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.

• Muhammad Younas vs The State1993 MLD 381 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 910 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Pirzada Ma. Qureshi and others1993 MLD 336 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin Tahir vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1993 CLC 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and another vs S.H.O. and another1993 MLD 2253 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs The State And OtherK.L.R 1993 Criminal Cases 254 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1993 MLD 2012 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs Baqir and 2 others1993 CLC 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29
  pre-emptionadditional evidenceappellate court dutyremand of caseprocedural irregularityCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for possession based on the right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents. During the pendency of the appeal before the Additional District Judge, the appellant filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the production of additional evidence, which was allowed. Subsequently, a second application for additional evidence was filed but remained undisposed of by the lower appellate court, which proceeded to dismiss the appeal and maintain the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the lower appellate court's failure to adjudicate upon a pending application for additional evidence vitiated its judgment. The High Court held that it is the mandatory duty of the lower appellate court to decide such applications. Failure to do so constitutes a procedural irregularity resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the lower appellate court with directions to decide the pending application before disposing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an appellate court to decide a pending application for additional evidence render its judgment liable to be set aside?
  • Is it mandatory for a lower appellate court to adjudicate upon an application for additional evidence before deciding the main appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Butt Additional Registrar, Lahore High Court vs Government of the Punjab Through Chief Secretary And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 36 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub and 63 others vs The Province of the Punjab through Home Secretary and another1993 MLD 2419 · Lahore High Court
  rejection of plaintjurisdiction of civil courtsettlement propertypermanent transfer deedpermanent injunctioncause of actioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil revision petition directed against the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby the petitioners' plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from forcibly dispossessing them from the property in dispute, which had been transferred to the respondents by the Settlement Authorities. The core legal questions involved were whether the civil courts could look beyond the plaint when considering the rejection of a plaint, and whether the jurisdiction of the civil courts was barred under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that a court may consider material other than the contents of the plaint in deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., and that the civil court's jurisdiction is barred under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act where property has been validly transferred by settlement authorities to persons holding a Permanent Transfer Deed. The key principle laid down is that persons lacking valid title or lawful allotment cannot maintain a civil suit to challenge settlement transfers or restrain their dispossession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take into consideration material other than the contents of the plaint while considering the question of rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the civil court have jurisdiction to question a property transfer made by the Settlement Authorities in view of section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
  • Can a trespasser or a person without title file a suit before the civil court to protect unauthorized occupation?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when both lower courts have lawfully exercised their jurisdiction in rejecting a plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 836 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and 29 others vs Province of Punjab through Collector, District Sargodha and 4 others1993 MLD 918 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10
  Civil RevisionRes JudicataAbuse of ProcessIrrigation RightsCompensatory CostsContempt of CourtStill-born SuitCanal and Drainage Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a civil revision against an appellate order vacating a stay in a suit concerning irrigation water rights. The core legal questions were whether the suit was maintainable despite previous final adjudications and whether the High Court could dismiss a frivolous suit during revision proceedings. The Court held that the suit was an abuse of the process of law, as the petitioners had repeatedly challenged a 1971 order that had already attained finality. The Court dismissed both the revision petition and the underlying suit, noting that a 'still-born' suit must be buried at its inception. It established the principle that courts possess the inherent power to dismiss frivolous, vexatious litigation to prevent the abuse of judicial process. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that public functionaries must not collude with private parties to frustrate lawful court orders. Consequently, the Court imposed compensatory costs on the petitioners and issued show-cause notices for contempt of court against the petitioners and involved irrigation officials for undermining the authority of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court dismiss an incompetent and frivolous suit while deciding a civil revision petition against an interim order?
  • Does the principle of res judicata bar a party from filing successive suits to challenge an order that has already attained finality?
  • Is a court empowered to dismiss a 'still-born' suit at its inception to prevent the abuse of judicial process?
  • Can public functionaries be held liable for contempt for colluding with private parties to frustrate the implementation of a final court order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaq00b vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 79 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaq00b Javed vs Mst. Azra Parveen and another1993 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Warras vs The State1993 MLD 2213 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waris vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 846 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Walayat and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2122 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1993 MLD 2142 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Mst. Viran Bibi1993 CLC 655 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28
  tentative rent orderdefault in payment of rentrate of rentejectment petitionadvance rentremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the tenant, Muhammad Tufail, by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, due to non-compliance with a tentative rent order directing the deposit of arrears at the rate of Rs.300 per month under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could issue a tentative rent order based solely on the unverified oral assertions of the landlady without properly considering the tenant's documentary evidence showing advance payment of rent up to the year 2000. The Lahore High Court held that a Rent Controller is legally bound to make a tentative determination of the rate of rent by applying a judicial mind based on valuable material and rational estimation, rather than acting in a whimsical or arbitrary manner. The Court set aside the lower orders and remanded the case for a fresh, objective determination of the rate of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Is it obligatory for a Rent Controller to make a tentative determination of the rate of rent by application of a judicial mind?
  • Can a Rent Controller rely solely on the oral assertions of a landlord while ignoring prima facie documentary evidence produced by a tenant regarding advance payment of rent?
  • Does a tenant have the right to challenge the correctness of a tentative pre-trial rent order at the final stage after his defence is struck off?
  • What methodology should a Rent Controller adopt to determine tentative rent when no direct documentary evidence is instantly available?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Raza vs Province of Punjab and others1993 MLD 2332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taqi vs Lahore Development Authority and others1993 CLC 2533 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Abid vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 512 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs The State1993 MLD 506 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2588 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Mst. Zubaida Bibi1993 CLC 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Inayat and 4 others1993 CLC 2330 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique through Legal Heirs vs Munshi Khand and another1993 MLD 1792 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Malik vs Sardar Ghulam Rasool Khan (deceased1993 MLD 450 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 978 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and another vs L.D A. and others1993 CLC 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 others vs Faqirmuhammad and another1993 CLC 1158 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15
  civil revisionreview petitionnon-reading of evidenceredemption of mortgaged landadditional evidenceformal exhibition of documentsprocedural technicalitiesrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arises from a civil revision petition filed before the Lahore High Court against concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the lower courts, which had decreed respondent No. 1's suit for possession of disputed land on the ground of non-redemption within sixty years, while ignoring an earlier order of restitution and related mutation. The core legal questions involved whether a review petition is incompetent if copies of the judgment and decree are not annexed, and whether courts are bound to consider material documents present on the record even if not formally exhibited. The Lahore High Court held that copies of judgments or decrees need not necessarily be annexed to a review petition, and that the failure of lower courts to notice and read a material document (Mutation No. 2018) already placed on record constituted non-reading of evidence and grave jurisdictional irregularity. The Court laid down the principle that procedural technicalities and a party's failure to formally exhibit a document should not obstruct the administration of justice where such material is necessary for a just decision, and that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised to undo a miscarriage of justice caused by oversight of vital record evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a review petition is legally incompetent solely due to the non-annexation of copies of the impugned judgment and decree?
  • Does the failure of a trial or appellate court to consider a material document present on the record, merely because it was not formally exhibited, constitute non-reading of evidence?
  • Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside judgments suffering from grave procedural irregularities and miscarriage of justice?
  • Whether an order of restitution passed by a Collector under the West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964 attains finality if its validity is not challenged in a regular suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaukat vs Fazal Khan through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 2185 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad SHARIFPetitioncr vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2510 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 262 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 2321 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 761 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Hussain and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 2053 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-16
  acquittalcondonation of delaylimitation actprivate complaintproduction of evidenceappeal against acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the acquittal of the respondents by the trial magistrate under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a private complaint for offences under sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved were whether the delay in filing the special leave to appeal could be condoned under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 on the grounds of wrong legal advice and illness, and whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the appellant's failure to produce evidence. The Lahore High Court held that neither bad legal advice nor unsubstantiated illness constituted sufficient ground to condone the delay, and that an acquittal under section 249-A is justified when no evidence is available on record to support the charge. The court laid down the principle that the probability of conviction under section 249-A must be judged from the material on record rather than mere allegations in a complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Whether wrong legal advice and illness constitute sufficient grounds to condone delay under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 for filing an appeal against acquittal?
  • Is the personal appearance of an appellant required for filing a petition for special leave to appeal under section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a trial court acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the complainant fails to produce any evidence in support of the charge?
  • How is the probability or possibility of conviction to be judged for the purpose of an order under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Aslam and another1993 MLD 565 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar1993 CLC 95 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Jamal Din and others1993 P Cr. L J 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs (Mst) Parveen AkhtarK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 332 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Sheikh vs The District Health Officer And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur and others1993 MLD 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 2 others vs Inayat Muhammad and 2 others1993 CLC 2049 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 13 others vs Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakeel vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2603 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shajahat Raja vs Election Tribunal (Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad) and 2 others1993 CLC 116 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shajahat Raja vs Election Tribunal (Senior Civil Judge), Islamabad And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 341 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Manzoor Hussain1993 P Cr. L J 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and others vs Muhammad Afzal and others1993 MLD 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2476 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 142 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Hanif and 8 others1993 P Cr. L J 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Moris Masih and others1993 P Cr. L J 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Member, Board of Revenue and another1993 CLC 1226 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Hakim and others1993 P Cr. L J 2142 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs District Collector and others1993 MLD 265 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police, Multan Range, Multan and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 200 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs L.D.A. and others1993 CLC 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-30
  temporary injunctionstatus quoprima facie caseexecution proceedingsmultiplicity of proceedingscivil revisiontransfer order
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restrain the Lahore Development Authority from auctioning a disputed plot during pending execution proceedings. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing interim relief by deeply delving into merits such as alleged record tampering and limitation while a title dispute and execution proceedings were near completion. The Lahore High Court held that where important questions of fact and law exist and proceedings are at a concluding stage, courts should not pre-empt trial issues like forgery or limitation at the interim stage, and status quo must be maintained to prevent irreparable loss and multiplicity of proceedings. The High Court established that a prima facie case is made out when arguable factual and legal questions are present, and a court hearing a stay application must avoid conducting a premature trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court hearing a temporary injunction application can delve deeply into the merits of forgery and limitation which form the core subject matter of the pending trial?
  • Does a party establish a prima facie case for interim injunction by showing arguable questions of fact and law rather than proving the case beyond doubt?
  • Is it proper to restrain a public authority from auctioning disputed property during the pendency of execution proceedings to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable loss?
  • Whether a suit for declaration of title and possession is maintainable when the plaintiff is not in physical possession of the vacant disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs Fateh Muhammad and others1993 CLC 1842 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2640 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and another vs The State1993 MLD 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and another vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs The State1993 MLD 2328 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salimul Shafi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salimul Shafi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and others vs Lahore Development Authority and others1993 MLD 2312 · Lahore High Court
  civil revisionclosing of evidencesufficient causeadjournmentpermanent injunctionland acquisitionprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two civil revision petitions arising from a common set of facts involving a suit for permanent injunction against the Lahore Development Authority regarding the acquisition of land. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in closing the plaintiffs' evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C. and dismissing their suit for failure to produce evidence on the date fixed, without considering the sufficient cause shown for adjournment. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court committed a substantial error by failing to consider the sufficient cause advanced by the petitioners, namely that their counsel was busy with a competitive examination, and that dismissing the suit on a technicality without granting sufficient opportunity to lead evidence caused injustice. The Court laid down the principle that courts should avoid deciding matters on technicalities, must consider grounds for adjournment showing sufficient cause, and should ensure that disputes are resolved on their merits rather than defeated by procedural defaults.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is justified in closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without considering the sufficient cause shown for adjournment?
  • Can a court dismiss a suit on technical grounds without providing adequate opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in revision with concurrent findings of fact when the lower courts have committed a substantial error or jurisdictional defect?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 880 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs S.H.O. and others1993 P Cr. L J 1302 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Ullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Ullah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan and another vs Member, Board of (Revenue), Punjab Lahore and others1993 CLC 864 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Seema and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1814 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Fauji Fertilizer and others1993 CLC 696 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2018 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Muhammad Saeed and 3 others1993 MLD 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Khan and another vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Pakpattan Sharif and another1993 CLC 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and others vs The State1993 MLD 288 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1993 MLD 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State and others1993 MLD 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Aslam and others1993 CLC 828 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Additional District Judge and others1993 CLC 2426 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Bhutta vs Special Judge, Anticorruption, Punjab, Lahore and another1993 P Cr. L J 876 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1185 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others1993 CLC 2078 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs The State1993 MLD 575 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2155 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Sakina and another1993 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14
  revision petitionpermanent injunctionadverse possessionpleadingsadmissionfrivolous litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, granting a permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner who obstructed them from using property purchased by their predecessor through a registered sale-deed. The core legal question was whether a suit could be decreed without framing issues or recording evidence when the written statement failed to raise any real controversy and admitted the plaintiffs' title. The Lahore High Court held that where material propositions of fact or law are not denied and no valid controversy exists in the pleadings, the trial court is justified in decreeing the suit straightaway, and further held that a plea of adverse possession cannot be raised or considered without being specifically pleaded. The petition was dismissed in limine as wholly frivolous with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial Court can decree a suit straightaway without framing issues or recording evidence when the written statement raises no material controversy?
  • Is it necessary to specifically plead adverse possession in the written statement before it can be raised or considered?
  • Can an unpleaded question of fact become capable of being proved through evidence?
  • Whether a revision petition filed without any substantive legal ground is liable to be dismissed in limine?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs District Judge, Sialkot and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 452 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs Mst. Irshad Begum1993 MLD 707 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Aslam vs Muhammad Akhtar and 2 others1993 CLC 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-07
  court-feead valorem court-feedeclaratory suitcancellation of documentgift-deedconstitutional petitionsubstance of the plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute regarding the computation of court-fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act versus Article 1, Schedule 1 of the Court Fees Act. The petitioner, a disinherited son, filed a civil suit for a declaration that registered gift-deeds executed by his father in favor of his brother were null and void qua his right to inherit, along with a consequential relief for partition and separate possession of his share. The core legal question was whether the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(c) allowing the plaintiff's arbitrary valuation for court-fee, or whether it required ad valorem court-fee on the value of the subject-matter. The Lahore High Court held that when a party seeks to establish title to property and cannot do so without removing an obstacle such as a registered deed by which they are bound, the suit in reality is one for cancellation of a document rather than a mere declaration, necessitating payment of ad valorem court-fee. The petition was dismissed in limine, establishing that the substance of the plaint governs court-fee assessment rather than its ostensible form.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit framed as a declaration to avoid registered gift-deeds is in reality a suit for cancellation of a document requiring ad valorem court-fee?
  • Does Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act give a plaintiff absolute discretion to value a suit for court-fee purposes regardless of the true substance of the plaint?
  • Is a plaintiff seeking partition of property bound to pay ad valorem court-fee when an insuperable obstacle like a registered gift-deed stands in the way of establishing title?
  Read full judgment →