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.

• Adam Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 867 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abu Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-17Read full judgment →
• Abrar Hussain vs Mst. Tasneem Akhtar and 2 others1993 MLD 174 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abid Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 190 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2042 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The Government of the Punjab, through HomeK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 447 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The Government of the Punjab through Home Secretary, Lahore1993 P Cr. L J 135 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-15Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 763 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-26Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and 3 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2381 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzak & Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs Muhammad Saleem and others1993 P Cr. L J 886 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid Ansari vs Abu Zahid Qari Hafeezullah1993 CLC 831 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid alias Muhammad Rashid and 5 others vs Muhammad1993 CLC 214 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07
  limited estatecustomary successionadverse possessionlimitation periodsuit for possessiongift mutationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for possession of agricultural land and perpetual injunction filed by the respondent, challenging a gift mutation executed by his father's issueless widow, who held the property as a limited owner under custom. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by time and held the widow to be a full owner, but the first appellate Court reversed this decision and decreed the suit. The Lahore High Court upheld the appellate judgment, ruling that the widow held only a limited estate for maintenance under custom, which terminated by operation of law. The Court held that a suit for possession by a lawful heir upon the termination of a limited estate is governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act rather than Article 14, and that no limitation period runs against the rightful heir unless adverse possession is established. Furthermore, the Court noted that under section 4 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975, a person claiming through an alienation from a refugee female limited owner cannot plead adverse possession. The civil revision was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an issueless widow holding property under custom possesses a limited estate or full ownership?
  • What limitation article governs a suit for possession filed by a legal heir upon the termination of a female limited estate?
  • Can a defendant claiming title through a gift mutation plead adverse possession against a lawful heir of the last male holder?
  • Does section 4 of the Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1975 bar the plea of adverse possession against the lawful heir of the last male holder?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah through Legal Heirs vs Barkat Ali through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 820 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and others vs Addl. Settlement Commissioner1993 CLC 1114 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid and 5 others vs Noor Muhammad and 7 others1993 PLD Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-23
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceagreement to selldiscretionary jurisdictionpendente lite alienationimposition of termscivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from an order of the trial court dated 15-3-1993 passed in a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, wherein the trial court restrained pendente lite alienation of the disputed land subject to the condition that the plaintiffs deposit the balance price within two months. The core legal question was whether a civil court possesses the authority under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to impose terms, such as the deposit of the balance consideration, as a condition for granting a temporary injunction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that injunctive relief is discretionary and the court has the competent authority to regulate its exercise of discretion by imposing terms to protect the legitimate rights of all parties. The key principle laid down is that a court granting a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance may lawfully impose equitable conditions, including the deposit of the balance sale price, to balance the interests of the litigants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial Court can impose terms, such as the deposit of balance consideration, when granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is injunctive relief of a discretionary nature allowing a court to regulate its exercise of discretion to protect the legitimate rights of parties?
  • Does the bare text of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exclude the power of a court to attach conditions to an injunctive order?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid alias Abdul vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1739 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Zubaida and another1993 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 666 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Suttar And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 509 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 614 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar And Other vs SH. Mohammad Akram And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 95 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar alias Billa vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad vs The State1993 MLD 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1603 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf And Another vs Ghulam Mohammad And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 222 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1993 MLD 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2416 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Khan vs Muhammad Aqil and another1993 CLC 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2579 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 99 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid alias Shida Gadi vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 801 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The SHO P. S. Shalimar Town, LahoreK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs S.H.O., Police Station Shalimar, Lahore1993 P Cr. L J 91 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-20
  habeas corpusillegal detentionpolice powersSection 54 Cr.P.C.remandindividual libertyuntraced case
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery of three individuals allegedly held in illegal police confinement. The core legal question was whether the police acted lawfully under Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in arresting the detenu without a warrant. The Court found the detention illegal, ruling that the police failed to demonstrate "credible information" or "reasonable suspicion" as required by the statute. The investigation was based on vague allegations in an untraced case, which did not constitute sufficient grounds for arrest. The Court held that police powers under Section 54 must be construed strictly to safeguard the constitutional liberty of citizens. Furthermore, the Court cautioned that Magistrates must exercise judicial discretion when granting remand under Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to prevent the misuse of police authority. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the detenus and imposed costs on the responsible Assistant Sub-Inspector for the illegal detention.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arrest under Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, require tangible evidence or reasonable suspicion rather than mere surmise?
  • Can police officers conduct roving inquiries into untraced cases by arresting individuals without definite clues?
  • Is a Magistrate required to apply their judicial mind before granting remand under Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes 'credible information' for the purpose of a warrantless arrest under Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2438 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Ghulam Hussain and another1993 MLD 679 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Election Tribunal1993 MLD 2523 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-12
  election petitionrecount of voteslocal council electionelection tribunalconstitutional petitionvalidity of ballot paperselection dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by an Election Tribunal directing a recount of votes in a Local Council election. The petitioner, a successful candidate, argued that the respondent had withdrawn all objections, including those regarding vote counting, and that the relief of recounting was not explicitly listed under the relevant election rules. The Lahore High Court examined whether the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction. The Court held that the respondent had merely waived certain allegations of corrupt practices while maintaining the challenge regarding the illegal rejection and acceptance of votes, which necessitated a recount. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a request for a recount is a procedural step to substantiate the substantive relief of declaring an election void, rather than an independent relief itself. The Court affirmed that an Election Tribunal possesses the inherent authority to order a recount to resolve disputes concerning the validity of ballot papers, a power explicitly supported by the governing election rules. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, upholding the Tribunal's order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a request for the recounting of votes a distinct relief or a procedural mechanism to support a claim that an election is void?
  • Does an Election Tribunal have the authority to order a recount of ballot papers to resolve disputes regarding the illegal rejection or acceptance of votes?
  • Can an Election Tribunal order a recount if the petitioner has withdrawn other allegations of corrupt practices but maintained the challenge regarding the counting of votes?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1993 CLC 665 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and another vs The State1993 MLD 2054 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Mian Alauddin alias Lal Mian and another1993 CLC 2525 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Muhammad Rafiq and others1993 CLC 2331 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and 9 others vs Riazul Haq1993 CLC 26 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and 5 others vs Manzoor Ahmad and others1993 MLD 177 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-01
  civil revisionrejection of plaintabuse of processres judicataadverse possessionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arises from the concurrent dismissal of a suit and rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court and appellate court rejected the plaint on the ground that the dispute had already been adjudicated by the High Court in an earlier writ petition, constituting an abuse of the process of law. The core legal questions involved whether the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is strictly confined to the averments in the plaint or admits exceptions when judicial records show prior adjudication, and whether a claim of adverse possession remains tenable in light of Islamic injunctions and the Limitation Act 1908. The Lahore High Court held that while plaints are generally evaluated solely on their averments, an exception applies when material demonstrates that the dispute is already concluded by a superior court, rendering the suit an abuse of process. Furthermore, claims of adverse possession are contrary to the Injunctions of Islam and Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 ceased to have effect from July 1, 1986. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is strictly limited to the averments in the plaint or admits exceptions when prior adjudication is established?
  • Can a suit be dismissed as an abuse of the process of law if the controversy raised therein has already been adjudicated upon by a superior court?
  • Is a claim of ownership based on adverse possession tenable in view of the Injunctions of Islam and the cessation of effect of section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1291 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1993 MLD 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 others1993 MLD 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Deputy Settlement CommissionerK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and another1993 CLC 678 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and 9 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1803 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kalam Azad vs Mst. Shaheenah and others1993 CLC 619 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and another vs Secretary Education and another1993 MLD 676 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jab Bar vs The State1993 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem and others vs Additional Commissioner1993 MLD 800 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafiz vs The State1993 MLD 541 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Abdul Ghafoor. and others1993 MLD 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and others vs Commissioner and others1993 MLD 270 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1993 MLD 2177 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
• Arif vs The State1993 MLD 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Judge Family CourtK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 110 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Election Tribunal1993 MLD 2525 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and 4 others vs Ghulam Hussain and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 401 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1340 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and 2 others vs Malik Muhammad1993 CLC 2437 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-22
  pre-emptionTalb-e-Ishhadmandatory procedurestatutory complianceco-ownershipcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from a suit for pre-emption concerning the sale of land. The trial court had partially decreed the suit, dividing the land between the pre-emptors and the vendee, both of whom were co-owners. The appellate court, however, dismissed the suit in its entirety, invoking Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the pre-emptors had satisfied the mandatory requirements for Talb-e-Ishhad under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, finding that the pre-emptors failed to perform Talb-e-Ishhad in the specific manner prescribed by Section 13(3) of the Act, which requires notice in writing attested by two truthful witnesses sent via registered post. The court held that when a statute mandates a specific procedure, it must be strictly followed, and oral compliance is insufficient. Consequently, the failure to plead and prove the performance of Talb-e-Ishhad in the prescribed manner proved fatal to the claim of pre-emption, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is oral compliance with the requirements of Talb-e-Ishhad sufficient under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991?
  • Must the performance of Talb-e-Ishhad be expressly pleaded in the plaint for a pre-emption suit?
  • Does the failure to follow the specific mode of notice prescribed by Section 13(3) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, extinguish the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1993 MLD 2045 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs S.H.O.1993 MLD 374 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Shafi1993 PLD Lahore 910 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-25Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan and 3 others vs Mst. Sat Bherai and 2 others1993 CLC 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-04
  inheritanceeffective talaqdivorce noticeMuslim Family Laws Ordinancejurisdiction of High Courtun-Islamic lawwidow's share
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from a civil dispute over the inheritance of agricultural land left by the deceased Gheba Khan. The core legal question was whether a divorce (Talaq) pronounced by the deceased became effective during his lifetime under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, given that he died before the expiration of the statutory ninety-day period following the notice of divorce. The Lahore High Court held that the Talaq did not become effective prior to the husband's death because the mandatory ninety-day period had not elapsed, meaning the respondent remained his wife at the time of his death and was rightfully entitled to inherit his estate as his widow. The Court further laid down that ordinary courts, including High Courts, lack jurisdiction under Article 2-A and Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 to strike down statutory provisions as un-Islamic, as such power rests exclusively with the Federal Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a divorce become effective before the expiration of the ninety-day period from the date notice is delivered to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Whether an ordinary civil court or High Court has the jurisdiction to declare a provision of a statute as un-Islamic under Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Is a wife entitled to inherit her deceased husband's estate as a widow if he dies before the completion of the ninety-day reconciliation period following a notice of Talaq?
  • Which judicial forum possesses the exclusive jurisdiction to examine the validity of a statutory provision on the touchstone of the Injunctions of Islam under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas and 3 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-02
  post-arrest bailmurdercriminal conspiracypolice investigationfurther inquirybail dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from an incident involving murder and severe injuries. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, who were declared innocent by successive police investigators but implicated in the initial F.I.R. and later suspected of conspiracy, are entitled to bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding police reports finding them innocent, a prima facie case of conspiracy could be inferred given their close familial relationship with the principal accused and the circumstances surrounding the hatching of the conspiracy. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that their case did not warrant further inquiry at this stage. The key principle laid down is that where police investigation suggests complicity by way of conspiracy and close association with absconding culprits, bail may be refused even if subsequent investigation reports placed the accused in column No. 3 of the challan.

  Questions settled

  • Are petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail when successive police investigation reports declare them innocent but prima facie evidence of conspiracy exists?
  • Does the inclusion of an accused in column No. 3 of the challan automatically entitle them to bail?
  • Can a court infer criminal conspiracy for the purpose of bail based on familial ties to the principal offenders and circumstances of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 513 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
• Aamer Naveed and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1699 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
• Aainuddin Khan vs The Collector, Lahore District, Lahore1993 MLD 183 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• A.K.Nasir vs Controller of Estate DutyK.L.R.1993 Tax & Custom Cases 53 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
• A.K. Nasir vs Controller of Estate Duty, Lahore1993P T D 667 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
• A. Rehman vs Tehsildar Lahore and another1993 CLC 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09
  corporate veilpersonal liabilityrecovery of arrearsnatural justiceopportunity of being heardconstitutional petitiondistinct legal entity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the recovery proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar, Lahore, against the petitioner, the Managing Director of Progressive Journalists Ltd., for the recovery of Rs. 9,023 as arrears of land revenue owed by the company. The core legal questions were whether a company director can be held personally liable for the debts of a corporate entity and whether recovery proceedings initiated without providing the affected party an opportunity of being heard are sustainable. The Lahore High Court held that a company is a distinct legal entity separate from its shareholders and directors, and therefore, the company's liabilities cannot be transferred to its directors personally. Furthermore, the court held that the recovery proceedings were unsustainable because the authorities failed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard before determining the liability. The petition was allowed, establishing the principle that corporate veil protection prevents personal liability for directors regarding company debts and that administrative recovery actions must adhere to the principles of natural justice by granting a hearing to the affected party.

  Questions settled

  • Can a company director be held personally liable for the debts of a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913?
  • Are recovery proceedings for arrears of land revenue sustainable if the affected party is not granted an opportunity of being heard?
  • Is a company a distinct legal entity separate from its directors and shareholders?
  Read full judgment →
• (M/s) Shoaib Bilal Corporation vs The Commissioner of Income TaxK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 43 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Umri vs Muhammad Boota And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 328 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Sughran vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 39 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-09Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Sobia Hanif vs The Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Lahore, And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 899 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Sardar Begum Etc. vs Bashir Ahmad Etc.K.L.R.1993 Civil Cases 360 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Noor Fatima And Other vs Muhammad Khan (Deceased) And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 133 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-26Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Nathi vs (Mst.) Hamidan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revnue Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Musharraf Sultana vs Fazal HussainK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 136 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Hamida Begum vs (Mst) Hussain AkhtarK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-19Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Hafeezan Bibi And Other vs Mansab AliK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 163 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Fatima Bibi vs Muhammad Sadiq, Etc.K.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 158 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Arifa Parveen vs Mohammad Amin Puri And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour and Service Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Safia Begum vs Muhammad Ibrahim And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 91 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Nazeeran Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 197 · Lahore High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
• (DR.) (MRS.) Khalida Razi vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 791 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 524 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
• Zulfioar Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1759 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-14Read full judgment →
• Zubair Akbar' vs Mst. Mehreen Hayat and others1992 CLC 1940 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11
  Constitutional petitionFamily CourtDissolution of marriageClosing of evidenceAdjournmentSummary decreeDecision on meritsWrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenged an order of the Judge, Family Court, Lahore, which closed the petitioner's evidence and decreed a suit for dissolution of marriage. The core legal questions were whether the Family Court provided adequate opportunity for evidence and whether it could summarily decree the suit without considering the evidence on record. The High Court held that the Family Court's decision to close the petitioner's evidence was a reasonable and judicious exercise of discretion, given multiple adjournments and the petitioner's failure to produce evidence despite undertakings. However, the High Court ruled that the Family Court erred in decreeing the suit forthwith without adverting to and discussing the evidence already on record and without recording findings on the relevant issues. The principle laid down is that even after closing evidence, a decision must be on the merits of the case, based on available evidence, and not a summary decision as a penalty. The case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits by a different Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court close a party's evidence after granting multiple adjournments for compromise and evidence?
  • Does the court's discretion in granting adjournments and closing evidence warrant interference in writ jurisdiction if exercised reasonably?
  • Can a suit be decreed summarily after closing the defendant's evidence without considering the plaintiff's evidence on record?
  • What is the legal requirement for a decision 'forthwith' under Order XVII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Zltlfiqar Ahmad And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1101 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →