Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State,1992 P Cr. L J 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-19
  Summary Military Courtdouble jeopardyautrefois acquitautrefois convictArticle 13sanction for prosecutionArticle 270-Amala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by Summary Military Court No. 52, Lahore, under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The petitioner contended that the trial violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution because of a prior departmental enquiry and case withdrawal, and additionally alleged mala fides. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a second prosecution is barred only when the earlier proceedings have ended in a final conviction or acquittal. Since the petitioner's initial case was merely split up for lack of sanction without concluding in an acquittal or conviction, the subsequent prosecution did not violate the principles of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, or Article 13. Furthermore, the allegations of mala fides were unsubstantiated, and the challenge concerned a past and closed transaction protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Does a subsequent prosecution violate Article 13 of the Constitution where previous criminal proceedings were split up for want of sanction and did not end in an acquittal or conviction?
  • Can a departmental inquiry or withdrawal of a case for departmental probe bar subsequent criminal prosecution under the doctrine of double jeopardy?
  • What standard of proof is required to substantiate a plea of mala fides challenging a criminal conviction?
  • Whether convictions rendered by a Summary Military Court and treated as past and closed transactions are protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazim vs Muhammad AkbarK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq Khan And 3 Others vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 2059 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2561 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Superintendent of Police and others-1992 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And 2 Others vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 533 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Alias Bala vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1120 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iobal Khokhar And 3 Others vs Commandant, Desert1992 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Addl. Distt Judge EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 154 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 186 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 577 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and 2 others vs Ihsanul Haq and 2 others1992 MLD 164 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2139 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 808 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1683 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs vs Noor1992 CLC 1459 · Lahore High Court
  Regular Second AppealPleadingsMartial Law Regulation No. 64Procedural FairnessAmendment of PleadingsSuit for Possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from the dismissal of a suit for possession of land, which was rejected by the trial and appellate courts on the ground that the sale violated paragraph 25 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The core legal question was whether a court is justified in dismissing a suit based on a legal objection that was neither pleaded in the written statement nor framed as an issue, but raised for the first time during final arguments. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in entertaining this unpleaded objection. The court reaffirmed the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot set up a different case at a subsequent stage to surprise the opposing party. If a party intends to raise a material legal objection, it must be incorporated into the pleadings through a formal amendment. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments, remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision, and granted the defendant liberty to seek an amendment to the written statement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court decide a case based on a legal objection not raised in the pleadings or issues?
  • Is it permissible for a party to raise a new legal objection for the first time during final arguments?
  • Must a party seek an amendment to the written statement to introduce a new legal objection?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 838 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 2351 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs S.S.P., Faisalabad and 7 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2307 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-19
  writ jurisdictionregistration of FIRpolice dutyalternative remedyprivate complaintcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction from the High Court to compel police authorities to register a criminal case against private respondents based on a written complaint. The police had previously investigated the allegations and submitted a report stating that the petitioner failed to substantiate the claims, leading to a refusal to register the First Information Report. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should compel the police to register a case when the police have already investigated and found the allegations unsubstantiated, and whether an alternative remedy exists. The Court held that since the police had already inquired into the matter and found no substance in the allegations, issuing a direction for registration would serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner possessed an adequate and appropriate alternative remedy by way of filing a private complaint before a competent court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for compelling police registration when other efficacious remedies are available.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the police to register a case after the police have already investigated and found the allegations unsubstantiated?
  • Is a private complaint considered an adequate alternative remedy for a person aggrieved by the police's refusal to register a criminal case?
  • Does the existence of an alternative remedy preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction for the registration of a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1686 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1729 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Muhammad Ismail and 2 others1992 CLC 551 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bukhsh vs The Colony Assistant/Collector, Sargodha1992 CLC 561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs Murad Ali1992 CLC 932 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Abdul HamidK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases I00 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2542 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 454 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Member, Board of Revenue, Lahore And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11
  writ petitionunconditional withdrawalres judicatacompetence of petitionCode of Civil Proceduresuppression of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Lahore. The core legal question was whether a petitioner, having unconditionally withdrawn an earlier writ petition challenging the same order without seeking permission to file a fresh one, is legally precluded from instituting a subsequent constitutional petition on the same subject matter. The Court held that the petition was incompetent. Relying on the principle that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to writ proceedings, the Court determined that under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a plaintiff who withdraws a suit or abandons a claim without leave to file a fresh one is barred from re-litigating the same matter. The Court observed that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in the previous petition and withdrew it unconditionally to avoid adverse judicial observations. Consequently, the Court established that an unconditional withdrawal of a writ petition precludes the filing of a fresh petition regarding the same subject matter, thereby dismissing the current petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unconditional withdrawal of a writ petition without permission to file a fresh one preclude the filing of a subsequent petition on the same subject matter?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to writ proceedings?
  • Can a petitioner who has withdrawn a previous writ petition unconditionally re-agitate the same matter through a new constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1618 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 398 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Sheikh vs Talib HussainK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 293 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1431 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ASLAMs vs Collector and another1992 CLC 851 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-05
  revenue recordmutation cancellationcivil court decreebona fide purchaseradministrative reviewwrit jurisdictionbinding effect of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a bona fide purchaser of land, challenged the orders of the Collector and Additional Commissioner cancelling a mutation that had been attested in his favour. The petitioner had previously secured an ex parte civil court decree declaring his title to the land, which the revenue authorities subsequently ignored while cancelling the mutation on the grounds of alleged fraud in the original allotment. The core legal question was whether revenue authorities possess the jurisdiction to ignore or nullify a subsisting civil court decree through administrative review of a mutation. The Lahore High Court held that the respondents acted without lawful authority. The Court determined that once a mutation is sanctioned based on a valid civil court decree, revenue authorities cannot unilaterally review or cancel it to nullify the effect of that decree. The key principle laid down is that revenue authorities are bound by the findings of a competent civil court and cannot bypass or override a subsisting civil decree through administrative proceedings, as such actions constitute an exercise of authority in derogation of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Can revenue authorities unilaterally review and cancel a mutation that was sanctioned in compliance with a subsisting civil court decree?
  • Are revenue authorities bound to respect a civil court decree declaring title to land when processing mutations?
  • Does an administrative authority have the power to nullify the effect of a civil court decree through the review of a mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 461 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Govt. of Punjab Etc.(K.L.R. 1992 Labour and Service Cases 232) · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Alias Chandi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Alias Pappu vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1723 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asiam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1126 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 832 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Sarwar And 2 Other1992 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Muhammad Ismail And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1671 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Sikandar Jan and another1992 CLC 1316 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and Five Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs District Magistrate Sialkot and others1992 MLD 88 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad And Others vs Government of Punjab1992 P Cr. L J 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs Muhammad Siddique1992 CLC 1452 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1761 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 318 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Sethi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 550 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and others vs Ghulam Muhammad1992 CLC 1603 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Iqbal Begum and others1992 CLC 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Pakistan (Private)K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 66 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Khan And Others vs The State1992 P Cr.L. J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 712 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Town. Committee,. Zafarwal through its Chairman1992 CLC 2179 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Khan vs General Public EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 734 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Others vs Muhammad Mansha And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1992 Criminal Cases 26 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and 7 others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and 3 others1992 CLC 2338 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-25
  constitutional petitionconsolidation of holdingsreview jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of recordre-hearing on meritsrevenue lawlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge an order passed by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which reviewed and reversed a previous order passed by his predecessor. The dispute arose from a consolidation scheme confirmed under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance 1960. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue could re-hear a case on its merits under the guise of its review jurisdiction under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957. The High Court held that the scope of review under Section 8 of the Act is analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or considering newly discovered material. The Court ruled that review jurisdiction does not permit a re-hearing of the case on merits or a reconsideration of conscious factual and legal findings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned review order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Board of Revenue has the jurisdiction under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957 to re-hear a case on its merits?
  • Is the scope of review under Section 8 of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act 1957 analogous to the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a conscious finding on a question of limitation or service of notice be re-agitated in review proceedings if it was already considered and decided in the original order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amanullah vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alt vs Muhammad Mumtaz and others1992 CLC 1456 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Muhammad Ishaq and others1992 MLD 741 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Addl. District Judge and others1992 CLC 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Patwari vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Bhatti vs State Life Insurance Corporation of PakistanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs Border Area Committee and others1992 CLC 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mubashir Hussain And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2445 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Lone vs Arshad Sindhu, S.H.O. Police Station.1992 P Cr. L J 1701 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Other vs The StateK.L.R 1992 Criminal Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2624 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal vs Chairman, Zila Council Jhang and others1992 CLC 1519 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahsan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2584 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Afghani vs Government of Punjab Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 155)) · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 510 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State--1992 P Cr. L J 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and others1992 CLC 1801 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 281 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs Ghulam Hussain And 5 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbasi vs Mst. Samia Abbasi and others1992 CLC 937 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriagecrueltykhulajudicial reviewevidencefamily courtremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Family Court's decree dissolving a marriage on grounds of cruelty and Khula. The petitioner contended that the Family Court misread evidence and failed to consider vital material on record, rendering its judgment without lawful authority. The High Court held that a Family Court is under a legal obligation to discuss and consider the entire evidence produced by both parties before deciding an issue. Failure to consider important evidence, such as witness testimonies, audio recordings, and photographs, amounts to an illegal act, making the judgment susceptible to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction, even if it involves findings of fact. The Court emphasized that Khula cannot be granted merely upon the wife's asking; the judicial conscience of the Court must be satisfied that an irremediable breach exists, making it impossible for the parties to live together within the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, declared the Family Court's decree to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and remanded the suit for a fresh decision after hearing the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court's judgment be declared without lawful authority if it fails to consider vital evidence on record?
  • Is a Family Court legally obligated to discuss and consider all evidence produced by the parties before deciding an issue?
  • Can findings of fact by a Family Court be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction if important evidence was ignored?
  • What is the standard for granting Khula, and can it be allowed on the mere asking of a wife?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1655 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad 1Qbal vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1658 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mubashar Nazar vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Its(K.L.R 1992 Labour & Services Cases 145) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mubarik Shah vs The State and others s1992 P Cr. L J 943 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Rafiq and others1992 CLC 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →