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.

• Noor Ahmad And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1229 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• No Name vs Administration AuqafK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 100 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-07Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din vs Fateh Muhammad and others1991 CLC 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Nizam Din and others vs Additional Commissioner and others1991 MLD 2182 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Nihal Din alias Lal Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Hussain and 3 others1991 MLD 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• Niamuddin And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Neelam Mawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 412 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-01Read full judgment →
• Neelam Mawaz vs The State1991 MLD 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Salim and others1991 CLC 952 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1991 PLD Lahore 469 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs S.H.O.1991 P Cr. L J 1046 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Border Area Committee1991 MLD 1154 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• Nazar-Ul-Husnain vs Collector, Etc.(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 8) · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-16Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-18Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and anothers vs Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and 2 others1991 MLD 458 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Nazar Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1709 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26
  criminal revisionplea of guiltyadmission of guiltshow cause noticeillegal possessionretrialillegal conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition before the Lahore High Court challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner, Nazar Khan, who was straightaway convicted under sections 18, 33, and 34 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 upon pleading guilty to the charge of illegal possession of plots. The core legal question was whether a trial court can immediately convict an accused upon an admission of guilt without affording an opportunity to show cause. The Court held that the trial Court erred by convicting the petitioner straightaway without complying with the mandatory procedure under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which requires asking the accused if he has sufficient cause to show why he should not be convicted upon his admission. The ratio decidendi is that an admission of guilt does not dispense with the statutory requirement of issuing a show cause notice prior to conviction. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence, declining to order a retrial given the nature of the case, and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court straightaway convict an accused upon a plea of guilt without issuing a show cause notice?
  • What is the mandatory procedure required under Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 upon an admission of guilt?
  • Whether an appellate or revisional court should order a retrial when a conviction is vitiated by procedural non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1155 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-08Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain and Other vs Anwar Begum and OtherK.L.R 1991 Civil Case 86 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-19Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Ali Nawaz Khan Mamdot vs Deputy Administrator and 221991 MLD 960 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 173 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-25Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs Nazar Hussain And Another1991.P Cr. L J 2321 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
• Naveed Traders (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector of Customs and others1991 CLC 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Neik Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 499 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 294 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
• Nasir vs The State1991 MLD 2524 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 472 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-23Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad Alias Naseera vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2157 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
• Najam-Ul-Hassan & 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 522 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-24Read full judgment →
• Najabat Ali and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1991 MLD 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
• Naik Muhammad vs The State1991 MLD 781 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
• Naeem vs The State1991 MLD 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Naeem Akhtar Alias Nanna vs The State-1991 PCr.LJ 2318 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Nadeemn Iqbal and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 577 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Iqbal And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sallos (Private) Limited. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, CompaniesPTCL1991 CL. 48 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Afzal Construction Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Chairman, Central Board OfPTCL 1991 CL. 7 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Mumtaz Industries vs Industrial Development Bank of PakistanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 459 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzammil Hussain vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1443 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali and 2 others vs Ch. Asghar Ali1991 CLC 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-19
  specific performancespecial oathOaths Actauthority of counselVakalatnamafraudregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court after the plaintiffs-appellants offered to have the suit decided on the basis of a special oath taken by the defendant-respondent on the Holy Qur'an. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that the respondent had committed fraud by falsely taking the oath despite previously admitting receipt of an amount in another proceeding, and further argued that one of the appellants was not bound by the oath proceedings as his counsel lacked specific authority. The High Court held that the plea of fraud was an afterthought since the appellants themselves initiated the special oath proposal with full knowledge of the facts and raised no contemporaneous objection. The Court further held that the advocate was duly authorized under the general recitals in his Vakalatnama empowering him to enter into a compromise or withdraw the suit, which inherently included the authority to agree to special oath proceedings. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who initiated an offer for a special oath subsequently avoid the binding nature of the oath by raising a plea of fraud based on facts known to them at the time of the offer?
  • Does an advocate holding a general power to compromise or withdraw a suit under a Vakalatnama possess the implied or express authority to agree to the disposal of a dispute on the basis of a special oath?
  • Whether a client is bound by the statement of their counsel agreeing to special oath proceedings when no clash of interest is shown and the challenge is raised as an afterthought?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ahmed vs Pakistan through Secretary and others1991 MLD 1142 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mustafa & Co. and others vs United Bank Ltd.1991 CLC 1690 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Muhammad Rafique Tariq & Co.1991 MLD 2363 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 790 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani1991 CLC 140 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-15
  Banking suitHouse Building LoanEquitable set-offBreach of contractPleadingsUnpleaded evidenceDisallowance of interestPreliminary decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from a suit filed by the appellant-Bank against the respondent for recovery of loan along with interest. The trial Court decreed the suit in part for the principal amount disbursed but disallowed interest and granted an equitable set-off/compensation to the respondent for lost rental income due to the Bank’s failure to disburse the full contracted loan amount, resulting in a net decree in favour of the respondent. The Bank appealed against the disallowance of interest and the award of equitable set-off. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that a court cannot base its decision on pleas not raised in the pleadings, nor can unpleaded evidence be considered. Because the respondent did not plead lost rental income in his written statement, the award of set-off was legally unsustainable. Additionally, since the Bank breached the contract by failing to advance the full agreed loan amount, it was disentitled from charging interest. The decree was modified to award the Bank Rs.3,55,210.37.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court award damages or equitable set-off based on a claim or ground not set up in the party's pleadings?
  • Can evidence led in respect of a plea not raised in the written statement or pleadings be considered by the court?
  • Is a lending bank entitled to charge interest on disbursed instalments when it fails to advance the full contracted loan amount required for a project's completion?
  • Can a respondent challenge an adverse finding of the trial court in an appeal without filing cross-objections or a cross-appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Masih And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1058 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Muhammad Ikramulhaq and others1991 CLC 1626 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Haji Qamaruddin and others1991 CLC 1551 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Murammadnawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Murad vs Manzoor Hussain1991 CLC 512 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
• Murad Shah vs The State1991 MLD 887 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Munshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
• Munshi Khan and 54 others vs Punjab Province through Collector, Mianwali and 23 others1991 MLD 534 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-25Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 1781 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad Khan vs Municipal Corporation, Lahore1991 PLC (C.S.) 247 · Lahore High Court · 1990-04-25Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Pasrur vs Compensation Commissioner and others1991 PLC 488 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muneer-Ud-Din vs Secretary Disciplinary Committee, University of the Punjab1991 MLD 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2241 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain vs The StateK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 501 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali Shamsi vs Registrar, University of Engineering and Technology1991 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 2025 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs Chairman, Zila Council, Jhang and others1991 MLD 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-20Read full judgment →
• Multan Improvement Trust Etc vs Sultan Mehmood EtcK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 115 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Multan Chemicals Ltd. vs District Council, Lahore through Chief1991 MLD 910 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Multan Chemicals Ltd vs District Council Lahore EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 637 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ali vs The State and others-1991 P Cr. L J 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilitycriminal revisioninterim bailsurrender of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner, who stood surety for an accused, Talib Hussain, due to the accused's failure to appear in court on four successive dates. The petitioner was ordered to pay the bond amount or face attachment of his property. The core legal question is whether a surety remains liable for the forfeiture of bail bonds when the accused has subsequently surrendered and been granted interim bail by a competent court. The Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained. It reasoned that because the accused had surrendered to the court's jurisdiction and was granted interim bail before arrest, the purpose of the surety bond was effectively satisfied. Consequently, the petitioner was absolved of his legal liability to produce the accused. The key principle laid down is that a surety's liability to produce an accused is extinguished once the accused surrenders to the court's jurisdiction and is granted fresh bail, rendering the forfeiture of the original bond unjustified.

  Questions settled

  • Does a surety remain liable for the forfeiture of bail bonds if the accused subsequently surrenders to the court's jurisdiction?
  • Is a surety absolved of the obligation to produce an accused once the accused is granted interim bail by a competent court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 896 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1991 MLD 2241 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs Muhammad Khurshid KamalK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 201 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs Malik Muhammad Shafi1991 MLD 668 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad and others vs Noor Muhammad1991 PLD Lahore 282 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad and others vs Commissioner, Sargodha Division and others1991 CLC 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Alias Bholi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad alias Bholi vs The State1991 MLD 527 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammaduaz vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1912 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammadnawaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 133 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad. Boota vs Haji Ghulam Mustafa and others1991 MLD 2385 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Abdul Munaf And 3 Others1991 P Cr. L J 2242 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zia-Ul-Haq vs Admission Board of Medical Colleges of the Punjab, through Chairman (Principal), King Edward Medical College and 8 others1991 MLD 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1343 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman And 2 Others vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1514 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Rai vs Lahore Development Authority and others1991 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11
  land acquisitionsupplementary awardfunctus officiomarket valuewrit jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictioncompensationreference to court
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged land acquisition compensation awards issued by the Lahore Development Authority. The core legal questions concerned the validity of 'supplementary awards' issued by the Land Acquisition Collector after the original award, and whether the Tribunal’s determination of market value and compensation was subject to judicial review. The Court held that once a Land Acquisition Collector announces an award, they become functus officio and lack jurisdiction to issue supplementary awards; such disputes must be addressed through a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Court emphasized that the determination of market value is a mixed question of law and fact, and the Tribunal’s findings based on evidence are not subject to scrutiny in writ jurisdiction. Although the supplementary awards were legally invalid, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction because substantial justice had been achieved, and the Authority had not disputed the underlying facts regarding land ownership. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that courts will not interfere with factual findings on compensation unless there is a clear misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Land Acquisition Collector issue supplementary awards after the original award has been announced?
  • Is the determination of market value by a Tribunal subject to scrutiny in writ jurisdiction?
  • What is the proper remedy for an aggrieved party to challenge the measurement or compensation amount in a land acquisition award?
  • Does the principle of functus officio apply to a Land Acquisition Collector after the announcement of an award?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, Sialkot and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 440 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunis vs Mirza Ghiasuddin Ahmed Beg1991 CLC 94 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Zia vs Chief Settlement Commissioner1991 CLC 1631 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Mst. Manzoor Mai And 3 Others1991 P Cr. L J 673 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Additional District Judge, Attock and 2 others1991 PLD Lahore 251 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Etc vs Deputy Adminstrator Etc.K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and 3 others vs Imamuddin and 2 others1991 CLC 706 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State1991 MLD 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs District Health Officer, Muzaffargarh and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 527 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Allah Din1991 CLC 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-16
  specific performanceagreement to selllimitation periodtime is not of the essencecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts decreeing a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22-3-1972. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation when no specific date for performance was fixed, and whether the findings suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that since time was not of the essence and the suit was filed within a week of the defendant's refusal to perform the contract, it was well within time. The Court further held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the agreement, possession, and tenancy showed no misreading of evidence, illegality, or jurisdictional defect. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance is time-barred when no specific date for performance is fixed in the agreement and the suit is filed within a week of the defendant's refusal?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in civil revision without demonstrating misreading or non-reading of material evidence?
  • Whether a suit for specific performance is barred when the defendant fails to prove the alternative plea of tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1348 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1166 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 39 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, 1ST Class,1991 P Cr. L J 363 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-27Read full judgment →