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.

• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1478 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-11Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 561 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-31
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirycross-versionsuppression of injuriespremeditationcriminal liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed by the petitioner, Manzoor Ahmad, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was charged with causing a fatal injury, distinguishing his case from co-accused who had previously been granted bail. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the specific attribution of a fatal injury, given the existence of two conflicting versions of the occurrence and allegations of partial investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the incident appeared to have flared up suddenly without premeditation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to substantiate claims that injuries sustained by the petitioner's mother were unrelated to the incident. Emphasizing the principle that the suppression of injuries on the accused party warrants further inquiry, the Court granted bail, concluding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, thereby entitling him to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party entitle them to the concession of bail?
  • Is bail appropriate when there are two conflicting versions of an occurrence and the investigation appears partial?
  • Can an accused be granted bail even if a fatal injury is specifically attributed to them, provided the incident lacked premeditation?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Mst. Akhtar Begum and 2 others1992 CLC 520 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 347 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mandhi Khan vs Province of Punjab through Collector Faisalabad1992 CLC 1577 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
• Manazir Hussain Shah vs Superintendent of Jail, Lahore1992 P Cr. L J 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
• Malla And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1475 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Niamat Ali vs Muhammad Arshad And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Nazar Muhammad vs The District Council And1992 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ismail and others vs Settlement Commissioner and another1992 CLC 282 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20
  Constitutional petitionMaintenance grantCompensation poolNatural justiceJammu and Kashmir refugeesVoid ab initioLimitationSettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Land) which canceled an allotment of agricultural land previously granted to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Ajaz Din. The land had originally been granted to the respondent, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, as a maintenance grant. The petitioners argued that the respondent’s appeal against the allotment was time-barred and that the land was part of the compensation pool. The Court held that land granted to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance purposes was excluded from the compensation pool and vested in the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs. Consequently, the Settlement Authorities lacked jurisdiction to allot such land to third parties. The Court further ruled that the original allotment to Ajaz Din was void ab initio, as it was made without notice to the respondent, violating the principles of natural justice. It was established that where an order is void for lack of notice, the plea of limitation is unsustainable. Furthermore, factual contentions not raised before the Settlement Authorities cannot be introduced for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can Settlement Authorities cancel a maintenance grant allotment made to a Jammu and Kashmir refugee?
  • Does the principle of natural justice render an allotment order passed without notice void ab initio?
  • Can a plea of limitation be sustained against an order that is void ab initio for lack of notice?
  • Can a question of fact not raised before the Settlement Authorities be agitated for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ilyas vs Khawaja Muhammad Younas1992 CLC 526 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25
  rent restrictionstriking off defensenon-payment of rentindustrial concernjurisdiction of Rent Controllercourt-feetenancy agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, which upheld the Rent Controller's decision to strike off the appellant's defense for failing to deposit rent as directed. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller possessed jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition despite the appellant's claim that the premises constituted an industrial concern outside the scope of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the defense was properly struck off. The Court held that the Rent Controller acted within jurisdiction, as the tenancy agreement concerned a building, not a pre-existing factory. The Court affirmed that the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the defense upon the tenant's failure to comply with the rent deposit order. Additionally, the Court clarified that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-payment of court-fees without the court first determining the exact amount payable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision on the merits regarding the rent deposit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defense for failure to deposit rent as ordered?
  • Does the Rent Controller have jurisdiction over premises if a tenant claims they are an industrial concern?
  • Can an appeal be dismissed for non-payment of court-fees without the court calculating the exact amount payable?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Khuda Bakhsh vs Mst. Sharifan Begum1992 MLD 221 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Hasiiim Din and others vs F\Shir Ahmad1992 CLC 754 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11
  evacuee propertytransfer of propertyroof ownershipeasement rightsmisreading of recordrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree which had reversed the trial court's decision in favor of the petitioners in a suit for possession through demolition. The core legal question concerned whether the transfer of a specific evacuee property (a chaubara) carried with it the roof of an independently transferred neighboring property (a shop) as its courtyard, and whether easement rights could be established over evacuee property through user. The Lahore High Court held that independent evacuee properties remain distinct, and the transfer of one specific property does not include parts of another unless explicitly mentioned in the transfer documents. Furthermore, rights of easement over government or evacuee property cannot be acquired by a user of less than sixty years. The Court concluded that the lower appellate court misread the record, and accordingly set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the trial court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transfer of a single-storeyed evacuee property include ownership rights extending to its roof?
  • Can the transferee of one specified evacuee property claim a portion of another property as part of their transfer without explicit mention in the transfer document?
  • What is the requisite period of continuous use required to acquire a right of easement over evacuee property?
  • Does the absence of a staircase leading directly to the roof of a shop deprive the owner of their rights over the roof?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Anjum Farooq Paracha vs Manzur Ul Haq And 5 Other1992 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30
  bail cancellationsuccessive bail applicationsprohibitory clauseprivate complaintmurderappearance bondspolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition challenged an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were directed to execute bail bonds for their appearance following the issuance of non-bailable warrants upon a private complaint under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on facts identical to a previously dismissed pre-arrest bail matter. The core legal questions involved whether a subsequent court can entertain and grant bail on the same facts after a prior court of concurrent jurisdiction has refused pre-arrest bail, and whether powers under section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked to bypass the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that successive applications on similar facts must be heard by the same court or appropriately referred, and that bail cannot be granted mechanically under section 91 without considering the restrictive conditions of section 497 for capital offences. The court recalled the impugned bail order and directed the immediate arrest of the respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a successive bail application or relief on identical facts can be granted by a different judge when a prior pre-arrest bail has already been dismissed?
  • Do the restrictive conditions for the grant of bail under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when directing execution of appearance bonds under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the proper judicial procedure when a subsequent complaint involving the same facts and offences comes before a judge who did not hear the earlier bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Major Pervez Shakoor Und 4 Other vs Muhammad UsmanK.L.R.1992 Civil Cases 79 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Begum vs Distt. Magistrate EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 103 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Sabir Fani vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 219 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Madah Hussain And 45 Another vs Talib Hussain and others-1992 P Cr. L J 809 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-01Read full judgment →
• Madad Ali. vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1992 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25Read full judgment →
• M.R.Najmi .Petitioner vs The Registrar, Federal Shariat Court, Islamabad1992 PLD Lahore 302 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-18
  writ of mandamusFederal Shariat Courtconstitutional jurisdictionservice appealjudicial comityinternal administrative mattersHigh Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee of the Federal Shariat Court, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Registrar of the Federal Shariat Court to place his service appeal before a three-member bench as required by the Federal Shariat Court (Terms and Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1982. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the Federal Shariat Court or its Registrar regarding internal service matters. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine. The Court held that, given the constitutional status of the Federal Shariat Court, the specific jurisdiction assigned to it under Chapter 3-A of the Constitution, and the principle of comity between superior courts, it would be inappropriate to issue a writ of mandamus to the Federal Shariat Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere in the internal administrative or judicial functions of the Federal Shariat Court, as the petitioner had other avenues to pursue his grievance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the Federal Shariat Court regarding its internal administrative matters?
  • Is the Federal Shariat Court amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Registrar of the Federal Shariat Court to place a service appeal before a specific bench?
  Read full judgment →
• M.C.Faisalabad vs Punjab Labour Court No.4, Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 15) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
• M.C.Faisalabad vs Niamat Masih Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 18) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
• M.C. Faisalabad vs Mst. Allah Rakhi Etc(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 17) · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
• M. Saeed Shad vs S.H.O.1992 P Cr. L J 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-24Read full judgment →
• Lt.Col. Sarfraz Khan Malik vs Border Area Allotment Committe and others1992 CLC 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• LT. Conol. Sarfraz Khan Malik vs Border Area Allotment CommitteeK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 10 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Alias Liaqi And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-29Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Parvez Khan vs Government of the Punjab Through Home1992 PLD Lahore 517 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-10
  retrospective legislationburden of proofspecial courtconstitutional petitionprocedural lawretrospective punishmentArms OrdinanceSuppression of Terrorist Activities
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the jurisdiction of a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, to try the petitioner for an offence under the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The petitioner contended that the trial was illegal due to the repeal of Ordinance I of 1990 and argued that the retrospective application of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) (Amendment) Act, 1990, violated Article 12 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by altering the forum and burden of proof. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Legislature is fully competent to enact retrospective procedural laws. The Court ruled that Article 12 of the Constitution only prohibits retrospective punishment or the imposition of penalties greater than those prescribed at the time of the offence, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the Court held that Section 8 of the 1975 Act, which shifts the burden of proof, is not unconstitutional, as it requires the prosecution to first establish a foundation of suspicion before the burden shifts to the accused, a principle consistent with Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat.

  Questions settled

  • Does the retrospective application of a procedural law violate Article 12 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is the Legislature competent to enact laws with retrospective effect regarding procedural matters?
  • Does Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, which shifts the burden of proof, violate the Constitution?
  • Can a Special Court try an offence under the Arms Ordinance 1965 if the amendment to the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 was given retrospective effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Jameel vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 307 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Hayat vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Abbas vs Inspectorgeneral, Police1992 P Cr. L J 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Liaoat Jamil vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 932 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
• Liaoat Ali vs District and Sessions Judge And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
• Latif Ahmad vs Mst. Rashidan1992 CLC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04
  rejection of plaintfrivolous litigationconsolidation proceedingscivil court jurisdictionsuppression of factstemporary injunctioncause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the dismissal of an appeal by the Additional District Judge, which had upheld the rejection of the plaintiff's plaint by the Civil Judge. The plaintiff sought a declaration and permanent injunction regarding land possession, alleging that the execution of a warrant of possession by revenue authorities was fictitious. The defendant contended that the matter had already been adjudicated through consolidation proceedings up to the Board of Revenue, and the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court could reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, during the hearing of a temporary injunction application, particularly when the suit was frivolous and suppressed material facts. The Court held that the Civil Court correctly rejected the plaint, affirming that courts must curb frivolous litigation by invoking Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, at any stage if the plaint discloses no cause of action or is barred by law. The principle established is that courts have the authority and duty to dismiss vexatious suits at the initial stage to protect the judicial system's integrity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Civil Court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, while deciding an application for a temporary injunction?
  • Does a Civil Court have the authority to reject a plaint at an early stage if the suit is found to be frivolous or suppresses material facts?
  • Is a Civil Court barred from adjudicating disputes already decided by Consolidation Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Election. Tribunal/Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha and1992 CLC 2175 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Lal Hussain vs Noor Hussain And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 281 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
• Lal Hussain vs Noor Hussain and another1992 CLC 92 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 278 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority and others vs Abdul Shafiq and others1992 PLC 1214 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-14
  Lahore Development Authorityjurisdiction of Labour Courtstatutory rules of servicebody corporatedefinition of industryremoval from servicereinstatementStanding Orders Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged orders of the Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which reinstated respondent No. 1, a Junior Accountant at the Lahore Development Authority (LDA), with full back benefits. The petitioners contended that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction because LDA was carried on by or under the authority of the Provincial Government with its own service regulations, falling under the proviso to Section 1(4)(c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, and that LDA was not an "industry" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that LDA is a statutory body corporate separate from the Government, and its service regulations framed under statutory authority do not constitute statutory rules of service. Furthermore, LDA provides material services and carries out systematic activities for public development, making it an "industry" under Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Thus, the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968 and Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 applied, conferring jurisdiction on the Labour Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statutory body corporate like the Lahore Development Authority an establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Provincial Government under the proviso to Section 1(4)(c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Do regulations framed by a statutory authority under its own statutory powers constitute statutory rules of service for the purpose of excluding the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does an authority providing public development, housing, water, and sewerage material services fall within the definition of an "industry" under Section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 regardless of profit motive?
  Read full judgment →
• Ladha vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1839 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
• Ladha vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 323 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
• Lad Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1484 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• L. D.a vs Muhammad Mushtaq EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 118 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-07Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Mst. Mehrun Nisa Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 189 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-04Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1992 CLC 125 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08
  Revenue recordsCivil court decreeMutation of landTime-barred decreeRevenue Officer jurisdictionBoard of RevenueWrit petitionInheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ application challenged a decision by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, which directed the correction of revenue records in accordance with a civil court decree. The core legal question was whether a Revenue Officer is obligated to implement a civil court decree in revenue records, even if it is considered time-barred for execution, and whether such an officer can scrutinize the decree's merits or timeliness. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ application, affirming that Revenue Officers are under a clear and mandatory obligation, as per Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, to update revenue records to conform with binding adjudications of Civil Courts. The Court held that a Revenue Officer's jurisdiction is summary, preventing them from reviewing, scrutinizing, or questioning the correctness or timeliness of a civil court decree. A time-barred decree does not lose its utility for the purpose of updating revenue records, and Revenue Officers must accept and act upon it.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Revenue Officer obligated to correct entries in revenue records according to a civil court decree?
  • Can a Revenue Officer review or scrutinize the merits or correctness of a civil court decree?
  • Does a time-barred civil court decree lose its efficacy for the purpose of updating revenue records?
  • What is the scope of a Revenue Officer's jurisdiction when implementing a civil court decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Spinning Mills Limited vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 83 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs Additional Sessions Judge And Others1992 P Cr. L J 946 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
• Khera And Other vs Muhammad.Sadiq And Other1992 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1992 MLD 256 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 447 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Civil Judge1992 CLC 1954 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 302 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Khan And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1437 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Khaliq Dad Khan vs Chairman, Punjab Election Authority, Lahore And Another1992 PLD Lahore 434 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-13Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman Ramday, Javid Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 455 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Khalil Alias Kheela And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs Superintendent of Police, Toba Tek Singh and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
• Khalid Pervez vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Government of Pakistan And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1623 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Kaleem vs Syed Anwar Hussain and others1992 CLC 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Aslam vs Ch. Aftab Ahmad and 4 others1992 MLD 60 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• Kauser Ali vs President of Cantonment, Gujranwala and 2 others1992 CLC 682 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
• Karsaz Corporation and 2 others vs Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1992 CLC 794 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Karamat Ullah vs Mian Abdul Kabir Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 156 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
• Kamil Hussain And Another vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1992 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
• Kamil Hussain And Another vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 220 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kamal-Ud-Din vs Province of Punjab And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 357 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
• Kala Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Kabeer Ahmad vs The State-1992 P Cr. L J 1382 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan vs (Mst) Khadeeja Begum EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 48 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
• Jiwana Alias Rats vs The -State1992 P Cr. L J 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-16Read full judgment →
• Jindwadh and 4 others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement) and 81992 CLC 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
• Jewan and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Home1992 MLD 225 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11evacuee propertyres judicatacivil revisioninherent powers of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over evacuee land, where the petitioners claimed ownership as occupancy tenants, challenging an allotment previously confirmed in favor of the respondents' predecessor. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, after considering the defense's argument that the petitioners' claim had already been adjudicated and dismissed in previous proceedings before the Custodian of Evacuee Property and a subsequent writ petition. The core legal question was whether a court, when considering an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, is strictly confined to the averments within the plaint or may consider external material, such as the defense's evidence. The court held that the rejection of the plaint was proper. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court established the principle that Order VII, Rule 11 is not exhaustive of all situations where a plaint may be rejected. Consequently, a court is not restricted to the four corners of the plaint and may consider external material, including defense documents, to determine if a suit is barred by law or prior adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Is the court restricted to the contents of the plaint when deciding an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the court have the authority to consider external material or defense documents when determining whether to reject a plaint?
  • Is Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive of all situations in which a plaint can be rejected?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehana and 2 others vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf, Punjab Lahore and another1992 CLC 2054 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
• Javid Rashid vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17
  extra-judicial confessionjoint confessionlast-seen evidencecriminal appealmurder convictionadverse inferencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the trial court sentenced the appellant to death for the murder of two individuals. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility and reliability of joint extra-judicial confessions and the sufficiency of last-seen evidence to sustain a conviction. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court emphasized that a joint extra-judicial confession, where multiple accused allegedly confess simultaneously, is inadmissible in evidence. Furthermore, the court reiterated that extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence requiring independent corroboration, which was absent in this case. The court also noted that the failure to produce key witnesses warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution. Consequently, the court concluded that the evidence presented, including the recovery of a weapon not linked to the crime, was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt, necessitating his acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a joint extra-judicial confession made by multiple accused admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure to produce a material witness warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of weak extra-judicial confession evidence without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Javid Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 413 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Javed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 586 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Javed Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 324 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Province of West Pakistan and others1992 CLC 2369 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-13
  child trespasseroccupier's liabilityduty of caredamages for negligencetort liabilityrailway accidenthumanitarian duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of a suit for damages filed by the appellant, who suffered the amputation of his leg after being run over by a railway engine at the age of six when he went onto the railway tracks to retrieve a ball. The trial court decreed the suit in part, awarding damages, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiff was a trespasser to whom the railway administration owed no duty of care beyond refraining from intentional harm or setting traps, relying on the strict English rule in Addie's case. The Lahore High Court reviewed the evolution of common law regarding the duty of occupiers to trespassers, particularly child trespassers, taking note of modern English authorities such as Herrington v. British Railways Board. The Court held that an occupier owes a humanitarian duty of care to child trespassers whose presence can reasonably be foreseen, a principle also strongly reinforced by Islamic injunctions regarding neighbours and humane conduct. The Court concluded that the railway administration failed in its duty of care and restored the trial court's decree for damages, awarding interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • What is the nature and extent of the duty of care owed by an occupier of land to a child trespasser under common law principles?
  • Whether an occupier can be held liable in damages for injuries sustained by a child trespasser whose presence on the premises was reasonably foreseeable?
  • Does the failure of a railway administration to take precautionary measures or issue warnings regarding foreseeable child trespassers constitute actionable negligence?
  • Can interest be awarded under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on a decretal amount of damages in tort cases?
  Read full judgment →
• JaVED IQBaL vs Lt.Col. Muhammad SaDIQ and 2 others1992 CLC 1791 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Javed And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 564 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
• Javed And 4 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
• Javaid Akhtar vs Neelofar And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 231 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Javaid Akhtar vs Mst. Neelofar and others1992 CLC 1382 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2397 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
• Jalilur Rehman vs Pakistan Telecommunication Corporaton through its Chairman and 3 others1992 CLC 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-26Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others vs Muhammad Arshad and others1992 CLC 2216 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
• Islam Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 452 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Amin Sheikh vs I.D.B.P.1992 CLC. 1935 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-17Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad and anothers vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and others1992 CLC 1719 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another1992 CLC 3 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-21Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2608 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
• Inam Din vs Province of Punjab and 13 others1992 CLC 529 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Imanat Ali vs Warts Ali and 3 others-1992 P Cr. L J 564 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Imamud Din vs QasimK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Ilyas Masih vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1241 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →