Latest Judgments

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

• Muhammad Asghar And Another vs The State1989 MLD 843 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar And Another vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 304 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1893(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1989 MLD 2826 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 319 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The State1989 MLD 739 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And Others vs Addl. S.C.(L), And Other1989 MLD 4814 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 626 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Alias Achu And Another vs The State1989 MLD 702(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Chaudhry vs Election Tribunal, Okara and others1989 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05
  election petitionrecount of votesrecriminationcommencement of trialreturned candidateelection tribunallocal government electionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Election Tribunal refusing to recount the ballot papers of a respondent in a local body election dispute. The petitioner, who had been declared the returned candidate, argued that the Tribunal's earlier general order for recounting encompassed all votes and that the penalty of rule 11 regarding recrimination could only be invoked at the stage of evidence on merits. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of the term 'commencement of the trial' under the relevant election rules, the power of the tribunal to review its orders, and the necessity of filing a timely notice of recrimination to challenge an opposing candidate's votes. The Lahore High Court held that the trial of an election petition commences from the institution or appearance stage rather than strictly at the hearing of evidence, making the petitioner's notice of recrimination time-barred. The Court affirmed that a returned candidate cannot challenge the validity of votes cast for an opponent without proper and timely recrimination. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • When does the trial of an election petition commence for the purpose of filing a notice of recrimination under rule 11 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules 1979?
  • Can a returned candidate challenge the validity of votes cast in favour of an election petitioner without filing a timely notice of recrimination?
  • Does an Election Tribunal possess an inherent power of review under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a preliminary recount order capable of being construed as covering all ballot papers when the initial pleadings and applications only sought the scrutiny of specific disputed votes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4929 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif alias Dana and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2279 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Hoechst Pharmaceutical Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. And Other1989 MLD 171 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24
  leave to defendsummary suitconditional leavenegotiable instrumentspromissory noterevisional jurisdictiondiscretion of court
  Summary & questions settled

  These two revision petitions challenge an order of the Additional District Judge directing the defendants to deposit the suit amount as a condition for granting leave to defend a recovery suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions involve the scope of the trial court's discretion to impose conditions when granting leave to appear and defend, and whether such an interlocutory order warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that where a defendant raises a vague or doubtful defence, the court exercises proper judicial discretion by granting conditional leave to defend—such as requiring a deposit or security—rather than granting unconditional leave or refusing it entirely. The key principle laid down is that under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the imposition of terms for leave to defend falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, which will not be interfered with in revision unless exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court has the discretion to impose conditions such as depositing the decretal amount when granting leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an interlocutory order imposing conditions for leave to defend amenable to revision under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • When should a court grant unconditional leave to defend versus conditional leave in a suit based on negotiable instruments?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2381 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar alias Muhammad Nawaz and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 706(2) · Lahore High Court · 1988-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 193 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1989 MLD 4375 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1775 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4374 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2344 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin And 4 Others vs The State1989 MLD 4163 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf vs The State1989 MLD 2802 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Altaf And Others vs Painda Khan Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 4227 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Allauddin Babri vs Pakistan Railway and others1989 PLC 720 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2754 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 734 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs S.H.O., Police Station Civil Lines, Bahawalpur1989 P Cr. L J 1707 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Nabi Bakhsh And 5 Other1989 CLC 2026 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Mumtaz Hussain Lali, Additional District Judge, Sialkot and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-08
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide neednon-residential premisesfactory and shop distinctionconstitutional petitionrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of bona fide personal use to establish a business. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition, but the appellate authority (Additional District Judge) reversed this decision and ordered eviction. The core legal question centered on whether a landlord owning a factory or industrial premises is barred from seeking the eviction of a tenant from a commercial shop for personal business needs under the law, and whether the appellate authority properly appreciated the evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a factory and a shop constitute different categories of non-residential buildings, and ownership of a factory does not disqualify a landlord from seeking a shop for personal business under the statute, provided the statutory conditions are met. The key principle laid down is that the expression 'such building' in the rent restriction statute distinguishes between different types of premises (such as factories and shops), and a landlord's occupation of an industrial or non-shop building does not bar them from seeking a commercial shop for their business needs.

  Questions settled

  • Does ownership and operation of a factory disentitle a landlord from seeking the ejectment of a tenant from a commercial shop for personal use?
  • Are a factory and a shop considered the same category of building under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can the High Court re-appraise evidence in constitutional jurisdiction against an appellate rent judgment?
  • What are the essential factors a landlord must prove when seeking eviction from a non-residential building for personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Maqsood Mai1989 P Cr. L J 2153 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Ali Sher And Other1989 CLC 1230 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue) And 7 Other1989 MLD 1246 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And Others vs Sher Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and Other vs MRS. KhalidaK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 2 others vs Sajjad Asghar and another1989 P Cr. L J 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 142 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mst. Farman Bi1989 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-17
  malicious prosecutiondamages for malicious prosecutionrestitution of conjugal rightsmalicious abuse of civil proceedingscompensatory costsdamage to reputationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Jhelum, awarding Rs. 20,000 as damages for malicious prosecution to the respondent. The petitioner had earlier instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights falsely alleging a consummated marriage with the respondent, a war widow, amid severe family enmity. The Family Court had dismissed the suit with nominal costs of Rs. 2, which became final as no appeal was preferred. The respondent then instituted a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The legal issue before the High Court was whether a suit for damages for malicious prosecution lies in respect of civil proceedings, particularly where costs were awarded in the original suit. The High Court held that the term 'prosecution' extends to civil actions that cause scandal or odium to reputation. The nominal costs awarded did not bar an independent action for damages. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for damages for malicious prosecution arise out of the institution of a false and malicious civil action?
  • Does the award of nominal or ordinary costs in a civil proceeding bar the aggrieved defendant from filing a separate suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
  • Whether the non-registration of an alleged Muslim marriage under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 creates doubt about its existence when the factum of marriage is disputed?
  • Can the court assess and award general damages for injury to reputation and mental agony under the rule of thumb without a specific mathematical breakup of damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Aurangzeb And Another1989 CLC 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-08
  pre-emptionjurisdictionreturn of plaintlimitationwrong forumcivil revisionco-ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of competing pre-emption suits filed over agricultural land. The core legal questions concern whether a suit filed in a wrong forum can be transferred rather than having its plaint returned, whether the time spent in the wrong forum can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, and whether a plea of limitation can be raised for the first time in revision. The Lahore High Court held that the Collector lacked jurisdiction over pre-emption suits based on co-ownership, that the proper course was to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure rather than transferring the case, and that a pure question of law regarding limitation can be raised at any stage including in revision. The Court laid down that an initial valid presentation of a plaint to a court of competent jurisdiction is mandatory for a valid institution, and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court to determine the applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act and the effect of default in depositing pre-emption money.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint filed in a court lacking jurisdiction be transferred to a competent court instead of being returned?
  • Whether a plea of limitation can be raised for the first time in revision proceedings?
  • Does the time consumed in prosecuting a suit bona fide before a wrong forum qualify for exclusion under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • When is a civil suit considered to be validly instituted for the purposes of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Amtul Nasir1989 CLC 2211 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan and 25 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 873 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram And Others vs The State1989 MLD 167 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akmal Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 717 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Iqbal vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Sheikhupura And Other1989 MLD 4298 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The State1989 MLD 719 · Lahore High Court · 1989-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar And Others vs The State1989 MLD 3975 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar And Others vs Additional Commissioner And Other1989 CLC 1724 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 272 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The District Education Officer (Female), Rahimyar1989 PLC (C.S.) 677 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Saeed and another1989 P Cr. L J 2349 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Muhammad Saeed and Alias BilloK.L.R.1989 Shariat Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs Chairman, Punjab Board of Technical1989 PLD Lahore 149 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs Sakhi Muhammad and 22 others1989 PLD Lahore 228 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 389 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adil vs The State1989 MLD 4677 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1989 MLD 4916 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad a Slam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 440 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muh Ammad Arshad and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 750 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muh a Mma D Boot a vs Station House Officer, P.S. Ichhra, Lahore and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mughal And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4964 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mueenud Din Ahmad Shahzad For Niamat Cotton Ginning And Pressing1989 CLC 173 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mubashir Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 244 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mubarak vs Abdul Rashid1989 CLC 324 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali And Others vs Syed Ishaq Hussain Rizvi And Other1989 MLD 497 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mtiaz Hussain Anjum vs Muhammad Saleem and others1989 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst.Sughran Bibi vs Husmat BibiK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mst.Roshan vs The StateK.L.R 1989-Criminal Cases 233 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
• Mst.Parveen vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 32 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mst.Noor Jahan vs Jan Muhammad Etc.K.L.R. 1989 Shariat Cases 35 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mst.Majidan Bibi vs Shabir Ahmad EtcK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 108 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mst.Guinaz Banc) Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Mai vs Muhammad Yousaf And Other1989 MLD 3829 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zenab Bibi vs S.H.O.1989 MLD 4038 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zebo vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 594 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahur Bib1 vs Muhammad Siddioue And 3 Other1989 MLD 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmin Zafar vs Muhammad Anwar Khan and others1989 PLD Lahore 38 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17
  temporary custodyguardians and wardsfamily courts actappealabilityinterlocutory orderwelfare of minorsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an appellate order of the District Judge which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a Guardian Judge's order rejecting an application for temporary custody of minor children under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory order passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act qualifies as a 'decision' under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, thereby rendering an appeal competent. The Lahore High Court held that an order regarding the temporary custody of minors is not a routine order, but one requiring the determination of the welfare of minors, and constitutes a 'decision' within the meaning of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 25 thereof. The Court ruled that appeals lie against such substantive interlocutory orders. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the appellate order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act regarding the temporary custody of minors is appealable under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act?
  • Does the word 'decision' in Section 14 of the Family Courts Act cover interlocutory orders?
  • Is the right of appeal in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act regulated by Section 14 of the Family Courts Act or Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Bibi vs Mst. Hurmat Bibi Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 455 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Bibi vs Khushi Muhammad And Another1989CLC 2465 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Begum vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore And 21989 MLD 4090 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz Bibi And Others vs Muhammad Mansha And Other1989 MLD 4122 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sheerin Bai Muhammad Ali vs Tassadaq Mahmood1989 CLC 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sheedan Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 761 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Bibi vs Khurshid Ahmad1989 MLD 482 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharam Mai vs District Magistrate and others1989 P Cr. L J 411 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Bibi vs Guardian Judge, Chunian1989 MLD 128 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Alias Aashee vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 59 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Muhammad AltafK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 131 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shameem Alias Aashee vs The State1989 MLD 4791 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 712 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Begum, vs Mst. Zulaikha Bib1,And 5 Other1989 CLC 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Seeman Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 4081 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sattan And Others vs Mst. Sahiban1989 MLD 1013 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Bibi Through Legal Heirs vs Haider1989 MLD 4759 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Begum vs Provincial Government through Secretary1989 PLC (C.S.) 40 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 3293 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum vs Mst. Saeeda Begum1989 CLC 1754 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum And Others vs Mst. Chiragh Bibi And Another1989 CLC 825 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04
  constitutional petitionex parte decreedeath of defendantlegal representativeslimitation periodvoid proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition assails an order of the Additional District Judge whereby a revision petition was accepted and an application for setting aside an ex parte decree was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The core legal questions involved whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree against a defendant who initially appeared but later absented is governed by Article 164 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act, and whether proceedings taken and an ex parte decree passed against a deceased defendant before the expiry of the 90-day period prescribed for bringing legal representatives on record under Article 177 of the Limitation Act are null and void. The Lahore High Court held that Article 181 applies to such ex parte decrees, and that proceedings taken against a defendant before the expiry of the limitation period for substituting legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure are void and without legal effect. The Court laid down the principle that the mandatory conditions regarding limitation for impleading legal representatives must be strictly fulfilled, and no ex parte proceedings can be validly conducted against a deceased person before the expiration of the statutory period.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed against a defendant who initially appeared and later absented is governed by Article 164 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act?
  • Can a court proceed against a deceased defendant and pass an ex parte decree before the expiry of the 90-day period prescribed under Article 177 of the Limitation Act for bringing legal representatives on record?
  • Whether proceedings taken against a dead defendant in violation of Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure render the resulting decree void and of no effect?
  Read full judgment →