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.

• Rana Muhammad Imtiaz vs S.H.O., Police Station Gojra Saddar1989 MLD 4063 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
• Rana Manzoor Ahmad vs Election Tribunal, Jaranwala and others1989 PLD Lahore 133 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 338 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ramzan and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2082 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-07Read full judgment →
• Rajjan And Others vs Noor Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 3526 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Raja Sher Ali vs Distt. Judge Jhelum. Etc.K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Sher Ali vs District Judge, Jhelum And 9 Other1989 CLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Raja Amjad Sultan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Ali And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4650 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Rahim Khatoon vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1861 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• Rahat Javid And Others vs The State1989 M LD 4151 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Rafique And Others, vs Allah Jawai And Other1989 MLD 4878 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4788(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-19Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Masih vs The State1989 MLD 4790 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali And Another vs Mubarak Ali1989 MLD 241 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Mst Kanizan And Other1989 CLC 171 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-14Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz And 11 Others vs Faiz Ahmad1989 MLD 3836 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Ra K Hma T Jan vs Gul-E-Nargis and 6 others1989 PLD Lahore 506 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-21
  civil revisioninherent powerscross-examinationrecall of witnessesends of justiceprocedural fairnesscounsel absence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for mandatory injunction regarding an alleged encroachment on a street. During the proceedings, the trial court recorded the respondents' evidence in the absence of the petitioner's counsel, who was engaged elsewhere. The petitioner's subsequent application to recall these witnesses for cross-examination was dismissed by the trial court, citing a lack of good grounds for the counsel's absence. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The core legal question was whether a court possesses the jurisdiction to recall witnesses for cross-examination when a party's counsel was absent due to professional engagements, and whether such discretion should be exercised. The Court held that while Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not explicitly grant a party the right to recall witnesses for cross-examination, the court retains inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to do so for the ends of justice. The Court established that where a party's counsel is absent for reasons not amounting to deliberate negligence, the court should allow the recall of witnesses to ensure a fair trial and the discovery of truth.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall witnesses for cross-examination?
  • Is Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 the exclusive provision governing the recall of witnesses for cross-examination?
  • Can a party be penalized for the absence of their counsel during the recording of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• R.M. Rafiq & Sons vs Pakistan Railways1989 MLD 19 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
• Qurban Muhammad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 705 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
• Qurban and 5 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs The State1989 MLD 4392 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 165 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-04Read full judgment →
• Qamarud Din And 4 Others vs Taj Muhammad1989 MLD 3059 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Qamar-Ud-Din and 4 Other vs Taj MuhammadK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 38 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Qamar Sultan and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 402 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• Qaisra Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 118 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Rehman vs District Magistrate, Rawalpindi1989 MLD 4132 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs Syed Shaukat Ali Shah and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 1002 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh And Others vs Mst. Zeban And Other1989 MLD 4999 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
• Q a Sim a LI vs Muhammad Saeed1989 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
• Punjab Vegetable Ghee And General Mills Ltd. vs Collector Of Central ExcisePTCL 1989 CL. 435 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Punjab Steel Ltd. And Three Other Companies. vs Deputy Collector Of Customs, Dry Port Lahore, EtcPTCL 1989 CL. 289 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Punjab Steel Limited vs Deputy Collector of Customs, Dry Port, Lahore and others1989 PLD Lahore 237 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06
  customs dutysales tax exemptionregulatory dutyshredded iron and steel scrapex-bonding bill of entrystatutory rateexemption notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of eight writ petitions filed by various industrial undertakings challenging assessment orders passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore, regarding the levy of customs duty and sales tax on imported shredded iron and steel scrap. The core legal question concerns the applicability and legal effect of notifications issued by the Federal Government on 30-12-1987 altering the rates of customs duty, regulatory duty, and sales tax on the imported goods under PCT heading 73.03. The Lahore High Court held that an exemption notification cannot be used to enhance the tax burden beyond the statutory rate of customs duty, and that sales tax exemption applies in accordance with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Al-Samrez Enterprise v. The Federation of Pakistan. The court concluded that claiming customs duty in excess of the statutory rate of Rs.418 per metric ton and levying sales tax contrary to settled protections was without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that exemption notifications serve to reduce or remit statutory liability, not to increase tax burdens beyond existing statutory limits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an exemption notification be utilized to charge customs duty in excess of the statutory rate?
  • What is the applicable rate of duty for imported goods under section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969, when bills of entry for ex-bonding are filed after a change in duty rates?
  • Does the levy of customs duty under subsection (1) of section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969 exhaust the power to levy regulatory duty under subsection (2)?
  • Are importers entitled to sales tax exemption on goods imported and in-bonded prior to the withdrawal of such exemption through subsequent notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Industrial Development Board, Lahore vs Muslim Commercial1989 MLD 467 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Punjab Cables vs Government of Pakistan1989 PLD Lahore 121 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18
  interim reliefcustoms dutyconfiscation of goodspublic revenueswrit jurisdictionbank guaranteesconstitutional limitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four miscellaneous applications filed by Punjab Cables Limited seeking to restrain customs authorities from realizing bank guarantees furnished pursuant to interim orders of the High Court. The applicant sought an extension of stay orders pending the disposal of writ petitions challenging fines imposed by the Collector of Customs. The core legal question was whether the six-month limitation on interim orders under Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 applies to proceedings involving the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines. The Court held that the limitation period applies, as the Collector’s orders regarding confiscation of goods and imposition of fines relate to 'State property' and 'public revenues.' The Court reasoned that confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act 1969 operate in rem, vesting title in the State, and that the legislative intent of Article 199(4-A) was to prevent the indefinite stay of recoverable state funds. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, ruling that the interim orders had ceased to have effect upon the expiration of the statutory period.

  Questions settled

  • Does the six-month limitation period for interim orders under Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply to proceedings involving customs fines and confiscation of goods?
  • Do proceedings for the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act 1969 constitute matters relating to State property?
  • Does the term 'public revenues' in Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass income derived from fines and penalties imposed by customs authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Cables (Pvt.) Limited. vs Govt, Of PakistanPTCL 1989 CL. 164 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-17Read full judgment →
• Punjab Board of Technical Education vs Muhammad Javid Akhtar1989 MLD 3763 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab And Another vs Haji Mirza Jan Muhammad1989 MLD 483 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Sardar Wali Muhammad Mokal1989 MLD 3890 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Asghari Khanum1989 MLD 226 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-14Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Allah Din1989 CLC 2495 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Ahmad Yar And Other1989 MLD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Communication And Works1989 MLD 4087 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through District Collector,Vehari vs Rana1989 MLD 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Collector, Faisalabad And Another vs Muhammad Hussain1989 MLD 3848 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
• Progressive Papers Ltd., Lahore vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1989 PLC 631 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
• Prof. Shahid Mahmood vs The State1989 MLD 3965 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-01Read full judgment →
• Private Secretary to the Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social1989 PLC (C.S.) 332 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Pirzada Muhammad Hassan vs Muhammad Gulzar Alias Boota1989 MLD 3632 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
• Pir Gul Badshah vs Sardar Muhammad Nasir Khan1989 CLC 225 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Perviaz vs Mst. Khurshid Begum And Other1989 MLD 3050 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-15Read full judgment →
• Pervez Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 320 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Irshad vs Riaz Ahmad1989 CLC 978 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State1989 MLD 885(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmad Butt vs The State1989 MLD 704 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Peera and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 690 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-17Read full judgment →
• Peer Ahmad Yar vs Muhammad Jamal1989 MLD 4168 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Mst. Rasheed Akhtar And 2 Other1989 MLD 341 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Milk Food Manufacturers Ltd. vs Joint Registrar of Companies1989 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1989-08-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited vs Mansoor Textile Mills Limited And Other1989 MLD 945 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd. vs Terni S.P.A., Italy1989 MLD 2787 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Agricultural Storage & Service Corporation Limited vs Province of Punjab and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 367 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21
  constitutional petitionultra viresmarket committeespecial cesstax versus feesubordinate legislationagricultural produce markets
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the vires of Rule 36-A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979, which empowered Market Committees to levy a 'special cess' on agricultural produce bought or sold by dealers. The core legal question was whether the Government possessed the rule-making power to impose such a 'special cess' under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978, when the parent statute only authorized the levy of a 'fee' and 'licence fee'. The Lahore High Court held that the levy in substance constituted a 'fee' rendered for specific services such as the construction of roads and culverts, rather than a tax or cess. However, because the impugned 'special cess' was levied in addition to and exceeded the maximum fee limit prescribed by the Government under Section 19 of the Ordinance, it was inconsistent with the parent statute. The court laid down the principle that the substance of a levy, rather than its nomenclature, determines its legal nature, but delegated subordinate legislation cannot exceed the substantive limits and maximum caps prescribed by the enabling statute.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 36-A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979 is ultra vires the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978?
  • Can the nomenclature of a levy as a 'special cess' be regarded as conclusive for determining its validity, or does the substance of the enactment govern?
  • Does the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 authorize the imposition of a special cess in addition to the maximum fee prescribed under Section 19?
  Read full judgment →
• Painday Khan vs Mohammad Zaman1989 MLD 4696 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
• P vs 'R'K.L.R. 1989 Revenue Cases 139 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Nusrat vs Mohammad Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 65 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Nusrat and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1893(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
• Nur Muhammad vs Munir Ahmad and others1989 P Cr. L J 712(2) · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-01Read full judgment →
• Not vs NotK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Casees 401 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Noori vs The State1989 MLD 762 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Noori vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 400 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Noor vs Shera1989 MLD 4149 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
• Noor Ur Rehman vs Mst. Zareena Jan1989 CLC 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad YusufK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 45 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Judge, Family Court, Burewala, District Vehari1989 PLD Lahore 31 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16
  Khuladissolution of marriageZar-i-Khulaconstitutional jurisdictionburden of prooffamily law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a Family Court decree that dissolved a marriage on the ground of Khula, despite the wife failing to prove specific allegations of cruelty and non-maintenance. The petitioner-husband contended that the failure to prove these grounds negated the basis for Khula and that the court erred by not conditioning the decree upon the return of ornaments. The Court held that the inability to prove specific grounds does not preclude a finding of hatred or aversion, which are subjective matters for the Qazi's conscience. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Zar-i-Khula (consideration for Khula) is not mandatory; it is a right of the husband that must be explicitly demanded and proven. Since the husband failed to make an unequivocal demand for compensation or prove that the ornaments were indeed given by him, the Family Court could not arbitrarily impose such a condition. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the Qazi cannot force compensation upon an unwilling or non-demanding husband.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to prove specific grounds for dissolution of marriage preclude a court from granting a decree of Khula?
  • Is a Family Court judge empowered to arbitrarily fix and impose Zar-i-Khula without a specific demand from the husband?
  • Can a husband's written statement regarding the provision of ornaments serve as evidence in the absence of corroborating testimony?
  • Does the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction extend to re-evaluating questions of fact determined by a Family Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Hakim Bibi1989 CLC 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Ghulam Jaffar And Other1989 MLD 2791 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Allah Ditta1989 MLD 4819 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad And Others vs Amir Muhammad Khan And Other1989 MLD 3487 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad alias Noora vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-28Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain vs Muhammad Amir and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 1505 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain vs Fauji Foundation Hospital1989 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24
  civil revisionremandlocal commissionerdemarcation reportboundary disputelocal investigationencroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of fifteen connected civil revisions challenged a common appellate order remanding suits to the trial court for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a fresh demarcation. The plaintiff hospital had instituted suits for possession against the defendants alleging encroachment, which the trial court dismissed after finding the encroachments unproven due to defects in the initial demarcation report. On appeal, the District Judge remanded the matters for proper demarcation. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in ordering a remand for local investigation in a boundary dispute. The Lahore High Court held that in boundary disputes and cases regarding the identity of land, oral evidence is insufficient, and proper exercise of judicial discretion requires local investigation by a Local Commissioner. The court affirmed that remanding the case for local inspection to reach the truth and properly assess the evidence serves the cause of justice, and dismissed the revisions in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court is justified in remanding a case for the appointment of a Local Commissioner in boundary and encroachment disputes?
  • Is oral evidence sufficient to prove encroachments in boundary and land identity disputes?
  • When should a court exercise its discretion to order local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Elahi Rathore vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 PLD Lahore 537 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4154 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2449 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Ahmad vs Additional District Judge1989 CLC 466 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• No Name vs StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 254 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
• No Name vs RespondentK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 705 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 694(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Alias Booti vs The State1989 MLD 4639 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Nikka Khan vs Settlement Authorities, Lahore Division1989 MLD 3311 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs Board of Revenue And Another1989 MLD 459 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali Alias Deena vs The State1989 MLD 3978 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Nek Muhammad vs Atta Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 4690 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-06Read full judgment →
• Nek Bibi vs Muhammad Tufail And Other1989 MLD 3990 · Lahore High Court · 1973-09-21Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
• Nazir alias Jeera vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1905 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →