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.

• Mir Shah Jehan Khan vs The State1989 MLD 4131 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mir Aslam Khan and Sons vs Gammon Pakistan Ltd.1989 MLD 3040 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mir Akbar Khan. vs Collector, Central Excise And Land Customs, Lahore And OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 341 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mir Akbar Khan vs Collector, Central Excise And Land Customs And Other1989 MLD 3058 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mian Zahid Sarfraz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1831 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mian Zahid Sarfraz vs Ch. Fazal Din1989 MLD 2770 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mian Z Afar Iqb Al and others vs Bashir Ahmad and others1989 PLD Lahore 152 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-19
  specific performanceagreement to selltime of the essencepremature suitmisdescription of propertymartial law regulationcontractual nexusreadiness and willingness
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Vehari, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated March 29, 1980. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was premature, whether time was of the essence of the contract regarding an intermediate payment, whether minor misdescriptions of Khasra numbers vitiated the agreement, and whether co-plaintiffs who were not parties to the agreement could maintain the suit. The Lahore High Court held that the suit was maintainable even though filed before the final date for completion because the defendants had repudiated the contract, that time was not of the essence of the contract, that misdescription of Khasra numbers did not invalidate the agreement where the entire holding comprising specific Khatas was clearly intended to be sold, but that co-plaintiffs who were strangers to the contract could not obtain specific performance. The appeal of the co-plaintiffs was dismissed, while the appeal of the primary vendee was accepted, granting him a decree for specific performance subject to depositing the balance sale consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale filed before the final date fixed for registration of the sale deed is premature when the vendor has already repudiated the contract?
  • Is time of the essence of the contract in agreements for the sale of immovable property regarding an intermediate payment date?
  • Does a minor misdescription or discrepancy in Khasra numbers vitiate an agreement to sell where the entire holding comprising specific Khatas is clearly identified and intended to be transferred?
  • Can co-plaintiffs who are not parties to the agreement of sale or representatives in interest maintain a suit for specific performance based merely on a clause allowing the primary vendee to join other persons at registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Sultan Muhammad vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 3113 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Khalid and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 743 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Akram And Others vs Muhammad Rafi1989 CLC 15 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-01
  rejection of plaintevacuee propertypending proceedingslimitation periodwrit petitionrevisional jurisdictionnotified officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition assailed an order of the District Judge whereby, in revision, the plaint of the petitioners was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of being barred by the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and by limitation. The core legal question concerned whether the civil suit challenging the transfer of evacuee property by a Notified Officer was maintainable and whether the plaint was rightly rejected. The Lahore High Court held that the writ petition itself was incompetent as the revisional order was neither void nor coram non judice, and the powers of trial and revisional courts under Order VII, Rule 11 and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are co-extensive. The Court laid down that a pending property form undisposed of by the department prior to the repeal of evacuee laws constitutes a pending proceeding saved under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and orders passed thereon by a Notified Officer are final and immune from civil court jurisdiction. Furthermore, suits to impeach orders of rehabilitation authorities are governed by Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, rather than Article 95.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a District Judge in revision rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be challenged in a writ petition?
  • Does an undisposed of transfer form pending before settlement authorities prior to the repeal of evacuee laws constitute a pending proceeding under Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit challenging an order passed by a Rehabilitation Officer?
  • Can a trial court or revisional court consider material beyond the plaint when deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Miraj Din vs Mian Muhammad Hussain And Other1989 MLD 3262 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Rashid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2017 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Kabir vs The State1989 MLD 4033(2) · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
• Mirza Anwar Ahmad vs Habib Bank Ltd., Faisalabad And Other1989 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-03
  second appealrecovery of loanacknowledgement of liabilitylimitation periodpromissory notecontract of guaranteeco-extensive liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This Second Appeal arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts allowing the recovery of Rs. 13,130 by the respondent-Bank against the appellant-defendant. The core legal questions involved whether a promissory note can serve as a valid acknowledgement of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act, and whether a distinct debt covered by a guarantee can be recovered within the same suit against the principal debtor. The Lahore High Court held that promissory notes executed within the limitation period constitute valid acknowledgements of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act, extending the period of limitation, and that a creditor is entitled to recover co-extensive liabilities in a single suit against the debtor. The key principles laid down are that an unenforceable or standard promissory note can operate as a valid acknowledgement of debt under the Limitation Act, and that a surety's liability is co-extensive, permitting the creditor to pursue remedies without insisting on prior exhaustion against the principal debtor.

  Questions settled

  • Can a promissory note constitute a valid acknowledgement of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act?
  • Does the inclusion of an item pertaining to a separate guarantee in a balance sheet vitiate a recovery suit where subsequent written acknowledgements cover the debt?
  • Is a surety's liability co-extensive, allowing the creditor to proceed against the surety without first exhausting remedies against the principal debtor?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Taj Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan1989 MLD 4479 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Agha Bashir Ahmad And 6 Other1989 CLC 1023 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shams Textile Mills Ltd. Chiniot vs WAPDA Through Chairman, WAPDA1989 CLC 2345 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sebro Pharma Ltd. vs Messrs Commercial Printers & Publishers1989 MLD 4181 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saif Nadeem Kawasaki Motors Ltd. vs Faisalabad Development1989 CLC 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rahwali Sugar Mills vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1989 PLC 628 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Raheem Steel Re Rolling Mills And 4 Others vs Messrs Karim Aziz1989 CLC 32 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Paper Exchange, Karachi And Others vs Messrs Qadiria Board1989 MLD 2968 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Associates Construction Ltd. vs WAPDA And Another1989 MLD 203 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nishat Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 CLC 1692 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-29
  export dutycotton yarnpromissory estoppelvested rightscustoms notificationretrospective taxationletters of creditexemption notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of six writ petitions filed by textile mills seeking to restrain customs authorities from demanding or enhancing export duty on cotton yarn shipments under various Federal Government notifications issued in 1987. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government could lawfully rescind or amend exemption notifications retrospectively to levy or increase export duty on shipments covered by existing contracts and irrevocable letters of credit established prior to the notifications. The court held that once an exemption notification is issued and acted upon by parties entering into binding contracts or establishing irrevocable letters of credit, it creates vested rights protected by the principle of promissory estoppel and cannot be taken away retrospectively by subsequent subordinate legislation or executive notifications. The key principle laid down is that executive notifications altering fiscal duties cannot operate retrospectively to defeat accrued vested rights arising from earlier exemption notifications relied upon by citizens in their commercial dealings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can withdraw an export duty exemption notification retrospectively to affect contracts and letters of credit established prior to the withdrawal?
  • Does an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 create a vested right in favour of exporters who act upon it?
  • Whether the principle of promissory estoppel prevents the government from levying increased export duties on shipments covered by irrevocable letters of credit opened during the subsistence of an exemption?
  • What is the effect of extending the shipment dates of an irrevocable letter of credit on the exporter's entitlement to a previously existing duty exemption?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Murafee Industries vs Messrs Riaz Ahmad1989 CLC 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Metropole Cinema vs Lahore Metropolitan Corporation1989 MLD 219 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.G. Traders vs Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore1989 MLD 474 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghafoor and Associates And Others vs Messrs Attock Textile1989 MLD 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Friends Sons and Partnership Concern vs The Deputy1989 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18
  sales tax exemptionPakistan Customs TariffPCT Heading 48.18printed diariesCentral Excises and Salt ActSales Tax Act 1951procedural substitutionlimitation on assessmentconstitutional jurisdictionexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court addressed seven consolidated constitutional petitions filed by diary manufacturers against the Central Excise and Sales Tax authorities. The petitioners challenged show-cause notices and assessment orders imposing sales tax and penalties for the period 1982 to 1987. They argued that printed diaries were exempt under past Central Government circulars extending exemptions to printed books under Chapter 49 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff, and that assessment procedures under the Sales Tax Act 1951 were not complied with. The High Court held that diaries specifically fall under PCT Heading 48.18 rather than Chapter 49, rendering previous exemption circulars inapplicable to post-1981 notifications based on tariff headings. The Court further ruled that by virtue of Sales Tax Circular No. 2 of 1982 issued under the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Sales Tax Act 1951, sales tax on locally produced goods is legally assessed and collected under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 and its rules, superseding the procedural notice provisions of the Sales Tax Act 1951. Consequently, all petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether printed diaries containing educational and informative material fall under PCT Heading 48.18 or Chapter 49 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  • Whether sales tax on goods manufactured in Pakistan can be assessed and collected under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 pursuant to directions under the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Sales Tax Act 1951?
  • Whether failure to issue a notice under Section 28 of the Sales Tax Act 1951 invalidates assessment proceedings conducted under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944?
  • Whether statutory periods of limitation under the Sales Tax Act 1951 remain protected as vested rights when sales tax is collected as an excise duty?
  • Can a constitutional petition be entertained without exhausting departmental remedies when the departmental revisional authority has already issued an adverse policy interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fector Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Director, Excise and Taxation and others1989 PLC 434 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10
  workers' children education cessdefinition of workerindependent contractorprivity of contractmanual workwatchman
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several consolidated writ petitions challenging the demand made by the Excise and Taxation Department for payment of education cess under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance 1972, in respect of drivers, cleaners, and labourers engaged by independent contractors for sugar mills, as well as watchmen. The core legal question is whether persons employed by independent contractors to perform specific contractual functions for an establishment can be regarded as 'workers' of that establishment under Section 2(c) of the Ordinance, and whether watchmen qualify as workers performing manual work. The Lahore High Court held that where independent contractors are engaged to perform specific functions and maintain control, supervision, and payment over their own labourers without privity of contract or control by the principal establishment, such labourers are not indirect employees or 'workers' of the establishment, rendering the levy of cess upon them illegal. However, the court also held that watchmen perform physical exertion and fall within the category of manual workers covered by the statute. The petitions were consequently accepted in part.

  Questions settled

  • Whether persons employed by independent contractors to perform specific contractual functions can be regarded as workers of the principal establishment under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance 1972?
  • Does the definition of 'worker' under Section 2(c) of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance 1972 encompass individuals engaged indirectly where no privity of contract or supervision exists between the principal and the contractor's employees?
  • Whether watchmen performing physical protection duties qualify as workers performing manual work under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Commercial Pipe Ltd. vs Federal Government of Pakistan and others1989 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-02
  customs valuationtrade discountnormal valuenatural justiceCustoms General Orderimport dutywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) which increased the valuation of imported iron pipe fittings by unilaterally reducing the trade discount from 60% to 40%, relying on Customs General Order No. 16 of 1986. The core legal question was whether the Customs authorities could arbitrarily peg trade discounts to 40% based on currency fluctuation considerations without providing the importer an opportunity to rebut the underlying material used for such assessment. The Court held that while Customs authorities may determine the 'normal value' of goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, they cannot rely on extraneous criteria like currency depreciation to override invoice values. Furthermore, the Court ruled that administrative orders like Customs General Orders cannot override statutory provisions and that the principles of natural justice require the authorities to disclose the material relied upon for valuation to the importer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the case remanded for a fresh decision after providing the petitioner an opportunity to examine and rebut the relevant material.

  Questions settled

  • Can Customs authorities determine the normal value of imported goods based on currency depreciation rather than market value?
  • Does a Customs General Order have the legal authority to override the provisions of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Is a Customs officer required to provide the importer with the material used to justify an upward revision of declared goods' value?
  • Can an assessing officer blindly apply a Customs General Order without disclosing the underlying evidence to the affected party?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chiragh & Sons vs United Bank Ltd.1989 MLD 2777 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Capital Sports Corporation, Sialkot vs Government of Pakistan1989 MLD 999 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Attioue Enterprises And Others vs United Bank Limited, Lahore1989 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ali Pipe Industries, Faisalabad vs The Universal Insurance1989 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-28
  fire insuranceforfeiture clauselimitation periodrestraint of legal proceedingsstare decisiscontract of insurance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Full Bench matter concerned whether clauses in fire insurance policies, which mandate the forfeiture of benefits if a suit is not initiated within a specified timeframe (three months after claim rejection or twelve months after loss), are void under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872. The court examined whether such stipulations constitute an illegal restraint on legal proceedings or an impermissible shortening of the statutory limitation period. The Court held that these clauses are valid and enforceable. The ratio is that such provisions do not extinguish the right to sue or restrict access to courts in a manner prohibited by Section 28; rather, they define the scope and duration of the insurer's liability and the conditions precedent to recovery. The Court emphasized the principle of stare decisis, noting that this interpretation has been consistently upheld for decades in Pakistan and India. It was further held that insurance contracts require promptitude to ensure accurate assessment of losses, and parties are free to contractually define the lifespan of the insurer's liability without violating statutory limitation laws.

  Questions settled

  • Are insurance policy clauses providing for forfeiture of benefits upon failure to sue within a specified period void under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Does a contractual provision limiting the time for filing a suit in an insurance policy constitute an illegal restraint on legal proceedings?
  • Is there a legal distinction between extinguishing a right and barring a remedy in the context of insurance contract limitation clauses?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al Qamar Recruiting Agency vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 3335 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Meraj Begum vs Abdul Sattar1989 MLD 4820 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Shah and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2295 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Shah and Other vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases. 371 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2447 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mehraj Din vs Muhammad Ashraf and another1989 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
• Mehraj Din vs Muhammad Ash Raf Etc.K.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 368 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-31Read full judgment →
• Mehr Muhammad Kabir Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1776 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din vs Farzand Ali And 3 Other1989 CLC 75 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mehr Allah Bakhsh vs Mst. Amtul Aziz And Other1989 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mehfooz Ahmad and 4 Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 56 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iqbal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2241 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iqbal And Another vs The State1989 MLD 3239 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Iqbal and another vs Riazulhassan Alvi, Additional Sessions1989 P Cr. L J 419 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain vs Settlement Commissioner1989 MLD 3042 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain vs Malik Sher Muhammad And Other1989 MLD 4688 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Maulana Abu Muhammad Qasmi vs Mrs. Benazir Bhutto And Another1989 MLD 988 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04Read full judgment →
• Maula Baksh vs Allah Ditta1989 MLD 4033 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Masha Allah Khan vs Khalid Mian And 3 Other1989 MLD 4667 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-23Read full judgment →
• Maroof Industries Ltd., Faisalabad vs Director, Punjab Employees and others1989 PLC 120 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4086 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 9 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2156 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore And Other1989 MLD 3958 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad And Others vs Mst. Zanab Bibi And Another1989 MLD 4584 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
• Maosood Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 2728 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Manzur And Others vs The State1989 MLD 2817 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 42 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Hassan EtcK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 711 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and 37 others vs Province of the Punjab1989 PLC (C.S.) 42 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-07
  writ of mandamusupgradation of postcivil servant definitionHigh Court establishmentpay scale revisiondiscrimination in pay scalesjurisdiction of service tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving as Private Secretaries in the Lahore High Court, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Province of the Punjab to implement Federal Government Office Memorandum dated 18-3-1986 and upgrade their posts from BPS-16 to BPS-17 with effect from 1-7-1983. The respondent raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974 and contended that the Federal Pay Scheme 1983 was not adopted in toto. The High Court held that officers and servants of the High Court, governed under Article 208 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, do not fall within the definition of civil servants under Section 2(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974, so the Service Tribunal lacked exclusive jurisdiction. On the merits, the Court ruled that the Punjab Government had adopted the 1983 Pay Scheme and excluding one category of employees while implementing it for others was discriminatory and unjust. The Court allowed the petition and directed the implementation of the upgradation memorandum.

  Questions settled

  • Are officers and servants of a High Court civil servants within the meaning of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  • Does the Punjab Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over the service grievances of High Court employees?
  • Can the Provincial Government selectively exclude a specific category of employees from a adopted Federal Pay Scheme without violating non-discrimination principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
• Manzoor And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4403 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4979 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 444 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Mst. Zeban Bibi1989 MLD 985 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-12Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) And Other1989 CLC 142 · Lahore High Court · 1987-11-23Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs (Mst). Zeban BibiK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases - 1 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-12Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Patyvari vs The Assistant Commissioner, NarowalK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 30 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Patwari vs The Assistant Commissioner, Narowal1989 PLC (C.S.) 270 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad And Others vs Abdul Haq1989 MLD 4792 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 724 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4672 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 817 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 479 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mansab Ali vs Mst. Fatima Bibi1989 MLD 4234 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Manik Ali vs Auqaf Department1989 MLD 4757 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-10Read full judgment →
• Manak And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2753 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mam Bux alias Imamun vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-19Read full judgment →
• Malik Shahid Mehmood vs Samina YasmeenK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Shahid Mefimood vs Samina Yasmeen1989 P Cr. L J 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Riaz Ahmad Khan And Others vs Inayat Ullah Qureshi And Other1989 MLD 244 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Nazir Ahmad and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 692 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad vs Member, Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Alias Malk00 And Others vs Jan Muhammad1989 CLC 776 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-04
  pre-emption suitjurisdictioncompromise decreerevisional jurisdictionestoppel against statutenullitycut-off date
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a pre-emption suit was decreed in favor of the respondent after 31 July 1986. The core legal question was whether a civil court could pass a decree in a pending pre-emption suit after the cut-off date of 31 July 1986, and whether parties could validate such a decree through a compromise. The Lahore High Court held that no decree in a pre-emption suit could be passed after 31 July 1986, as established by Supreme Court precedents, rendering any such decree a nullity and void ab initio. The court further held that there is no estoppel against a statute, and parties cannot confer jurisdiction through a compromise or consent where the court inherently lacks jurisdiction. The key principles laid down are that a decree passed in a pre-emption suit after 31 July 1986 is without jurisdiction and void, that courts are bound to apply the law regardless of party concessions, and that a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be lawful and cannot bypass binding declarations of law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit can be decreed after 31st of July, 1986?
  • Can parties confer jurisdiction on a civil court to pass a pre-emption decree through a compromise or consent?
  • Does a concession or compromise made in ignorance of law create an estoppel against a statutory bar?
  • Whether a decree passed without jurisdiction can be maintained in revisional proceedings on the ground of the petitioner's conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ab Bas vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 565 · Lahore High Court · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Khan Muhammad vs Haji Sikandar Khan1989 CLC 2412 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-07
  pre-emption suitco-sharerrevenue mutationcourt-fee deficiencylimitationsecond appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal challenged the appellate court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions concerned whether the plaintiff had established a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer and whether the suit was time-barred due to court-fee deficiencies. The High Court held that the plaintiff sufficiently proved his status as a co-sharer through revenue mutation entries and the defendant's failure to rebut the plaintiff's specific assertion of co-ownership. Regarding the court-fee issue, the Court held that a suit cannot be dismissed for insufficient court-fees without the court first determining the correct amount and providing the plaintiff an opportunity to rectify the deficiency. Finding no evidence of contumacy or negligence by the plaintiff in paying the court-fees, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree, modifying the pre-emption price to the market value determined by the appellate court. The principle established is that revenue mutations, while not records of rights, constitute significant evidence, and procedural fairness requires courts to allow time for rectifying court-fee deficiencies before dismissing suits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a defendant to rebut a plaintiff's assertion of being a co-sharer in a pre-emption suit amount to an admission?
  • Can a suit be dismissed for insufficient court-fee without the court first determining the correct amount and providing an opportunity to rectify the deficiency?
  • Do entries in revenue mutations constitute evidence of facts in a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Iftikhar Ahmad vs The Province of the Punjab through Secretary1989 P Cr. L J 697 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Malik Farooq Ahmad Khokhar vs Peer Akhtar Hussain Bodla, Additional Sessions Judge,Multan and 2 OtherK.L.R 1989.Civil Cases 25 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Akhtar Hussain vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 CLC 61 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Malik Akber Khan And Another vs Zila Council, Sargodha And Another1989 MLD 4761 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Wahid And Others vs The State And Another1989 MLD 4065 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 2747 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• Major Taj Ud Din And Others vs Muhammad Akhtar And Other1989 CLC 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-27
  ex parte decreesubstituted servicepre-emption suitdue serviceCode of Civil Procedureservice of summonssetting aside ex parte decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ex parte decree passed in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in resorting to substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, leading to an ex parte decree. The High Court held that the trial court acted with undue haste and without sufficient material to establish that the defendants were intentionally avoiding service or that ordinary service was impossible. The Court observed that the plaintiffs failed to comply with procedural requirements, including furnishing registered covers and ensuring the newspaper containing the notice was properly dispatched to the defendants. Consequently, the Court set aside the ex parte decree, ruling that the substituted service was not due service. The key principle laid down is that substituted service is an extraordinary measure; it is a condition precedent that the court must be satisfied, based on concrete material, that the defendant is avoiding service before ordering publication, and strict compliance with procedural rules governing such service is mandatory to validate the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is it a condition precedent for a court to be satisfied that a defendant is avoiding service before ordering substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to comply with procedural requirements regarding the dispatch of a newspaper containing a public notice invalidate the substituted service?
  • Can an ex parte decree be sustained if the trial court orders substituted service without exhausting ordinary modes of service or recording sufficient justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (Rtd.) Tanvir Hussain Shah vs Government of the Punjab And Other1989 MLD 1086 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →