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.

• WAPDA vs Rashid Muhammad1989 MLD 4225 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Nisar Art Press1989 MLD 3843 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Mst. Khatoon And Other1989 MLD 3122 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Wall Muhammad And 2 Others vs Ejaz Ahmad And 3 Other1989 MLD 2869 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
• Walayat Hussain vs Muhammad Hanif1989 MLD 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10
  civil revisionclosure of evidencedelay in judgmentremand of casehearing of arguments
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a suit where the trial court closed the defendant's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and subsequently pronounced judgment more than eight months after hearing arguments, which was unsuccessfully challenged in first appeal before the Additional District Judge. The core legal question concerned the validity of a judgment pronounced long after the conclusion of arguments, violating the prescribed timeframe requiring fresh arguments. The Lahore High Court held that announcing a judgment after an inordinate delay of eight months without fresh arguments vitiates the decision. The Court set aside the lower courts' judgments, accepted the civil revision, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision after hearing arguments anew, establishing that substantial delays in judgment delivery necessitate rehearing of arguments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment announced after an inordinate delay following the hearing of arguments is legally sustainable without rehearing arguments?
  • Can an order closing evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be challenged in civil revision?
  • What is the consequence of failing to announce a judgment within the normal prescribed period after hearing arguments?
  Read full judgment →
• Wakeelur Rehman and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-25Read full judgment →
• Wahid BAKHSHPotitioncr vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2257 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 268 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh vs The State And Another1989 MLD 776 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh Rana vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1591 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
• Waheed Ullah Khan vs Muhammad Hanif CH.K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 95 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
• Wa LI Mu H a MM a D vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others1989 PLD Lahore 440 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30
  civil revisionpower of attorneyundue influencefiduciary relationshipsale deedagent and principalfraudconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration that a registered sale-deed executed by his attorney was fraudulent, without consideration, and void. The core legal questions involve whether an attorney can alienate property in favor of his minor children and associates without full disclosure and consent, and whether such transaction is vitiated by undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty. The Lahore High Court held that the agent abused his fiduciary position, exercised undue influence over an illiterate principal, and violated statutory provisions by transferring property to his minor sons and associates without consent. The court ruled that the transaction was voidable and liable to be repudiated under the Contract Act. The key principles laid down are that an ignorant agriculturist occupies a position akin to a pardanashin lady regarding the presumption of undue influence, that an agent cannot deal on his own account or in favor of close relatives without full disclosure and consent of the principal, and that revisional courts can interfere with concurrent findings of fact when subordinate courts misapply the law or ignore material evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney executed by an illiterate person can be used to alienate property in favor of the attorney's minor children without violating the principles of agency?
  • Does an agent standing in a fiduciary relationship commit a breach of duty by transferring the principal's property to himself or his associates without full disclosure and consent?
  • Whether the protections against undue influence applicable to vulnerable persons extend to an illiterate and ignorant agriculturist?
  • Can a revisional court interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the subordinate courts have misapplied statutory provisions and disregarded material evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Uzma Wahid vs Guardian Judge And Other1989 MLD 3064 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-02Read full judgment →
• Umer Hayat vs The State1989 MLD 882 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Umer Din vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-10Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1989 MLD 4457 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 689 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1989 MLD 4958 · Lahore High Court · 1989-10-12Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs Ghafoor1989 MLD 463 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Lahore 427 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• Umar Draz vs Muhammad Siddique And Another1989 MLD 698 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-17Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Ali Muhammad1989 MLD 3479 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Umar Daraz Khan vs The State1989 MLD 890 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 106 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-08Read full judgment →
• Tufail Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
• TM Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
• Thiraj and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 760 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
• Thiraj and Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 32 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zahoor Ahmad and others1989 P Cr. L J 1210 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Wazir Ali Etc.K.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 682 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Wazir Ali And Other1989 MLD 4649 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Tahir Shah1989 MLD 2810 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• The State vs Station House Officer1989 MLD 320 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shaukat Ali And 4 Other1989 MLD 883 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
• The State vs Qaisar Abbas1989 P Cr. L J 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Napa And Other1989 MLD 3460 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mushtaq Ahmad and another1989 P Cr. L J 1497 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• The State vs Munir Ahmad1989 MLD 2839 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Munir Ahmad1989 P Cr. L J 1791 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Younis And Another1989 MLD 3258 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Rafiq and others1989 P Cr. L J 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Arif1989 P Cr. L J 1835 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad AkramK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 163 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Akram and another1989 P Cr. L J 657 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Maula Bakhsh and others1989 P Cr. L J 2469 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Murtaza And Other1989 MLD 4926 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Faqirullah And Other1989 MLD 645 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Extra Assistant Commissioner Khanpur1989 P Cr. L J 1993 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• The State vs Allah Yar and 5 others1989 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• The Province of the Punjab vs Syed Shafique Ahmad1989 PLD Lahore 261 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• The Province of Punjab And Others vs Izhar Ltd.1989 CLC 180 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Faisalabad vs The Punjab Labour1989 PLC 25 · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-21Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent of Railways, Pakistan Railways, Divisional Office, Lahore vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 604 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi vs Mian1989 PTD 525 · Lahore High Court
  tax referenceredemption value of preference sharesdividend incomemaintainability of referencecertified copy of orderincome tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Lahore High Court addresses four connected tax references filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, regarding the assessment year 1962-63. The core legal question before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal pertained to whether the redemption value of preference shares constitutes dividend income under Section 2(6-A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and whether it is taxable in the hands of the assessee. However, during the hearing, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the references, pointing out that mandatory certified copies of the Tribunal's orders had not been filed along with the reference applications, as required by Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, as amended by Finance Ordinance No. XIV of 1971, nor was any application made to dispense with such requirement. The Court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that the tax references were incompetently instituted and not maintainable. Consequently, all four tax references were dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the redemption value of preference shares is a dividend income within the meaning of Section 2(6-A)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
  • Whether filing a certified copy of the order of the Tribunal is a mandatory requirement for the competence of a tax reference under Section 66(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
  • What is the effect of failing to file certified copies of the Tribunal's orders or an application for dispensing with the same along with a tax reference application?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore vs Gulzar1989 PTD 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Kohinoor Trading Company, Sialkot1989 PTD 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Tehsin Miran Gillani and another vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue,Government of Pakistan1989 PLC (C.S.) 558 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Tehsin Miran Gillani And Another vs Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan1989 CLC 1596 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Ahmad Alias Pappu vs The State1989 MLD 2922 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1740 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• Tario Mahmood vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 286(1) · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
• Tanvirul Haq vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 188 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 358 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Badar Ul Salam And Another1989 CLC 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain Alias Goga vs The State1989 MLD 2842 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Talea Bibi And Others vs Mst. Saleem Akhtar And Other1989 MLD 929 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Muhammad Hussain And 4 Other1989 MLD 3206 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Taj Din vs Zafar Iqbal Shah, S.H.O. And Another1989 MLD 4788(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• Taj Din And Others vs Zillah Council And 2 Other1989 MLD 270 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
• Taj Din And Others vs Muhammad Ramzan And Other1989 MLD 234 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Wazir Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 411 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Taj Din and Other vs Babu Shah DinK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 151 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
• Tahir Rashid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1741 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
• Tahir Khan vs Ghulam Hussain1989 MLD 4178 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Hussain And Others vs Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 4885 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Sultan Shah vs The State1989 MLD 4644 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Suitan Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Shariat Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 646 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi vs A.C. EtcK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 514 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabbar R Aza Rizvi vs The Assistant Commissioner, Depalpur and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 558 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Ali Gardezi Etc. vs Chief Administrator of AuqafK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 112 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Ali Gardezi And Others vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf1989 MLD 3117 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Abbas vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 739 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Munawar Hussain Naqvi vs Mr. Farrukh Latif, Addl. District Judge1989 MLD 3009 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Zafar Bukhari vs Government of the Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 752 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Nawaz Shah And Others vs Amir Hussain Shah And Other1989 CLC 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05
  inheritanceMuslim Personal LawShia secthomicidedisqualification from inheritanceregular second appealsuccession
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal concerns the inheritance of the estate of Syed Baqir Hussain Shah, who died issueless in 1940. The appellants, claiming as collaterals, sought a declaration of their inheritance rights. The core legal questions were whether the deceased belonged to the Shia sect, thereby altering the applicable inheritance laws, and whether the appellants were disqualified from inheriting because their predecessor, Bahawal Shah, had murdered the deceased. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the deceased was indeed a Shia and that the murderer’s progeny were disqualified from succession. Upon review, this Court held that the appellate court’s findings were based on substantial evidence and free from legal infirmity. The Court affirmed the principle of Muslim Law that a murderer is barred from inheriting from their victim and that this disqualification extends to the murderer's progeny. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower appellate court's judgment that the appellants were excluded from the inheritance due to the homicide committed by their predecessor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the murder of a person by a relative disqualify the murderer's progeny from inheriting the victim's estate under Muslim Law?
  • Can a finding of fact regarding the religious sect of a deceased person be interfered with in a second appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a murderer barred from inheriting the estate of the person they assassinated under Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Asghar vs Haji Muhammad Akram M(G),Bor And Other1989 MLD 3756 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Asghar vs Haji Muhammad Akram M (C) Bor Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 143 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Mashhood Ashraf. vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others1989 PLC 276 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Mashhood Ashraf vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.1989 PLC (C.S.) 206 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Maqsood Ul Hassan vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 238 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah vs Khurshid Ahmad And 4 Other1989 CLC 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Hussain and 4 others vs Syed Agha Hussain and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahboob Alam Shah And Others vs Deputy Commissioner And Other1989 CLC 1801 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-02
  temporary injunctionland acquisitioncivil revisionjurisdiction of civil courtprima facie caseurgency clauselapse of acquisition proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a suit for declaration challenging acquisition proceedings of 9 Kanals 9 Marlas of land for the construction of a educational campus. The trial Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners who were in physical possession, but the Additional District Judge set aside the order and vacated the injunction, holding that the suit was barred and no notice was required after urgency provisions were applied. The High Court reversed the appellate order and restored the temporary injunction. The Court held that serious questions of law and fact existed regarding whether acquisition proceedings lapsed under Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 when no Section 5 notification was issued within one year, and whether prior notice was mandatory. It further held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging the validity of acquisition proceedings when statutory requirements are not strictly complied with.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred from entertaining a suit challenging land acquisition proceedings on grounds of non-compliance with statutory rules?
  • Whether land acquisition proceedings automatically lapse under Rule 7 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules 1983 if no notification under Section 5 is issued within one year of the Section 4 notification?
  • Can an urgency notification under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be validly issued after acquisition proceedings have lapsed due to efflux of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Jammat Ali Shah And Others vs Investment Corporation Of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1989 MLD 3931 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Izhar Ul Hassan Rizvi vs Mian Abdur Rehman And 2 Other1989 CLC 2144 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Ishaq Hussain Rizvi And Others vs SH. Mubarik Ali And Other1989 MLD 180 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Iqbal Haider vs N.B.P EtcK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 25 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 3966 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Faiz Ali Shah vs The State1989 MLD 3729 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →