furthermore, the court emphasized that where a statute mandates a specific procedure for an act, that procedure must be followed precisely. Consequently, as the plaintiff failed to establish compliance with the statutory notice requirements and the prescribed timeline, the suit was rightly dismissed for want of a valid pre-emptive demand.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement of sending a registered notice attested by two witnesses for Talb-i-Ishhad mandatory under the Punjab Pre-emption Act?
  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision if there is no misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Does the failure to strictly observe the formalities required for the exercise of the right of pre-emption result in the dismissal of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sub. Major (R) Meer Badar Ud Din vs Raja Abdul Aziz Bhatti, AdvocateK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
• Sona vs Returning Officer/Ac and another1993 CLC 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2446 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 273 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs M. Asif1993 MLD 2320 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Shukar Din and others vs Nazir Ahmed and others1993 CLC 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-17
  redemption of mortgagecomposite judgmentcomposite decreeconsolidated suitspreliminary decreemortgage declarationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from consolidated suits regarding land measuring 31 kanals and 17 marlas, originally mortgaged in 1916. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of absolute ownership by efflux of time, while the respondents filed a parallel suit for redemption. The trial court decreed the petitioners' suit and dismissed the respondents', but the lower appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing redemption and dismissing the declaration suit. The petitioners challenged this on two grounds: first, that failure to separately appeal both decrees rendered the unchallenged decree final; and second, that a preliminary decree in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ought to have been passed. The Lahore High Court held that a composite judgment and decree sheet were lawfully issued, meaning a single challenge sufficed to address both suits without procedural defect. Furthermore, under Section 3 of the Punjab Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964, redemption of mortgages under specific monetary and area thresholds is permissible, and the civil court can grant such relief. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to file separate appeals against distinct decrees arising from consolidated suits and a composite judgment is fatal to the appeal?
  • Does a composite judgment and decree sheet cure technical defects regarding separate challenges to consolidated suits?
  • Can a civil court grant redemption of a mortgage on the principles embodied in Section 3 of the Punjab Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Ata Ullah Khan And Another vs Messrs Shahjahan Khan And OtherK.L.R.1993 Revenue Cases 19 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sheraz Ata Ullah Khan (minor) through his real maternal uncle vs Nazir1993 CLC 945 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29
  pre-emptionjoint suitwithdrawal of co-plaintiffindependent right of pre-emptiondeposit of pre-emption moneyact of the courtreview petitionrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a pre-emption suit filed by two co-plaintiffs claiming superior pre-emptive rights. The trial court decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court reduced the sale price and fixed a deadline for depositing the decretal amount. Before the deadline, the plaintiffs filed a review petition stating that one co-plaintiff wished to withdraw and the remaining petitioner sought a decree for the entire land while offering to deposit the full amount. The appellate court initially permitted the petitioner to deposit his share but later dismissed the review petition and the entire suit for failure to deposit the total sum within the original deadline. The Lahore High Court held that a right of pre-emption is individual and independent, meaning the withdrawal of one co-plaintiff does not defeat the suit as a whole, and the remaining plaintiff is entitled to pre-empt the entire property. The Court further held that a litigant cannot be penalized for failing to deposit money due to a pending court application or act of the court. The revision was accepted, the dismissal set aside, and a decree granted to the petitioner alone upon depositing the balance sum.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the withdrawal of one co-plaintiff in a pre-emption suit results in the dismissal of the suit in toto or whether the remaining plaintiff can pre-empt the entire property on the strength of an independent right?
  • Does a pre-emption decree abate or fail entirely when co-plaintiffs fail to deposit the total decretal amount due to a pending review application and court orders?
  • Can an appellate court extend the time for depositing the balance of pre-emption money while deciding a review petition or upon dismissal of an appeal?
  • Does an act or omission of the court regarding the postponement of a deposit obligation prejudice the litigant's right to maintain a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs Muhammad Amir and 5 others1993 P Cr. L J 2519 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs Muhammad Amir And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 502 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Barkat Bibi and others1993 MLD 692 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →