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.

• Pervaiz Afzal and others vs Sheikh Hassan Ali and another1992 CLC 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
• Parvez Alias Paija vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 830 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited vs West End Tobacco Company1992 CLC 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-09
  trademark infringementpassing offdeceptive similarityintellectual propertypermanent injunctionconsumer confusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit filed by the Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited against the West End Tobacco Company, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The appellant, manufacturer of 'CRAVEN A' cigarettes, sought a permanent injunction and other reliefs, claiming the respondent’s 'CARVAN' cigarette packaging was deceptively similar to its own. The District Judge dismissed the suit, finding significant visual and structural differences between the two products. Upon review, the High Court examined the packaging, noting distinct features such as the presence of palm trees, camels, and sand dunes on the respondent's packets, alongside price disparities and different branding elements. The Court held that no reasonable consumer, literate or illiterate, would be deceived or confused by the respondent's packaging. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the respondent's product did not infringe upon the appellant's trademark rights. The principle laid down is that in passing off actions, the court must assess whether the overall get-up and distinctive features of competing products are likely to cause confusion among the public, considering the totality of the visual evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the packaging of 'CARVAN' cigarettes constitutes a deceptive imitation of the 'CRAVEN A' trademark and get-up?
  • Does a significant difference in product pricing and distinct visual imagery on packaging negate a claim of passing off?
  • What criteria should a court apply to determine if two competing products are likely to cause confusion among the public?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Rent Controller, Lahore1992 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-14
  constitutional jurisdictionrent controlleradvance rent refundwrit petitionlease agreement modificationremandwithout lawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Rent Controller, Lahore, which allowed the respondent-landlords to withdraw advance rent deposited by the petitioner-tenant despite the tenant having vacated the premises before the lease expiry. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller acted without lawful authority in failing to consider a modified lease agreement and an affidavit regarding the refund of unexpired rent, and whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an appellate remedy. The Court held that while constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for appeal, it may be invoked where an order is passed without lawful authority or where a tribunal fails to exercise its discretion judicially. The Rent Controller failed to consider the legal effect of the amended lease clause and the affidavit, which were crucial to the dispute. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision after allowing parties to lead evidence on the alleged compromise and the refund entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash an order of a Rent Controller if the order is passed without lawful authority, despite the availability of an appellate remedy?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to allow ratable adjustment of advance rent based on judicial principles when a tenant vacates premises before the lease expires?
  • Is a party who has accepted a benefit under a compromise or arrangement estopped from challenging the procedure or validity of that arrangement later?
  • Does a Rent Controller have a duty to examine the nature of a penalty clause in a lease agreement before ordering the forfeiture of advance rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Guarantee Insurance Company Ltd. and others vs Messrs1992 CLC 793 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
• P. N. Boga Represented By Legal Heirs And Another vs Abdur Rehman1992 PLD Lahore 396 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
• Obaid Ullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 726 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
• Nusrat And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
• Noorani Cotton Corporation vs Government of Pakistan and others1992 CLC 512 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Samand And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2246 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Noor Samand and another vs Sharafuddin and 5 others1992 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad ShafiK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 557 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and others1992 CLC 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16
  attachment of propertyexecution of decreeobjection petitionbona fide purchaserknowledge of attachmentproclamation by beat of drumrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's objection petition against the attachment and sale of a house in execution of a decree. The core legal question concerns the effective date of an attachment of immovable property as against a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration under Order 21, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that under sub-rule (3) of Order 21, Rule 54 (as amended by the Lahore High Court), an order of attachment takes effect against a non-gratuitous transferee from the date they had knowledge of the attachment order or from the date of proclamation, whichever is earlier. The Court found that the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the petitioner's knowledge of the attachment and that the petitioner purchased the property prior to the proclamation date. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, setting aside the lower courts' orders and the attachment and sale of the property.

  Questions settled

  • From which date does an order of attachment of immovable property take effect against a person claiming under a gratuitous transfer versus other transferees?
  • Does the knowledge of a third party regarding an attachment order constitute knowledge of the purchaser for the purpose of Order 21 Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can property be attached and sold in execution of a decree when the third-party purchaser acquired title before the attachment order became legally effective against them?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad Anwar and others vs Deputy Commissioner anothers1992 CLC 1575 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1992 Criminal Cases 335 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State--1992 P Cr. L J 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad Shahid vs Mst. Nasim BibiK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 408 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore and AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 24 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-12Read full judgment →
• Niaz And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
• Niaz And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 153 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1409 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-12Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs Rehmat Bibi And 4 Other1992 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-07
  civil revisioncourt-fee valuationreview application competencycoercion and undue influenceagreement to sellspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute regarding an agreement to sell land. The petitioner filed a suit for cancellation of the agreement deed on the ground of coercion and undue influence by the police while he was on interim bail, whereas the respondents filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed the petitioner's suit and dismissed the respondents' suit. The respondents only appealed the decree in the petitioner's suit, which the appellate court accepted. In revision, two preliminary objections were raised by the respondents: first, regarding the insufficiency of the court-fee based on the valuation of the respondents' separate suit; and second, that the revision was incompetent because an earlier review application against the appellate decree had been dismissed and not separately challenged. The Lahore High Court held that court-fee was payable solely according to the valuation of the suit out of which the revision arose, and that section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not bar a revision against a decree merely because an application to review that decree was dismissed. On the merits, the High Court found that the appellate court committed material irregularity by ignoring crucial evidence, and restored the trial court's judgment holding the agreement void due to coercion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court-fee on a civil revision is to be valued according to the suit out of which the revision arises or a connected suit?
  • Does the dismissal of a review application bar a civil revision against the original judgment and decree if the order on the review is not separately challenged?
  • Is a revisional court competent to interfere with an appellate court's finding of fact when the appellate court has ignored material evidence on record?
  • Whether an agreement to sell executed under police pressure regarding interim bail is vitiated by coercion and undue influence?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Iqbal And Another1992 PCr. L J 7 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 516 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Islamic Republic of PakistanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Collector1992 CLC 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Abdur Rahim1992 CLC 1288 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Abdul Rahim and others1992 CLC 1290 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Chatta vs Director of Agricultural And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 257 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad And Another vs Muhammad Tahir And Another1992 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24
  civil revisioncourt feevaluation of appealsuo motu revisional jurisdictionsentence already undergonerash and negligent drivingenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment encompasses two distinct matters decided by the Lahore High Court. The first is a civil revision arising from a pre-emption suit where the lower appellate court erroneously concluded that proper court-fee had not been paid on the memorandum of appeal due to valuation issues. The High Court held that valuation fixed for the trial court continues for the appellate court unless altered by the trial court, and that technicalities should not override merits, setting aside the lower appellate court's order. The second matter involves a criminal revision where the High Court exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction against an appellate court's order reducing a sentence for rash and negligent driving causing death to the period already undergone (13 days). The High Court deprecated the unmerited recourse to the 'sentence already undergone' theory as judicial perversity that undermines deterrence, enhancing the accused's sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The key principles established include the continuity of suit valuation for appellate purposes and the strict condemnation of lenient sentence reductions for fatal traffic offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the valuation fixed for a trial court continue to be the valuation for the purpose of the appellate court if not altered by the trial court?
  • Can an appellate court's recourse to the theory of sentence already undergone in fatal rash and negligent driving cases be sustained?
  • Is a civil revision liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches when initially filed within the period of limitation but delayed due to the refiling process after removing objections?
  • Whether the High Court can enhance a sentence in exercise of its suo motu revisional jurisdiction when an appellate court improperly reduces it to the period already undergone?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir & Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 280 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1773 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad vs Haji Muhammad Akram Naz1992 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 34 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs Haji Khan Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 104 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-10Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Shah vs Mst. Jindo Mai and 8 others1992 CLC 293 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-12Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Khan and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)1992 CLC 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
• National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. AndAnother vs Province of Punjab_Government of Punjab, Through Secretary, CooperativeDepartment And Another1992 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court
  cooperative societieslegislative judgmentseparation of powerstrichotomy of powersjudicial powerfundamental rightslegislative competenceordinance vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions challenging the vires of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1992, which was promulgated following a financial scandal and the report of an inquiry commission. The core legal questions involved whether the Provincial Governor or Legislature could competently declare 102 specific cooperative societies as 'undesirable' through a legislative enactment without a judicial inquiry, whether such an enactment violated fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice under Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether a provincial law could validly confer jurisdiction or assign functions upon a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and provide for appeals to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the impugned provisions of the Ordinance constituted an impermissible 'legislative judgment' and an usurpation of judicial power, violated fundamental rights and natural justice, and that the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge as a Cooperative Judge and the creation of appellate jurisdiction over the Supreme Court were beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial Governor. The key principle laid down is that the legislature cannot exercise judicial powers or pass legislative judgments against named entities without judicial determination, and provincial legislation cannot encroach upon federal legislative domains or alter the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Provincial Legislature or Governor can declare specific cooperative societies as undesirable through a legislative enactment without a judicial finding?
  • Does the enactment of a law that penalizes or dissolves named entities without a prior judicial trial amount to an impermissible legislative judgment?
  • Can a provincial legislature or governor enact a law conferring judicial functions upon a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan or enlarging the Supreme Court's jurisdiction?
  • Whether the provisions of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1992, violate the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Link Belt Industries1992 PLD Lahore 80 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23
  Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979original civil jurisdictionSpecial Courtexecution of decreestatutory interpretationnullity of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by judgment-debtors challenging the execution of a decree passed by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the Lahore High Court, lacking ordinary original civil jurisdiction, could function as a 'Special Court' under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 to adjudicate suits exceeding one million rupees. The applicants contended that the decree was a nullity due to an inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, specifically when reading Section 2(f) in conjunction with Section 6, explicitly confers original civil jurisdiction upon the High Court for the purposes of the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that the legislature intended to vest this jurisdiction statutorily, noting the deliberate omission of the word 'its' before 'original civil jurisdiction' in the statute. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, affirming that the High Court possesses the requisite statutory jurisdiction to try such suits, thereby validating the decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Lahore High Court function as a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 despite lacking ordinary original civil jurisdiction?
  • Does the definition clause in the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 confer original civil jurisdiction upon the High Court?
  • Can a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court be raised during execution proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 324 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Nasirahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1739 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• Nasir Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2644 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
• Nasir Alias Irshad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-02Read full judgment →
• Naseer And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed vs District Judge, Multan And 4 Other1992 PLD Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01
  closing of evidenceaffirmative evidencerebuttal evidenceconstitutional petitioncivil procedureexercise of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's revision and upholding the trial court's order to close the petitioner's evidence in a civil suit for possession. The core legal question concerns the legality of the trial court's procedure allowing plaintiffs to reserve their own statements as witnesses for the rebuttal stage while compelling the defendant to produce evidence prematurely, and whether discretion to close evidence was exercised arbitrarily. The Lahore High Court held that a defendant cannot be called upon to produce evidence until the plaintiffs have produced their complete affirmative evidence, including their own statements as witnesses. The Court ruled that the trial court acted without lawful authority and with jurisdictional defect by closing the petitioner's evidence while accommodating the plaintiffs extensively and proceeding with undue haste. The key principle laid down is that no act of the court should prejudice the parties' rights, and a defendant's evidence cannot be prematurely closed before the plaintiff's affirmative evidence is fully concluded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant be lawfully called upon to produce evidence before the plaintiffs have completed their entire affirmative evidence?
  • Is a trial court justified in closing a defendant's evidence when the plaintiffs were previously granted multiple adjournments over several years?
  • Whether an order closing evidence passed with undue haste and without judicial application of mind is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Riaz vs Chairman, Board of Technical Education, Lahore, and 2 others1992 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
• Naseem Akhtar Durrani vs Mst. Abida Sultan and 3 others1992 MLD 93 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
• Naqi Hussain Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
• Naoi Hussain Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Najabat Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2401 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
• Naeemullah vs S.S.P., Faisalabad and 5 others-1992 P Cr. L J 985 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar vs Mst. Abida Sultan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Ciminal Cases 232 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar Alias Nanna And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1182 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sandal Fibres Limited vs Government of Pakistan And 7 Other1992 PLD Lahore 400 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-22
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityletter of creditcontractual rightsnationalized bankinstrumentality of the State
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 against the Government of Pakistan and nationalized banks, seeking directions to process and extend a letter of credit under the Supplier Credit Scheme for the import of textile machinery. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for the enforcement of rights arising from a commercial letter of credit against a nationalized bank, and whether contractual obligations can be enforced through writ jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that although a nationalized bank functions as an instrumentality of the State against which a constitutional petition is otherwise maintainable, a writ petition cannot be invoked to enforce purely contractual rights or obligations where no statutory provision or rule having the force of law has been violated. The key principle laid down is that commercial letters of credit and the relationship between a customer and an issuing bank are governed by the law of contract and agency, and ordinary contractual disputes cannot be adjudicated through constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of a statutory breach.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a nationalized bank?
  • Can contractual rights arising from a commercial letter of credit be enforced through a constitutional petition?
  • Does the refusal of a nationalized bank to extend a letter of credit constitute a violation of a statute or statutory rule?
  • Whether the relationship between a customer and an issuing bank regarding a letter of credit is governed by contract and agency?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Iqbal Sweet House vs Director, Punjab Social Security, Lahore(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 7) · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ibrahim Woods Works vs Govt. of the Punjab Through SecretaryK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Customs Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
• M/s Singer Pakistan Limited And Another vs Shaikh Ain-Ul-HaqK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 509 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mustahkam Cement, a Ltd. Company vs Zila Council Rawalpindi And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 413 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mustahkam Cement vs Zila Council, Rawalpindi and 2 others1992 CLC 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Continental Engineers Ltd. And Other1992 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03
  amendment of decreeaccidental slip or omissionclerical or arithmetical mistakesatisfaction of decreerate of interestrecovery of loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the petitioner-bank, seeking amendment of a judgment and decree to include quarterly rests in the rate of interest. The petitioner had instituted a recovery suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, claiming interest at 14% per annum. The suit was decreed, and both preliminary and final decrees were drawn up reflecting interest at 14% per annum without rests, aligning with the plaint. The core legal question was whether an omission to include quarterly rests in a judgment and decree can be corrected as an accidental slip or omission under Section 152, C.P.C., after the decree has been fully satisfied. The Lahore High Court held that the omission of quarterly rests was consistent with the pleadings and prayer in the plaint, hence not an accidental slip or omission. The Court laid down that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is strictly confined to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions, and cannot be invoked to alter a deliberate adjudication or after a decree stands fully satisfied and discharged.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judgment and decree be amended under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to include quarterly rests in the rate of interest when the plaint itself claimed interest without rests?
  • Does an accidental slip or omission under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cover an alleged error that is in strict accordance with the pleadings?
  • Can an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be entertained after the decretal amount stands fully paid and satisfied?
  • Whether the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to correct substantive errors that do not qualify as clerical or arithmetical mistakes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1992 MLD 262 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 938 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-08Read full judgment →
• Musharraf Sultana vs Fazal Hussain and 9 others1992 CLC 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-07
  civil revisiondismissal in defaultinherent powersrestoration of petitionpre-emptionevacuee propertylis pendens
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a chequered history of pre-emption litigation concerning agricultural land initially settled as evacuee property. The core legal question was whether a civil revision dismissed in default can be restored by the High Court in the absence of an express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether a bona fide purchaser pendente lite has locus standi to seek such restoration under Section 12(2) read with Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that while the Code lacks explicit provisions for restoring a civil revision dismissed for non-prosecution, the Court possesses inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall and set aside such orders to prevent the abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The key principle laid down is that a court or tribunal has inherent power to correct its own errors and restore revision petitions dismissed in default where circumstances compel its exercise in the interest of justice, notwithstanding the absence of express statutory rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court possess the jurisdiction to restore a civil revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution despite the absence of an express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Can a bona fide transferee for value, whose interest is affected by the dismissal of a civil revision, maintain an application for its restoration under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Does the rule of lis pendens bar a subsequent purchaser from seeking the setting aside of an order dismissing a revision petition in default?
  • Whether inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked where specific provisions for restoration in suits and appeals do not mention civil revisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Murtaza And Others vs Khushi Muhammad1992 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 515 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Munir Aslam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 793 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
• Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad vs Punjab Labour Court No, 4 and others1992 PLC 21 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
• Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad vs Mst. Nawab Bibi and others1992 PLC 398 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Pasrur vs Compensation Commissioner and others1992 CLC 752 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee Pasrur vs Compensation Commissioner Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee Pasrur vs Compensation Commissioner EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 51 . · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
• Munawar Mahmood vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1396 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammadanwar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammadanwar vs I the State1992 PLD Lahore 329 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad, Anwar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1606 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman And Others vs The State.1992 P Cr. L J 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs Mian Ghulam RasoolK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 153 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs Imam Ali and 2 others1992 CLC 200 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06
  pre-emption suiturban immovable propertyvillage immovable propertycivil revisionpleadingsburden of proofBanjar Qadeem
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding the disputed land was "urban immovable property" and thus not pre-emptible. The core legal question was whether the land had acquired the status of urban immovable property, rendering it immune to pre-emption, and whether the appellate court could decide this issue despite it not being pleaded by the defendants. The High Court held that the appellate court erred by misreading the record and deciding an issue not raised in the pleadings. It emphasized that the character of property is determined at the time of sale, and mere proximity to amenities like roads or schools does not transform village land into urban property. Furthermore, the court affirmed that parties cannot introduce new pleas not contained in their written statements. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment, restored the trial court's decree, and upheld the plaintiff's superior right of pre-emption as an owner of the estate.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court decide an issue regarding the nature of property that was not pleaded in the written statement?
  • Does the mere proximity of land to roads, schools, and shops automatically classify it as urban immovable property for the purposes of pre-emption?
  • What is the relevant date for determining the character of property in a pre-emption suit?
  • Is land recorded as 'Banjar Qadeem' in revenue records automatically classified as urban immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs The State--1992 P Cr. L J 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusaf And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2450 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 584 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 549 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State1992 P Cr: L J 1154 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2447 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar And Other vs Mst. Bakhan1992 PLD Lahore 392 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Butt, Additional Registrar, Lahore High Court vs Government of the Punjab Through Chief Secretary And Another1992 PLD Lahore 527 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-17
  High Court establishmentindependence of judiciarypowers of Chief Justiceterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional petitionpromotionexecutive interference
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Additional Registrar of the Lahore High Court challenging the refusal of the Provincial Government to grant him Basic Scale 19 on a regular basis as personal to him, in accordance with the order of the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question centered upon the extent of powers vested in the Chief Justice regarding the appointment and promotion of High Court staff, and whether such orders require formal approval from the Provincial Government or the Governor. The court held that under Article 208 of the Constitution and Rule 26 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, the Chief Justice possesses exclusive and absolute authority to regulate the terms, conditions, appointments, and promotions of the High Court establishment. Consequently, orders passed by the Chief Justice do not require subsequent executive approval, and the executive cannot interfere in these matters, thereby upholding the constitutional mandate separating the judiciary from the executive to ensure judicial independence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the orders passed by the Chief Justice of a High Court regarding the appointment or promotion of High Court staff require the approval of the Provincial Government or Governor?
  • Are the officers and servants of the High Court considered civil servants under the provincial civil service laws?
  • What is the extent of powers vested in the Chief Justice of the High Court under Article 208 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Rule 26 of the High Court Establishment Rules?
  • Does the provincial executive have the authority to alter or decline the implementation of promotion orders issued by the Chief Justice for High Court establishment members?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1380 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waris and others vs DSC/Ac and others1992 CLC 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Member, Board of Revenue1992 CLC 1279 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 495 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail And 5 Other vs Din Muhammad Through His Legal1992 PLD Lahore 152 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02
  dismissal in defaultwant of prosecutiondate of hearingtransfer of appealrestoration of appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the Additional District Judge declining to restore an appeal dismissed in default. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can dismiss an appeal in default under Order XLI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a date that was merely fixed for the appearance of parties upon transfer, rather than a date fixed for the hearing of the appeal. The Lahore High Court held that an effective date of hearing under Order XLI Rule 17 presumes that the matter is called on for hearing arguments, and since the date in question was not fixed for hearing, the dismissal of the appeal in default was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The key principle laid down is that an appeal cannot be legally dismissed in default for want of prosecution unless the date on which the default occurs is specifically a date fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal in default on a date that was fixed only for the appearance of parties upon transfer rather than for hearing?
  • What constitutes a valid 'date fixed for hearing' of an appeal under Order XLI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether an order dismissing an appeal in default without a proper date of hearing is void ab initio and a nullity in the eye of law?
  Read full judgment →