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.

• Ziaul Ghani and others vs Additional District Judge and others1992 CLC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
• Zamir Hussain And 7 Other vs Rasul Butt1992 PLD Lahore 427 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-14Read full judgment →
• Zaman Iqbal vs The State1992 MLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Zahid Imran And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 587 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Iqbal vs The.State1992 P Cr. L J 1106 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs S.S.P. Sahiwal and 8 others-1992 P Cr. L J 722 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
• Zafar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2594 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Zafar Alias Pappu vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2421 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs Judge, Family Court and another1992 CLC 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-04Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 493 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
• Yousaf vs Sodagar1992 CLC 504 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-20Read full judgment →
• Younis Masih vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 905 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
• Yasin vs The State1992 P-Cr. L J 1087 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• Yaseen vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 488 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs Shabbir Hussain and others1992 CLC 798 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Wiqar Avais vs Raja Muhammad Shah Janjua and 4 others1992 CLC 8 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-13
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceconditional injunctionbalance considerationearnest moneyequitable reliefpendente lite
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arose from an interlocutory order in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a residential plot. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction to stop pendente lite alienation of the property. On appeal, the sole legal question was whether a court has the power and jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to impose conditions or terms, such as the deposit of the balance sale consideration, when granting a temporary injunction. The appellant argued that the court lacks statutory authority to attach conditions to such equitable relief. The Lahore High Court held that because temporary injunctions and specific performance are equitable and discretionary remedies, courts possess inherent power to impose reasonable terms to safeguard the interests of both parties. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, granting the temporary injunction restraining alienation subject to the appellant depositing the balance consideration and the respondents depositing the advance earnest money in the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the jurisdiction to impose conditions or terms when granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance be required to deposit the balance sale consideration as a condition for obtaining a temporary injunction?
  • Is the grant of a temporary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a purely statutory right or an equitable remedy subject to judicial discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore vs Qamaruddin and aNother1992 CLC 258 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09
  land acquisitionlocus standicompensation assessmentappellate jurisdictioncross-objectionsmarket valuepotentiality of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns regular first appeals filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenging an award rendered by the Administrative Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, regarding compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal questions were whether WAPDA possessed the locus standi to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, and whether the compensation awarded by the reference Court was adequate. Relying on the precedent set in Pir Khan v. Military Estate Officer, the Court held that WAPDA lacked the locus standi to file the appeal, as the right of appeal under the Act is restricted and not expressly conferred upon such bodies. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appellate court cannot disturb a decree or increase compensation in the absence of a cross-objection or appeal by the respondents. The key principle laid down is that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be assumed; additionally, appellate courts are precluded from varying a decree to the detriment of an appellant or in favor of a respondent without formal cross-objections.

  Questions settled

  • Does WAPDA have the locus standi to file an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can an appellate court vary a decree or increase compensation in the absence of a cross-objection or appeal by the respondents?
  • Is the award of a reference court under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 considered a substitute order that precludes further appeals by parties not expressly granted such rights by statute?
  • Does the failure of a party to appear as a witness in court raise a presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1872 that their claim is incorrect?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore vs Qamar Ud Din And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 193 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority and another vs Messrs1992 CLC 771 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Washal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-05Read full judgment →
• Waqar Hussain Etc. vs Shamim Hussain ShahK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 195 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Etc. vs Advisory Board, Punjab Lahore Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16Read full judgment →
• Walayat Begum through her Legal Heirs vs Fazal Elahi and others1992 CLC 1685 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
• Walayat Begum and others vs Wazir Begum and others1992 CLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-07
  partition suitco-sharersappellate judgmentadverse possessioncourt-feeredemption of mortgagecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for possession through partition of four houses left by the common predecessor-in-interest, Hafiz Din Muhammad. The trial court decreed the suit, concluding the plaintiffs were co-sharers to the extent of 57/224 share, and the lower appellate court dismissed the defendants' appeal. Before the Lahore High Court, the petitioners contended that the lower appellate court's judgment violated Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to discuss evidence issue-wise, raised questions of limitation and adverse possession, and disputed the court-fee valuation. The High Court held that a brief appellate judgment that effectively addresses the points raised satisfies the law, that redemption of a mortgaged property by one co-sharer enures for the benefit of all co-sharers precluding adverse possession, and that a co-sharer's suit for partition falls under Article 17(vi) of the Court Fees Act 1870 requiring a fixed court-fee rather than ad valorem court-fee. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court judgment is vitiated if it fails to discuss the evidence and state pleadings in detail under Rule 31 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the possession of a mortgaged property redeemed by one co-sharer amount to adverse possession against other co-sharers?
  • What is the correct court-fee payable on a suit for partition filed by a co-sharer under the Court Fees Act 1870?
  • Can a pure question of limitation be raised for the first time in revision if it was covered by the issues framed and evidence led by the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Walayat Ali vs Mst. Khalida Bibi and others1992 CLC 812 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-28
  custody of minorwelfare of minorguardianshipwrit jurisdictionpersonal lawvisitation rightsconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which granted the custody of a minor child to the mother. The core legal question concerned the welfare of the minor and whether the father, having remarried, or the mother, despite her limited financial means, was better suited for custody. The Court held that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding other factors. It affirmed the lower courts' decisions, noting that while personal law is relevant, it is rebuttable by circumstances, such as the potential negative impact of a stepmother and the mother's superior capacity for care. The Court rejected the father's unsubstantiated allegations of immorality against the mother and held that a mother's lack of financial resources does not disqualify her from custody, especially when the father remains legally obligated to provide support. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no jurisdictional error in the lower courts' assessment of the minor's welfare, while granting the father visitation rights to prevent estrangement.

  Questions settled

  • Is the financial impecuniosity of a mother a sufficient ground to deny her the custody of her minor child?
  • Can a court interfere in writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact regarding the welfare of a minor?
  • Does the presence of a stepmother constitute a relevant factor when determining the welfare of a minor in a custody dispute?
  • Are unsubstantiated allegations of immorality against a mother sufficient to deprive her of the custody of her minor child?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs Judge, Family Court./Senior Civil Judge, Multan and1992 CLC 1241 · Lahore High Court
  Family Courtcross-examinationrecall of witnessesclosing of evidenceinterlocutory orderrestitution of conjugal rightsdissolution of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a family court dispute involving consolidated suits for restitution of conjugal rights and dissolution of marriage. The petitioner's counsel was absent on a scheduled hearing date, leading the Family Court to record the respondent's evidence without cross-examination. The petitioner's subsequent application to recall the witnesses for cross-examination was dismissed by the Family Court on the ground that the previous order had not been challenged in revision. Additionally, the Family Court closed the petitioner's evidence under the principles of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that a Family Court possesses ample jurisdiction to recall witnesses in the interest of justice and erred in refusing to exercise this jurisdiction based on the non-filing of a revision, especially since interlocutory orders are not revisable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the penal provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked unless the date on which the evidence was closed was specifically granted at the request of the defaulting party, rather than fixed in routine by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Family Court have the jurisdiction to recall witnesses for cross-examination in the interest of justice?
  • Can an interlocutory order of a Family Court be challenged through a revision petition under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Can the penal principles of Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be applied to close a party's evidence if the hearing date was fixed by the court in routine rather than at the specific request of that party?
  Read full judgment →
• Waheed Tarto vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1449 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
• Valerius Mughambi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 845 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat through his Legal Heir vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, I, Lahore1992 CLC 530 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-19Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2427 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-27Read full judgment →
• Umar Draz vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 333 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Rehmat Khan (deceased) through L.Rs,1992 CLC 2353 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Muhammad Ali And Others1992 P Cr. L J 804 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
• Umar Din Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
• Ubaidullah vs Municipal Committee Chiniot District Jhang And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State vs Yunis and another-1992 P Cr. L J 1408 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• The State vs Noor Muhammad And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nawaiwaqt and Daily Jang1992 MLD 364 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muijammad Khalil1992 P Cr. L J 2528 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Younas1992 P Cr. L J 1640 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Siddique1992 P Cr. L J 1697 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Aslam And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Malik Muhammad Siddiq And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1355 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Lal Khan1992 P Cr. L J 483 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Imran Faisal1992 PLD Lahore 248 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Imran FaisalK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 515 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Muhammad And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs District Magistrate And Other1992 PLD Lahore 339 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aziz Khan1992 PLD Lahore 91 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
• The National Security Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pak Oriental1992 CLC 853 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• The National Security Insurance Company Ltd. vs Messrs Pak Oriental1992 MLD 215 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• The Engineers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Punjab and another1992 CLC 547 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2130 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Tauqeer Akhtar Malik And 2 Other vs The University of the Punjab, Lahore Through Vice Chancellor And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 408 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
• Tat Din vs Returning Officer/Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura1992 CLC 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1747 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood And Another vs The State1992 PLD LAHORE 75 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ma Hood. vs Muhammad Saleem Qureshi, Additional District1992 CLC 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Afzal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1692 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Tariq Adrees vs Syed Rizwan Hussain Bokhari1992 CLC 1731 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad And Another vs Major Abdul Malik And 38 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 255 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
• Taj Din vs L.M.C. and others1992 CLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-23Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 478 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Tahir Alias Tahira vs The- State1992 P Cr. L J 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Umar Daraz Shah vs Director, L.Da. and others1992 CLC 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Syed Ahmad vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 2577 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabih Abbas Zaidi vs Member (Residual Property), Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 others1992 CLC 535 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-16Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 828 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Haider vs Provincial Government of PunjabK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Haider vs Provincial Government and others1992 CLC 1329 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05
  constitutional petitionrevenue recordmutationcivil court decreebona fide purchaserreview of mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court seeking to declare certain revenue orders without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner claimed title to the land in dispute as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration through a registered sale deed, supported by an ex parte civil court decree. The core legal question was whether revenue authorities could review and cancel a mutation sanctioned on the basis of a binding civil court decree without having the decree itself set aside. The Lahore High Court held that as long as the civil court decree subsists and remains unchallenged, revenue authorities cannot ignore it or nullify its effect through mutation review proceedings. The court laid down the principle that revenue officers are bound by competent civil court decrees and cannot act in derogation of judicial determinations regarding title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether revenue authorities can cancel a mutation sanctioned on the basis of a civil court decree without getting the decree set aside?
  • Is a revenue officer competent to review and nullify the effect of a subsisting civil court judgment and decree?
  • Does a bona fide purchaser acquiring title through a registered sale deed and a civil court decree retain protection against administrative cancellation of revenue entries?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Haider vs Provincial Government And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 8 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Abid vs Collector, Lahore and others1992 CLC 2086 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Hussain vs S.H.O:-1992 P Cr. L J 439 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah vs The Revenue Employees Cooperative1992 CLC 1548 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 926 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Bahadar Ali Shah vs Syed Maryam Gillani EtcK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 147 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Atif Abbas vs Government of Punjab and others1992 CLC 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Swans And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2141 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-02Read full judgment →
• Suhail Butt vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1750 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Suhail Butt vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Sughran Begum vs Additional District Judge and others1992 CLC 1733 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16
  Khuladissolution of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightsWatta marriageconstitutional petitionfamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner assailed the judgments of the Family Court and Additional District Judge dismissing her suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula and decreeing the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties had been married in 1986 but stayed together for less than a month before relations became strained due to a failed Watta marriage. The High Court observed that the lower courts erred by focusing on the failure to establish cruelty and the prospects of reconciliation in the Watta marriage, ignoring the immense hatred and fixed aversion developed between the spouses. Holding that the right to seek dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula is an independent right where strict proof of hatred is not required to avoid forcing a hateful union, the Court accepted the constitutional petition, set aside the impugned judgments, and decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula subject to the condition that the petitioner forego her dowry and maintenance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula is an independent right not prejudiced by the failure to establish other grounds such as cruelty?
  • Is it necessary for a wife seeking Khula to produce extensive evidence of facts and circumstances to prove the extent of hatred?
  • Can a court order separation by Khula even if the husband is not agreeable to the course when the spouses cannot live within the limits prescribed by Allah?
  Read full judgment →
• Subedar Sher Ahmed and 5 others vs Feroze Din and 5 others1992 CLC 2171 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-13Read full judgment →
• State vs Noor Muhammad And Two OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 401 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad SiddiqueK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
• State vs Malik Muhammad SiddiqK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Nasimesahar through Legal Heirs1992 CLC 563 · Lahore High Court
  ex parte decreeservice of summonssubstituted servicecorporationcivil revisionproclamationprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an appellate order that upheld an ex parte decree passed against an insurance company. The core legal question concerns whether the service of summons on a corporation was effected in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Order 29, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the trial court was justified in resorting to substituted service via proclamation under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that service of summons on a corporation must be effected on its secretary, director, or principal officer. In this case, the summons was merely presented to a clerk, which did not satisfy the statutory requirement. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court erred in resorting to substituted service without first attempting proper service on an authorized officer, especially after the company had pointed out procedural defects in the initial summons. Consequently, the ex parte decree was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on the merits. The principle established is that strict compliance with service requirements for corporations is mandatory, and substituted service cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass these requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Is service of summons on a clerk of a corporation sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Order 29, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court resort to substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without first attempting proper service on an authorized officer of a corporation?
  • Does the mere publication of a proclamation in a newspaper automatically constitute sufficient knowledge of a hearing date for a corporation to defeat an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Khalid Rashid CH.K.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 376 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-22Read full judgment →
• Sohail Habib Alias Abbi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 333 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sohail Azeem vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din vs Lahore Development Authority and others1992 CLC 102 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-01
  civil revisionclosure of evidenceproduction of evidenceunproven documentsnegligence in prosecuting casedismissal of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a suit brought by the petitioner against the Lahore Development Authority and others, which was dismissed by the trial court after the petitioner's evidence was closed due to repeated failures to produce evidence, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in closing the petitioner's evidence and dismissing the suit without granting a final last opportunity, and whether unproven documents placed on the record should have been considered. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not require a specific 'last opportunity' to be given before closing evidence, and that documents cannot be considered unless duly produced and proved in accordance with law. The court laid down the principle that a party showing high negligence and carelessness in pursuing its case by failing to produce evidence despite multiple opportunities cannot challenge the closure of its evidence, and unproven documents placed on record cannot be taken into account.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require that a last opportunity must be given to a party before closing its evidence?
  • Can documents placed on the record be taken into consideration by a court while deciding a suit if they are not duly produced and proved in accordance with law?
  • Is a trial court justified in closing a party's evidence after multiple opportunities have been granted and the party has failed to produce any evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1493 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sheroo vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1490 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Ghulam Hussain and 5 others1992 CLC 204 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur Alias Gul Jan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Alis Sheru And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 921 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali (died) and others vs Siraj Din and others1992 MLD 148 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 923 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Suhail Islam vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 848 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-21Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Shafique vs National Bank of Pakistan1992 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18
  summary suitOrder XXXVIIleave to defendex parte decreestatutory periodact of courtremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose out of a summary suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the respondent bank. Summons was issued to the petitioner on 16th April 1980 for 30th April 1980 in Form No. 4, Appendix B, requiring him to obtain leave to defend within ten days of service. On 30th April 1980, noting that service had been effected, the trial court decreed the suit ex parte before the ten-day statutory period had elapsed.

  The core legal issue was whether a trial court could validly pass an ex parte decree in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC before the expiration of the statutory ten-day period granted to the defendant to seek leave to defend.

  The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner possessed a statutory right under Order XXXVII Rule 2 and Form No. 4 to seek leave to defend within ten days of service. Passing an ex parte decree prior to the expiration of that period constituted a grave procedural illegality. Applying the maxim that no person shall suffer by an act of the court, the High Court set aside the ex parte judgment and decree and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court pass an ex parte decree in a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC before the statutory ten-day period to seek leave to defend has expired?
  • Whether a defendant can be prejudiced or deprived of a statutory right due to an error committed by the court in fixing a short hearing date?
  • Does an ex parte decree passed prior to the expiration of the ten-day period granted in Form No. 4 of Appendix B CPC constitute a fatal procedural illegality?
  Read full judgment →