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.

• Riaz Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
• Riaz Akhtar alias Jajji vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Multan1993 MLD 1885 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Malik vs Mst. Ghazala Riaz Malik and another1993 CLC 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-16Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and 2 others vs Mahmood Ahmad1993 CLC 120 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23
  civil revisionex parte decreelimitation periodcondonation of delaycertified copiesvoid ordermalicious prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from an ex parte decree for damages in a suit for malicious prosecution. The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their time-barred appeal by the District Judge. The core legal questions were whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal should be computed from the date of knowledge of the ex parte decree, whether the delay in collecting certified copies was excusable, and whether a purportedly void decree is exempt from limitation periods. The Court held that the period of limitation for obtaining certified copies is calculated up to the date the copies are ready for delivery, not when they are actually collected, unless the litigant proves they were not informed of the preparation date. The Court further held that even void orders must be challenged within the prescribed limitation period. As the petitioners failed to explain the delay in collecting copies and failed to establish the decree as void, the Court dismissed the revision, affirming that the appeal was correctly dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Is the period of limitation for filing an appeal computed from the date of knowledge of an ex parte decree?
  • Does the period requisite for obtaining certified copies extend to the date of actual collection or the date the copies were ready for delivery?
  • Must a void order be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation?
  • Can a court condone a delay in filing an appeal without a specific explanation for each day of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2079 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah and others vs Mukhtar Ahmad and others1993 MLD 202 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah And Other vs District Judge SheikhupuraK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 100 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 70 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-14
  constitutional petitionspeedy trialre-enactment of ordinanceestoppel by conductjurisdiction of special courtsdeath sentencestay of execution
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Special Court for Speedy Trials, challenged the validity of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance XXXVIII of 1991 and subsequent re-enactments, arguing that the President lacked the constitutional authority to re-enact lapsed Ordinances. The core legal question was whether the President of Pakistan is competent under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to re-enact an Ordinance after its expiry. The Court held that the President is fully competent to re-enact Ordinances, even if the subsequent text is identical to the preceding one. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the petitioner, having participated in the trial and appeal process without raising jurisdictional objections until after conviction, was estopped by his conduct from challenging the legality of the forums in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that a party who acquiesces to a tribunal's jurisdiction and participates in proceedings in expectation of a favorable outcome cannot later invoke extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to challenge that same jurisdiction, especially when no injustice is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Is the President of Pakistan competent to re-enact an Ordinance after its lapse under Article 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a petitioner who participated in trial proceedings without objection later challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the re-enactment of an Ordinance that is verbatim identical to a lapsed Ordinance constitute a valid exercise of legislative power?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Farooq Ahmad Hashmi Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 207 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-14Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali alias Rehman vs The State1993 MLD 2032 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
• Rehma vs Muhammad Yaqoob and others1993 PLD Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Rehma vs Muhammad Yaq00b and others1993 PLD Lahore 479 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Regum Z1a Farhat Awan And Another vs Haji Abdul RashidK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 64 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Registrar of Companies vs CH. Ali Muhammad & CH. M. Saleem And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 230 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-27Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh alias Shoobi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Rashid Asghar Khokhar vs Habib Bank Limited, Multan City1993 CLC 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 519 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rao Tasawar Ali Khan vs Muhammad Tufail and others1993 P Cr. L J 2435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• Rao Tasawar Ali Khan vs Muhammad Tufail and AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 366 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2370 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Sarwar vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and 31993 CLC 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Akram Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2044 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
• Rana Khalid Sohail vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rana Khalid Sohail vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1596 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rana Khalid Mahmood vs Chairman, Zila Council, Gujranwala, District Gujranwala and others1993 CLC 1132 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
• Rana Khalid Hussain vs Abdul Haq, S.D.O., WAPDA and another1993 MLD 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• Rana Gulzar Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Jhang and 2 others1993 CLC 277 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State1993 MLD 557 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Raja vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Raja Pehlwan Khan vs Raja Abdul Ghafoor1993 MLD 2517 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Yasin vs Zaitoon Begum and others1993 CLC 2448 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07
  oral giftinheritancedivorceMuslim Family Lawsburden of proofsham transactiondisinheritancecircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Regular Second Appeal and a Civil Revision arising from consolidated suits filed by the appellant, Raja Muhammad Yasin, seeking a declaration of ownership of property based on an alleged oral gift and acknowledgement deed from his deceased brother, and a declaration that the deceased's widow was divorced. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suits, finding the gift unproven and the divorce invalid. The core legal questions were whether the alleged gift was a genuine, completed transaction and whether the divorce was legally effective. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, ruling that the appellant failed to prove the gift or the divorce. It held that the transaction was a sham designed to disinherit the deceased's lawful heirs, which is contrary to Islamic law. Furthermore, the court emphasized that a divorce must be processed through the Union Council to be effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence and probabilities are valid considerations in determining the existence of a fact, particularly when direct evidence is unreliable or suspicious.

  Questions settled

  • Is a gift transaction valid if its primary object is to disinherit lawful heirs?
  • Can a divorce be considered effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, if it is not routed through the Union Council?
  • Does the definition of 'proved' under the Evidence Act allow a court to rely on probabilities when considering the matters before it?
  • Can a written statement filed by co-defendants admitting a claim be accepted as evidence if it appears to be procured by the plaintiff to the detriment of other heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Maroof Ahmad vs Qamar Zaman and another1993 MLD 933 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Rai Faqir Muhammad vs Deputy Superintendent of Police and others1993 P Cr. L J 1701 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 204 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmad Awan vs The State1993 MLD 832 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-27
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionabuse of processmala fidecriminal procedurepartial quashmentF.I.R.
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition seeks the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, Rafiq Ahmad Awan, regarding an F.I.R. registered under Sections 148, 365, 380, 427, 506/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Article 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question is whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when the prosecution appears to be mala fide, abusive of the court's process, and unlikely to succeed. The Court held that the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated for mala fide reasons to harass him, as evidenced by his absence from the F.I.R., the falsity of allegations regarding his presence at the scene, and his exoneration in a departmental inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings specifically against the petitioner while allowing the trial to continue against the co-accused. The principle laid down is that the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of the court's process and do not serve the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings if the prosecution is found to be mala fide and an abuse of the court's process?
  • Does the failure to invoke the remedy under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction for the quashment of a criminal case?
  • Is it legally permissible for the High Court to partially quash criminal proceedings against one accused while allowing them to continue against co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2204 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Khan and others vs Muhammad Sharif1993 MLD 435 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 343 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Qutab Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and others1993 CLC 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Qurban Hussain vs Border Area Allotment Committee and others1993 CLC 201 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-07Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs Muhammad Rafique and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 268 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
• Quarban Ali vs The Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab1993 CLC 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Qazi Zika-Ud-Din vs Messrs Oberoy Cooperative Sports Limited through Wallid Ali, Manager and 2 others1993 MLD 2425 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Latif vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2468 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• Qayyum Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Zaman Khan1993 MLD 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2260 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-06Read full judgment →
• Qari Muhammad Siddiq vs Delimitation Officer, Liaquatpur and others1993 CLC 63 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
• Qari Muhammad Aslam vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and another1993 MLD 711 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Abbas vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 197 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Qaim and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh alias Qadoo vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab1993 CLC 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan through Collector, Lyallpur and another vs Amir Begum and 4 others1993 MLD 885 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan through Collector Lyallpur And Other vs Amir Begum And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 312 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Mst. Hanifan1993 MLD 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Malik Altaf Ahmed and others1993 CLC 179 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationpotential valuereference courtcompulsory acquisitionexpropriation
  Summary & questions settled

  These Regular First Appeals arise out of land acquisition proceedings wherein 416 kanals 15 marlas of land in Rajanpur was acquired for constructing a district complex. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at Rs.400 per marla, which the Reference Court enhanced to Rs.2,000 per marla. The Province of Punjab appealed, arguing that the land was agricultural and lower documentary rates should apply, while the respondents sought to maintain or increase the compensation based on its commercial and residential potential. The Lahore High Court examined the principles of assessing market value in compulsory acquisition cases, considering potential use, location near urban centers, and inflationary trends. The Court held that the acquired land had lost its purely agricultural character and possessed significant residential and commercial potential, but since the respondent-owners had not filed cross-objections or appeals against the enhanced award, the Court declined to alter it further. Consequently, the appeals by the Province of Punjab were dismissed, upholding the Reference Court's award along with statutory benefits.

  Questions settled

  • What factors determine the market value of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can future potential and commercial use of agricultural land be considered when assessing compensation?
  • Whether past sales alone are sufficient to determine the market value of acquired land?
  • Are landowners entitled to compensation based on inflationary trends and currency depreciation between the notification date and the award?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Ch. Pervaiz Ahmad and others1993 CLC 660 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Deputy Commissioner_ Collector Sargodha, District Sargodha vs Muhammad Akram1993 PLD Lahore 114 · Lahore High Court
  resumption of landprohibited zonefraud and misrepresentationjurisdictional factquasi-judicial inquirycivil court jurisdictionColonization of Government Lands Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a dispute regarding the resumption of agricultural land originally allotted under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and subsequently conveyed to the respondent's predecessor through a registered conveyance deed. The Member, Board of Revenue, acting under Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, revoked the conveyance deed and ordered resumption of the land on the ground that it fell within a prohibited zone and was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The lower courts decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring the Board of Revenue's order illegal, which decision was challenged in revision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the Board of Revenue failed to conduct a proper inquiry or establish the jurisdictional fact of fraud or misrepresentation, relying instead on unverified oral statements. The Court laid down that the power of resumption under Section 30(2) requires a quasi-judicial inquiry into jurisdictional facts, and where a revenue authority acts ultra vires its statutory powers, the ouster of civil court jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 does not apply.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Revenue can resume land under Section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 without holding a proper inquiry into the jurisdictional fact of fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Does the bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 apply when a revenue authority acts ultra vires its statutory powers?
  • Is an oral statement by a revenue official regarding physical distance sufficient to establish that land lies within a prohibited zone?
  • Whether the acquisition of proprietary rights through a registered conveyance deed can be revoked without establishing a valid legal ground supported by evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Sahiwal and another vs Malik1993 MLD 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Faisalabad and 3 others vs Arbila1993 PLD Lahore 240 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, District Khushab and 2 others vs Malik Ghulam Qasim1993 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05
  power of reviewsubstantive rightnatural justicecondemned unheardrevisional jurisdictionstatutory interpretationallotment of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a dispute over the ownership of a plot of land in Joharabad. The respondent, Malik Ghulam Qasim, filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction challenging an order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Development) which had reviewed and recalled an earlier order favorable to the respondent. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, holding the review order invalid. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Secretary possessed the statutory power to review and recall his own previous order under the governing legislation. The High Court held that the power of review is a substantive right that must be expressly conferred by statute. Finding no such provision in the Thal Development Act, 1949 or the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973, the Court ruled the review order void. Furthermore, the Court noted the respondent was denied natural justice by not being impleaded in the review proceedings. The petition was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power of review a substantive right that requires express statutory conferment?
  • Can the power of review be exercised under the Thal Development Act, 1949 or the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973?
  • Does the procedural provision of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 regarding review apply to proceedings under the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973?
  • Is an order passed in review proceedings valid if the affected party was not impleaded or heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector Jhang, District Jhang vs Lal Khan1993 CLC 2444 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and others vs Messrs Khalid & Company1993 CLC 804 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And 3 Other vs Saif Ur RehmanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Muhammad Belal Sukhera vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur1993 PLD Lahore 474 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14
  ad hoc appointmentselectoral collegeVice-Chancellor powerslocus standiconstitutional petitionuniversity syndicatecolourable exercise of authoritystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the validity of ad hoc appointments made by the Vice-Chancellor of Islamia University, Bahawalpur, and the subsequent constitution of the University Syndicate. The core legal questions concern whether the Vice-Chancellor could exercise emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act 1975 to make appointments reserved for the Syndicate, and whether an electoral college formed by such invalid appointments could lawfully elect a Syndicate. The Court held that the Vice-Chancellor’s actions constituted a colourable exercise of authority, as emergency powers do not permit usurping Syndicate functions. Consequently, the Court ruled that because the electoral college was improperly constituted, the resulting Syndicate election and all subsequent decisions made by that body were void and without lawful authority. The principle established is that a superstructure built upon a void act cannot stand; where the fundamental constitution of an authority is illegal, subsequent acts performed by that authority lack legal efficacy, and statutory provisions meant to cure minor irregularities cannot validate a fundamentally void constitution of a statutory body.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Vice-Chancellor exercise emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act 1975 to perform functions specifically allocated to the Syndicate?
  • Does an aggrieved person have locus standi to challenge the constitution of an electoral college if their own voting rights were affected by illegal appointments?
  • Can Section 47 of the Islamia University Bahawalpur Act 1975 validate the acts of a Syndicate that was elected by an illegally constituted electoral college?
  • Is a decision made by an improperly constituted statutory body void and without legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• S.M. Amin Haider vs Niamat Ali and another1993 P Cr. L J 595 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Pervez Akram vs The Collector, Kasur District,Kasur and 3 others1993 MLD 828 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Perveen Akhtar vs Daniel Gulzar and another1993 MLD 767 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Iqbal and others vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Alias Raja vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 379 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz alias Paja vs The State1993 MLD 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 53 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2200 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Pehalwan vs Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad and another1993 PLD Lahore 525 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Palia vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority through its Project1993 PLD Lahore 237 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-17
  civil revisiontemporary injunctionpublic importancecompensationtransmission linesbalance of convenienceWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a dispute where the respondent landower filed a suit for permanent injunction and sought an ad interim stay order to restrain the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) from digging, constructing, and installing electricity transmission poles on the respondent's land without prior payment of compensation. The trial court dismissed the stay application, but the lower appellate court accepted the respondent's appeal and issued a stay order against WAPDA. The core legal question was whether an interim injunction should be granted to halt a project of vital public importance merely because an individual landowner seeks monetary compensation. The Lahore High Court held that public good overrides individual interest, and since the petitioner's project was nearly ninety percent complete and the respondent's claim was measurable in monetary terms, the balance of convenience did not favor granting a stay. The Court laid down the principle that under Section 14 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, WAPDA is entitled to enter private land and erect pillars for transmission lines prior to the determination and payment of compensation, provided compensation is assessed and paid expeditiously. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate court's order and restored the trial court's dismissal of the stay application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interim injunction can be granted to restrain WAPDA from laying electricity transmission lines on private land prior to the payment of compensation?
  • Does the statutory power of WAPDA under Section 14 of the Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958 allow entry upon private land and erection of pillars before the determination and payment of compensation?
  • Is a project of public importance entitled to override individual monetary interests when determining the balance of convenience for granting a temporary injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Defence Secretary, Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Messrs Desert Cat and another1993 CLC 222 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Sabdul Rauf And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Motor Transport Federation vs Town Committee, Serai1993 CLC 823 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• P. N. Boga And Another vs Abdur Rehman Khawaja And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 97 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
• P vs University of the PunjabK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 122 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-14Read full judgment →
• P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and others vs Ahmad Din1993 CLC 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and 6 others vs Khameesa1993 CLC 586 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and 6 Other vs KhameesahK.L.R.1993 Civil Cases 290 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and 12 others vs Wali Muhammad and 5 others1993 CLC 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
• Noor Din vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others1993 CLC 2424 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Noor and Sons vs Income Tax Officer , .1993 PTD 582 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1517 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad and another vs The State1993 MLD 2047 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin and 11 others vs Ch. Muhammad Saeed and another1993 CLC 2130 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30
  execution petitionlimitation perioddoctrine of mergerspecific performancefinal decreerevisional jurisdictionexecution of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Executing Court which dismissed the judgment-debtors' objection regarding the limitation period for an execution petition. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing an execution application under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 commences from the date of the trial court's decree or from the date of the final order passed by the Supreme Court in collateral proceedings challenging a term of that decree. The Court held that the execution petition was within time. It reasoned that the principle of merger applies to decrees challenged in higher forums, including revisional jurisdiction. Even where no stay order is issued, the decree of the court of last instance is the only executable decree, regardless of whether the lower court's decree was affirmed, reversed, or modified. The principle laid down is that the period of limitation for execution begins from the date of the final decree passed by the court of last instance, as the decree of the trial court merges into the final appellate or revisional order, rendering that final order the only executable instrument.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of merger apply to decrees passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for execution?
  • Does the limitation period for the first execution application under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 commence from the trial court's decree or the final order of the court of last instance?
  • Is the absence of a stay order during pending appellate or revisional proceedings relevant to the determination of the starting point of limitation for executing a decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din vs Manzoor Ahmed, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station, Khudian1993 P Cr. L J 2198 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →