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.

• Habib Ul Haque vs Sargroh Vegetable Ghee and General MillsK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 152 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd.s vs Iftikhar Ahmad and 7 others1993 CLC 535 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-07
  correction of decreeclerical errorfuture interestbanking suitmerger of decreeappellate decreelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed by Habib Bank Limited under sections 152 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the correction of an accidental and inadvertent clerical error in the judgment and decree passed in R.F.A. No. 30 of 1982, which had affirmed the decree of the Special Court (Banking). The core legal question concerned whether an accidental clerical error in a decree regarding the award of future interest up to the date of realization could be corrected upon a miscellaneous application, and whether the original decree merges into the appellate decree upon the dismissal of an appeal. The Lahore High Court held that the use of a restrictive expression in the decree was an accidental error, and pursuant to section 8(2) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, the bank was mandatorily entitled to future interest till realization of the decretal amount. The Court laid down that an accidental or clerical error committed by the court can prejudice no party, limitation does not run against it, and upon the dismissal of an appeal, the original decree merges into the appellate decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accidental or clerical error in a court decree be corrected through a miscellaneous application under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Whether the original decree merges into the appellate decree when an appeal is dismissed on merits?
  • Does the law of limitation apply to an application seeking correction of a clerical or accidental error committed by the court?
  • Is a banking company entitled to future interest till the realization of the decretal amount under section 8(2) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Khanpur vs Mst. Munawar Sultana and another1993 MLD 36 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Messrs Aulia Engineering and others1993 CLC 154 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14
  pecuniary jurisdictionretrospective operationprocedural lawvested rightforum of trialBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979pending cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the impact of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992, on pending litigation before the High Court. The core legal question was whether the 1992 amendment, which enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Special Court from one million to ten million rupees, applied retrospectively to suits already pending before the High Court. The Court held that the amendment is procedural in nature, as it merely alters the forum of trial without affecting substantive rights. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Mst. Yasmeen Nighat v. National Bank of Pakistan, the Court determined that procedural changes apply to pending proceedings unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed. Consequently, the Court ruled that suits involving claims up to ten million rupees must be transferred to the Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The key principle established is that statutes altering the forum of trial are procedural and apply retrospectively to pending cases, as no litigant possesses a vested right in a specific procedural forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992, apply to cases pending before the High Court at the time of its promulgation?
  • Is a change in the forum of trial considered a procedural matter or a substantive right?
  • Does a litigant have a vested right in the forum of trial for a pending suit?
  • Should suits with a claim value up to ten million rupees be transferred to the Special Court following the 1992 amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs (M/s.) Aulia Engineering And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 301 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmad and others vs Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation1993 MLD 1674 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs Muhammad Rashid and others1993 CLC 824 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Gulshan Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Town Committee, Kot Abdul1993 CLC 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-19Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2329 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
• Gohar and 4 others vs Muhammad Jameel and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 669 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-05Read full judgment →
• Goga vs S.S.P. and others1993 P Cr. L J 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shah Khan vs The Collector Lahore District, LahoreK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 93 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Saghir and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 609 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sabir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1993 MLD 569 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State and others1993 P Cr. L J 1160 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Shabbir and others1993 P Cr. L J 2173 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Sh. Muh\Mmad Sharif and others1993 CLC 2398 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Haq Nawaz and 2 others1993 CLC 983 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool alias Sola vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1733 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim vs Superintendent, District Jail, Multan and Another1993 P Cr. L J 2066 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim Khan Khakwani and others vs Additional Director, Anticorruption and 15 others1993 PLD Lahore 678 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 644 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and others vs The State1993 MLD 2042 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and anothers vs The State and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2624 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nazir vs Abdul Khaliq and another1993 MLD 280 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State1993 MLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Sarfraz1993 MLD 439 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Yusuf and 2 others1993 CLC 314 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28
  civil revisionconcurrent findingsdeed of surrenderpermanent transfer deedsettlement authoritiesburden of proofproperty disputeco-ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a property dispute concerning a shop in Okara, where the petitioner claimed sole ownership based on a PTD issued after an alleged deed of surrender by the respondent. The lower courts concurrently held that the respondent remained a co-owner, finding the deed of surrender unproven and invalid due to the absence of the scribe and marginal witnesses, and the lack of verification by the Settlement Authorities. The petitioner challenged these findings in the High Court, arguing that chaotic conditions in the Settlement Department excused procedural lapses. The High Court dismissed the revision, affirming that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction absent evidence of misreading or non-reading. The Court held that a private document must be proved by examining its scribe and witnesses, and that a deed of surrender not verified by the Settlement Authorities is a nullity. Emphasizing that statutory acts must be performed as prescribed, the Court rejected the argument that administrative chaos excused the failure to follow mandatory verification procedures, thereby upholding the respondent's status as a co-owner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  • Is a private document like a deed of surrender admissible if the scribe and marginal witnesses are not produced to prove its execution?
  • Does the failure of Settlement Authorities to verify a deed of surrender render the document a nullity?
  • Can administrative chaos in a government department justify the non-observance of mandatory legal procedures for document verification?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Yousaf Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Muhammad Abdullah and others1993 CLC 2198 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs Mohri and 8 others1993 P Cr. L J 310 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1646 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sukhera and 4 others1993 MLD 423 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-10
  evacuee propertyauction cancellationproprietary rightscoram non judicenatural justicewrit jurisdictionrepeal of laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, which sought to cancel the auction of a specific Khasra number (1717) previously purchased by the petitioner in 1974. The core legal questions were whether the authorities retained jurisdiction over evacuee property matters after the repeal of the relevant evacuee laws, and whether an order adversely affecting the petitioner's proprietary rights could be passed without providing him an opportunity of being heard. The Lahore High Court held that once the evacuee laws were repealed, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to entertain applications for the cancellation of such auctions or to interfere with established proprietary rights. Furthermore, the Court found the impugned order legally flawed because it was passed without issuing a show-cause notice or providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court ruled that the proceedings were coram non judice and the order was passed without lawful authority. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the impugned order and associated proceedings were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does an authority retain jurisdiction to cancel an auction of evacuee property after the repeal of the relevant evacuee laws?
  • Can an order affecting a party's proprietary rights be passed without providing them an opportunity of being heard?
  • Are proceedings initiated by authorities lacking jurisdiction considered coram non judice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Saban and 3 others1993 MLD 2539 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad represented by Mst. Rehma and others vs Abdur1993 PLD Lahore 443 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and another vs The State1993 MLD 2483 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 2 others vs Amir and 3 others1993 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohammad And Another vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 455 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jaafar vs Settlement Department and others1993 CLC 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Distt. Magistrate, M.Garb And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 179 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Khan Khizar vs Addl. Director Anti CorruptionK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 487 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Khan Khizar and others vs Additional Director, Anticorruption, Multan and others1993 PLD Lahore 683 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and another vs Nawab Ali and another1993 MLD 2374 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 7 others vs Mehdi Hassan Khan and 6 others1993 PLD Lahore 303 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-22
  specific performanceagreement to sellcivil revisionburden of proofmarginal witnessespower of attorneyregistered sale deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a residential house, which was dismissed by the trial court and affirmed on appeal. The plaintiffs asserted that the owner's general attorney had executed an agreement to sell in their favour, but subsequently sold the property to his wife via a registered sale-deed. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs had established the execution and genuineness of the prior agreement to sell. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of the agreement. The scribe of the document admitted that the attorney was neither present nor signed the document, and the plaintiffs failed to produce any marginal witnesses to substantiate its execution. The Court laid down the principle that in a suit for specific performance, where the execution of an agreement to sell is denied, the burden of proof lies heavily on the plaintiff to produce marginal witnesses or reliable evidence to establish its genuineness, failing which the agreement cannot be enforced.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for specific performance succeed if the execution of the underlying agreement to sell is not proved by marginal witnesses or reliable evidence?
  • Does a compromise decree entered into by an alleged heir affect the rights of a prior purchaser of the property who was not a party to the compromise?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-genuineness of an agreement to sell can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction without showing any jurisdictional error?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 6 others vs Rab Nawaz Khan and another1993 CLC 1053 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Alias Khuda vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 119 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib Ran vs Pakistan (for Purposes of Service of SummonsK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 287 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 161 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs Muhammad Nawaz and another1993 P Cr. L J 2252 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid vs Mst. Pathani and 2 others1993 MLD 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid through Legal Heirs vs Shamsuddin1993 CLC 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1203 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Sh. Mahmood Akhtar and others1993 CLC 2488 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali Chaudhry vs Muhammad Aslam and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 2403 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar and others vs Member Board of Revenue, Lahore, and others1993 CLC 203 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The State1993 MLD 275 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 340 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Khan and others vs Allah Wasaya and others1993 MLD 504 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
• Ghazala Yasmin vs Addl. Distt. Judge And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 348 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-08Read full judgment →
• Ghaus Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 764 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ghauns Bakhsh and anothers vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1993 CLC 2465 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
• G Ghulam Shah Khan vs The Collector, Lahore District, Lahore1993 CLC 140 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Flour Mills Association, Multan vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government, Lahore and 3 others1993 MLD 779 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• Firdous Textile Printing Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad vs Federation of Pak1stan through Secretary Finance and 5 others1993 PTD 713 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31
  sales taxretrospective taxationfixed taxstatutory notificationjoint surveydelegated legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the demand for fixed sales tax on power-driven machines for the period prior to the issuance of the relevant notifications. The Central Board of Revenue, acting under Section 3(4) of the Sales Tax Act 1990, issued Notification No. SRO 781(1)/91 and Notification No. SRO 783(1)/91 on August 17, 1991, to levy fixed sales tax and promulgate the Fixed Amount of Sales Tax (Processed Fabrics) Rules 1991. The respondents demanded tax from July 1, 1991. The High Court held that a notification imposing a new liability or obligation cannot operate retrospectively in the absence of express statutory authorization. The Court rejected the argument that the consent of an industry association could validate such retrospective taxation. Consequently, the demand for the period from July 1, 1991, to August 17, 1991, was declared unlawful, while the procedural reliance on a pre-existing joint survey report for tax determination was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory notification imposing a tax liability operate retrospectively in the absence of express legal sanction in the parent statute?
  • Can the consent or consultation of an industry association form a valid legal basis for the retrospective levy of a tax on its members?
  • Does the reliance on a joint survey conducted prior to the promulgation of tax rules violate the principle against retrospective application of laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Firdous Textile Printing Mills (Pvt) Ltd. vs Federation of PakistanK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 65 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Feroze Khan and 4 others vs Zaman Ali and another1993 CLC 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-12
  civil revisionwithdrawal of suitfresh cause of actionres judicatainheritance rightsdivorceeCode of Civil Procedure 1908
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the concurrent dismissal of a suit by the lower courts, which had invoked the bar under Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners had filed a suit challenging a will, which was previously withdrawn without permission to institute a fresh suit. The core legal question was whether the subsequent suit, which also challenged the same will and additionally contested the inheritance rights of a divorcee, was barred by the previous withdrawal. The High Court held that the suit against the first respondent, concerning the validity of the will, was indeed barred as it involved the same subject matter and cause of action as the withdrawn suit. However, the court ruled that the claim against the second respondent regarding her inheritance status as a divorcee constituted a distinct, fresh cause of action not present in the earlier litigation. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal against the first respondent but remanded the case against the second respondent for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a suit without permission to file a fresh one bar a subsequent suit based on a completely different cause of action?
  • Does the sanctioning of a mutation based on a disputed will create a fresh cause of action if the validity of the will was already challenged in a previously withdrawn suit?
  • Can a suit be partially maintained if one part of the claim is barred by Order 23, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while another part involves a distinct cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroze Din vs Muha.Mmad Amin and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 774 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04
  case decidedrevisional jurisdictionproduction of evidenceforensic examinationCode of Civil Procedurethumb-impression comparison
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition arose from a trial court's refusal to allow the petitioner to send disputed documents to a Forensic Laboratory for thumb-impression comparison and to summon a Finger Print Expert. The trial court dismissed the application, and the Additional District Judge subsequently dismissed the petitioner's revision, holding that an order declining to allow the production of evidence does not constitute a 'case decided' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an order refusing to allow the production of evidence qualifies as a 'case decided' amenable to revisional jurisdiction. The High Court held that such an order, which finally determines a party's right to produce specific evidence, does constitute a 'case decided' within the meaning of section 115. Relying on established precedents, the Court affirmed that revisional jurisdiction is attracted when a subordinate court judicially considers and decides a specific state of facts, even if the entire suit is not disposed of. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Additional District Judge's order and directed the revision to be decided on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order by a trial court refusing to allow the production of evidence constitute a 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a revision petition competent against an order of a trial court that rejects an application to summon a forensic expert and send documents for examination?
  • Does the term 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require the final disposal of the entire suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroze Din And 12 Other vs The Administrator R.P.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 5 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad and 3 others vs Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan1993 MLD 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-14
  civil servantdate of birth correctiontemporary injunctionservice tribunal jurisdictionsuperannuationirreparable losscivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the trial court and the appellate court granting a temporary injunction in favor of a civil servant. The respondent, a government employee, sought a declaration to correct his date of birth in his service record, relying on a decree obtained against a university, and requested an injunction to prevent his retirement based on the original service record. The core legal question was whether a civil court could grant a temporary injunction restraining the government from retiring a civil servant, given the potential bar on jurisdiction under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court held that while a civil court might have limited jurisdiction to determine the correctness of a date of birth entry, it lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the retirement of a civil servant, which falls under the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court found that the lower courts failed to consider the balance of convenience and the fact that any potential loss to the respondent was compensable in monetary terms, rendering the injunction unjustified. The revision petition was accepted, and the injunction was vacated.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to issue a temporary injunction restraining the government from retiring a civil servant?
  • Is a dispute regarding the date of retirement of a civil servant within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a civil court grant a temporary injunction when the alleged loss to the plaintiff is purely monetary and ascertainable?
  • Does the failure of lower courts to consider material documents constitute a material irregularity under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Works, Government1993 CLC 2519 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture1993 MLD 1863 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Fazal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 391 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-17Read full judgment →
• Fazal Karim vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1828 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ellahi and 2 others vs District Judge, Attock and 3 others1993 CLC 85 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27
  pre-emptionrevival of suitZarooratZararTalb-i-IshhadPunjab Pre-emption Act 1991writ jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an application to revive a pre-emption suit originally instituted in 1990. The core legal question was whether a suit dismissed before the enactment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, could be revived under Section 35 of said Act if the original plaint failed to plead the essential requirements of 'Zaroorat' (need) or avoidance of 'Zarar' (harm). The Court held that the petition must fail. While Section 35 allows for the revival of certain dismissed pre-emption suits, such revival is contingent upon the original plaint already conforming to the substantive requirements of the new Act, subject only to the specific exceptions provided in Section 35(2). The Court established that the pleading of 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' is a mandatory requirement under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. Consequently, an amendment to a plaint in a dismissed suit cannot be permitted to cure fundamental defects to facilitate revival, as the suit must already meet the statutory criteria to be resurrected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emption suit dismissed prior to the enactment of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, be revived if the original plaint failed to plead 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar'?
  • Is the pleading of 'Zaroorat' or avoidance of 'Zarar' a mandatory requirement for a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • Can an amendment to a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be allowed in a dismissed pre-emption suit to facilitate its revival under Section 35 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Din vs Chairman, District Council, Sheikhupura1993 CLC 768 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
• Fazal and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 611 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-16Read full judgment →
• Fazal Ahmad and another vs Settlement Department and others1993 CLC 915 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmad vs M. AnwarK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 334 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
• Fauja vs Mst. Karim Khatoon and 6 others1993 MLD 1078 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20
  oral salemutationpart performancetransfer of propertydocument of titlepossessionvoid transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which decreed the respondents' suit for possession of land. The core legal question centered on whether an oral sale mutation of immovable property, unaccompanied by a written contract and physical possession, could be protected under the doctrine of part performance or if it was void under the statutory provisions requiring registration. The Lahore High Court held that the transaction did not satisfy the mandatory prerequisites of section 53-A, as there was no written contract signed by the transferor, and mutations merely serve fiscal purposes rather than acting as documents of title. Consequently, the oral sale violated section 54 and was void ab initio, conferring no title upon the appellant. The key principle laid down is that invoking the protection of part performance under section 53-A strictly requires a written, signed contract and actual delivery of possession, and a revenue mutation does not constitute a document of title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral sale mutation of immovable property without a written contract can attract the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does a revenue mutation operate as a document of title or create and extinguish property rights?
  • Is delivery of physical possession a mandatory prerequisite to invoke the equity of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Can an admission made by a guardian in a previous pre-emption suit create an estoppel against minor plaintiffs regarding a void transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Shah and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1036 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Fateh Shah And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 300 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs Administrator, T.D.A., Bhakkar and others1993 MLD 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad (deceased) through Muhammad Afzal and others vs Additional Commissioner and others1993 CLC 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-07
  evacuee propertysettlement schemetenancy admissionerroneous admissiontransfer of plotconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Settlement and Revenue authorities rejecting the petitioners' forms for the transfer of evacuee plots under Scheme No. VIII and Scheme No. IX framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The Deputy Administrator and the Additional Commissioner had rejected the petitioners' claims on the ground that they were tenants of a respondent mosque, having paid sums recorded as rent. The High Court observed that the authorities had misread and failed to properly appraise the evidence regarding the construction of the structures. The Court found that the receipts issued were for 'Attia' (donations) and that the respondent mosque failed to produce any account books showing construction expenses. Additionally, the Court held that an erroneous admission of tenancy made under a mistake of fact or law does not bind the maker. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petitions, declared the impugned orders to be without lawful authority, and directed the transfer of the plots to the petitioners according to their possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an admission made erroneously or in ignorance of one's legal rights under a mistake of fact is binding on the maker?
  • Can a religious institution claim title or rent over evacuee property where there is no independent evidence of it having raised construction on the land?
  • Does the payment of donations characterized as 'Attia' establish a landlord-tenant relationship for the purpose of transferring evacuee property?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs The State1993 MLD 2357 · Lahore High Court · 1993-08-11Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan vs Manzoor and 5 others1993 PLD Lahore 76 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-05
  pre-emption suitwithdrawal of suitWakalatnamacounsel and clientfraud and misrepresentationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arises from a pre-emption suit jointly filed by two brothers, which was dismissed as withdrawn based on statements made by one co-plaintiff and the joint counsel. The petitioner, the other co-plaintiff, filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 alleging fraud and misrepresentation, which was dismissed by the trial court and subsequently upheld in revision by the District Judge. The Lahore High Court examined whether the withdrawal of a suit by a counsel acting under a duly executed Wakalatnama constitutes fraud or misrepresentation warranting proceedings under section 12(2). The Court held that a counsel's authority to withdraw or compromise a litigation is inherent in their engagement and governed by the terms of the Wakalatnama, the Powers of Attorney Act 1882, and the Contract Act 1872. Any improper exercise of such power gives rise to liabilities inter se between counsel and client, but does not constitute fraud under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the withdrawal of a suit by a counsel acting under a Wakalatnama can constitute fraud or misrepresentation under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the engagement of a counsel inherently include the authority to withdraw or compromise a litigation?
  • Can an improper exercise of power by a counsel under a Wakalatnama furnish a ground for relief under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan And Other vs (Mst.) Begum Jan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali vs The State1993 MLD 2548 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-18Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali vs Aziz Bibi1993 CLC 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-28
  ejectmentpersonal needresidential premisescommercial uselandlord and tenantsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent landlady against the appellant tenant concerning a residential property rented out for commercial purposes, seeking eviction on the grounds of default, personal need, and damage to the property. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment on personal need and property damage, and the lower appellate court dismissed the tenant's appeal. The core legal question was whether a residential building let out for commercial use can be recovered by the landlord for personal residential use, and whether the landlady's choice of suitability of premises can be challenged merely because other premises fell vacant. The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that a landlord is entitled to seek the ejectment of a residential property regardless of its temporary commercial use, and that determining the suitability of premises is the exclusive prerogative of the landlord. The key principle laid down is that the original residential nature of a building permits its recovery for residential use despite a past commercial tenancy, provided the landlord's personal need is bona fide.

  Questions settled

  • Whether residential premises let out for commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for personal residential use?
  • Does the fact that a landlord has got another premises vacated bar them from seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need?
  • Is the determination of suitability and occupation of premises the exclusive prerogative of the landlady?
  • Does the use of a residential building by a tenant for commercial purposes permanently alter the legal character of the building?
  Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali alias Fandi and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
• Farooq Azam vs Additional District Judge1993 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-27Read full judgment →
• Farooq Aslam vs Muhammad Riaz and others1993 P Cr. L J 182 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Farooq Aslam vs Muhammad Riaz And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmad vs The Rent Controller, Lahore and 4 others1993 CLC 1024 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
• Faridud Din Masood vs Air Marshal (Rtd.) Muhammad Asghar Khan and 5 others1993 MLD 227 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-31
  ex parte proceedingssetting aside ex parte orderlimitation periodadjudication on meritscivil revisionsufficiency of cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for damages where the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which the trial court dismissed, holding it time-barred and asserting that such applications must be filed on the next date of hearing following the ex parte order. The core legal questions were whether the application was time-barred and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application without framing issues or allowing evidence. The High Court held that the trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity. It ruled that an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside ex parte proceedings is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, providing a three-year limitation period, and can be filed at any time prior to the passing of an ex parte decree. The Court emphasized that the law favors adjudication on merits over technical knockouts and remanded the case for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • What is the limitation period for filing an application to set aside ex parte proceedings under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an application to set aside ex parte proceedings be filed at any time prior to the passing of an ex parte decree?
  • Is a trial court required to frame issues and allow evidence when determining the sufficiency of cause for non-appearance in an application to set aside ex parte proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Faquir Muhammad and 48 others vs Province of Punjab through Collector_Deputy Commissioner and 4 others1993 PLD Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court
  temporary injunctionrejection of plaintcompetency of duty judgenecessary partiesmemorandum of appealdecree-sheetcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, which accepted an appeal against a temporary injunction order and simultaneously rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal questions involved the competency of a duty Additional District Judge to hear and decide matters under section 22 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, the fatal effect of failing to implead necessary co-plaintiffs in an appeal, and the mandatory requirement of accompanying a memorandum of appeal with a decree-sheet under section 96 and Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that a duty Additional District Judge is fully competent to decide urgent matters such as temporary injunction applications and the maintainability of plaints during the absence of a regular incumbent. However, the High Court upheld the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, ruling that the non-joinder of necessary co-plaintiffs renders the appeal incompetent, and that an appeal filed without a certified copy of the decree-sheet is fundamentally flawed and barred by limitation if supplied subsequently. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a duty Additional District Judge is competent to decide urgent matters and examine the maintainability of a plaint during the absence of the regular incumbent?
  • Does the failure to implead necessary co-plaintiffs as parties in an appeal render the appeal incompetent?
  • Is the requirement of accompanying a memorandum of appeal with a copy of the decree-sheet mandatory?
  • Can an appellate court entertain an appeal that is filed without a copy of the decree-sheet?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima1993 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Faqir Bakhsh vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 312 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
• Faqir Bakhsh vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 379 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →