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.

• S.M.K. Lodhi vs The State1987 MLD 1743 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
• S.E. Manoha vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 459 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Din & Sons vs Sh. Nabi Bakhsh & Sons (Regd.) and others1987 CLC 759 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-14Read full judgment →
• Rustam And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2242(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali vs Chaudhry Mukhtar Ahmad Anwar1987 MLD 394 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13
  specific performancetemporary injunctionlis pendensimmovable propertyprima facie casemultiplicity of proceedingsbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of an application for a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The appellant sought to restrain the respondent from alienating the disputed property pending the suit's outcome. The trial court had refused the injunction, reasoning that the doctrine of lis pendens sufficiently protected the appellant's interests. The High Court, however, held that the respondent's admission of receiving a significant advance payment established a prima facie case for the appellant. The Court clarified that while the principle of lis pendens protects a plaintiff against third-party claims, it does not negate the necessity of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which aims to prevent the alienation of property and avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. The Court emphasized that breaches of contracts involving immovable property cannot be adequately remedied by monetary compensation alone. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the trial court's order and granted the temporary injunction, directing the trial court to expedite the suit's disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens preclude the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance?
  • Is a temporary injunction appropriate when the defendant admits receipt of advance payment for the sale of immovable property?
  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction to prevent the alienation of property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan- vs The State1987 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan vs The State1987 PLD Lahore 603 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
• Roshan Shah And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 709 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-16Read full judgment →
• Rohtas Khan and another vs The State1987 MLD 3121 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-21Read full judgment →
• Robina Nighat Ahmad vs Fayyaz-Ul-Hassan Shaikh1987 MLD 77 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs The State1987 MLD 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
• Riaz and 2 others vs The State1987 MLD 3119 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-22Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ali Shah vs Messrs United Commercial Finance Ltd. and another1987 CLC 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State1987 MLD 2962 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-13Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 381 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs The District Magistrate, Sahiwal and others1987 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad vs Talib Hussain and others1987 P Cr. L J 957 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Ansari vs The State-1987 PCr.LJ 1219 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1579(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Asad Rafi and Another1987 PLD Lahore 257 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and another vs The State1987 MLD 782 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs Tufail Hussain and others1987 CLC 792 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-19
  specific performancelimitation periodessence of contractevidence by affidavitcross-examinationregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts partly dismissing the appellant's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land dated 30-10-1966. The core legal question concerned whether time was the essence of the contract and whether the suit was within limitation based on subsequent conduct enlarging the time, as well as the admissibility of evidence led through affidavits without court direction under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that although the defendant's subsequent conduct may have extended the limitation period, the appellant failed to prove payment of the balance price or readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Furthermore, evidence via affidavits was rightly discarded as there was no order of the trial court permitting proof by affidavit pursuant to Order XIX Rule 1, and the witnesses were not produced for cross-examination. The key principle laid down is that affidavits cannot be read in evidence without a specific court order under Order XIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, especially when opposing parties are deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time stipulated in an agreement to sell is the essence of the contract when subsequent conduct enlarges the time for performance?
  • Can evidence led through affidavits be considered by the court without an order pursuant to Order XIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to specific performance of a contract without proving payment of the balance price and readiness to perform?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah and another vs Muhammad Aslam Khan1987 MLD 425 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs Ghulam Nabi1987 CLC 1024 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• Razia Rana and 7 others vs Additional Commissioner1987 MLD 2285 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
• Razia Naushin vs Nikah Registrar and others1987 MLD 2276 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• Razia Hasni vs Kishwar Sultana and others1987 MLD 2265 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-03Read full judgment →
• Razia Bibi And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 537 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
• Raza Ahmad Khan vs Ahmad Raza1987 CLC 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• Rashida Bibi and others vs Akbar All and others1987 MLD 777 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
• Rashida Begum etc. vs Abdul Rehman etc.1987 MLD 2597 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
• Rashid Muslim and 8 others vs Syed Hurr Rihai Gardezi and 7 others1987 MLD 771 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-13Read full judgment →
• Rashid Muhammad Khan and another vs Mst. Niaz Bibi1987 MLD 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
• Rashid Alias Shida vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1847 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• Rashid Alias Sheeda And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2229 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-18Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and others vs The State1987 MLD 951 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and others vs Mst. Zainab and others1987 MLD 65 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
• Rashad Iqbal vs Mst. Muniza Begum1987 PLD Lahore 331 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• Rashad Iqbal vs Mst. Muniz a Begum1987 PLD Lahore 331 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Suleman vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 11 others1987 CLC 1338 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-13
  auction-purchaserexecution saleconfirmation of saledecree satisfactionmandatory depositsetting aside saleinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from execution proceedings where immovable property and machinery of the judgment-debtor, Hudaybia Textile Mills (Pvt) Limited, were auctioned following a bank recovery decree. After the auction was held, the judgment-debtor filed an application to prevent the confirmation of the sale on the ground that it had satisfied its share of the debt directly with the decree-holder. The executing court refused to confirm the sale, prompting the auction-purchaser to appeal. The core legal question is whether an execution sale of property can be set aside or refused confirmation simply on the basis of a private satisfaction of the decree, without complying with the mandatory deposit requirements under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Lahore High Court held that once a court auction has been duly conducted, it cannot be refused confirmation or set aside on the ground of out-of-court decree satisfaction unless the judgment-debtor strictly complies with the mandatory pre-conditions of depositing 5 percent of the purchase money and the specified decretal amount under Order XXI, Rule 89, C.P.C. The court established that inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be invoked to bypass specific statutory provisions governing execution sales.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an execution sale can be refused confirmation on the ground that the judgment-debtor has satisfied the decree-holder out of court?
  • Can an application to set aside an execution sale be entertained under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without complying with the deposit requirements of Order XXI, Rule 89?
  • Is strict compliance with the deposit conditions mandatory for a judgment-debtor seeking relief under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Rana vs Municipal Committee, Chiniot1987 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-07Read full judgment →
• Rana Rashid Ahmad vs Settlement Commissioner and others1987 MLD 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
• Rana Munawar Hussain vs Bashir and another1987 MLD 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-23Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Saleem And Another vs Mubarik Ali Alias Makha And Others1987 P Cr. L J 189 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Rana Muhammad Akhtar Khan and others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal and another1987 CLC 1888 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• Rana M. Yasin vs Muhammad Ali Khan and others1987 MLD 70 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• Rana Javaid Ahmad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Rana Basharat Ali vs Sultan and others-'s1987 P Cr. L J 652 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
• Rana Ashgar Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-12Read full judgment →
• Raja Lal Khan vs The State1987 MLD 3095 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-14Read full judgment →
• Raj Ali And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Rahmat Ullah vs Station House Officer and others1987 P Cr. L J 2197(2) · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and 3 others vs Abdul Rashid1987 CLC 673 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh and 2 others vs Ahmad Bakhsh and 2 others1987 CLC 259 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Alias Bhalla vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1937 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad vs Mst. Kalsum Begum and another (Legal Representations)1987 MLD 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
• R.B. Kidar Nath & Sons Bank Ltd- vs Muhammad Yousaf1987 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
• Qudratullah vs Muhammad Ibrahim And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1952 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• Qudratullah Alias Qudrat Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 168 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan vs Jalal and Others1987 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• Qasim Khan vs Jalal And Other1987 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• Qamarunnisa vs Noor Elahi and another1987 CLC 1210 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bukhsh vs District Judge and 3 others1987 CLC 92 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Ahmad vs Rashidan Bibi and others1987 MLD 326 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-07Read full judgment →
• Punjab Small Industries Corporation vs Punjab Labour Appellate1987 PLC 662 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Punjab Road Transport Board vs M. Muhammad Sadiq and another1987 CLC 933 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-18
  fatal accidentspecuniary lossrash and negligent drivingdamages assessmentvicarious liabilitycivil liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil suit for damages filed by the parents of a deceased woman, who died in a traffic accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a bus belonging to the Punjab Road Transport Board. The core legal question concerns the scope of damages recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, specifically whether non-pecuniary losses like mental shock, loss of companionship, and affection are compensable, and the methodology for calculating pecuniary loss. The Court held that the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, limits recovery to actual pecuniary loss suffered by the beneficiaries. Consequently, claims for mental torture, loss of companionship, and medical expenses for other injured parties were disallowed. The Court established that damages must be based on the reasonable expectation of financial contribution the deceased would have provided had she lived, taking into account her age, health, and earning capacity. The decree was modified to reflect only the calculated pecuniary loss based on the deceased's probable contribution to her parents' maintenance over her expected lifespan.

  Questions settled

  • Are non-pecuniary damages such as mental shock and loss of companionship recoverable under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • What is the correct basis for calculating pecuniary loss in a wrongful death claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • Can a plaintiff recover medical expenses for injuries sustained by other family members in a suit brought under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province and others vs Yousuf Kazmi (Advocate) and others1987 MLD 2507 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province and others vs Faqir Muhammad and others1987 CLC 1643 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province and anothers vs Jamal Din1987 CLC 521 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-07Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan vs Collector, Sialkot and another1987 CLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Mirza Bashir Ahmad1987 CLC 651 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-01Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Mst. Mehr Sawa1 and others1987 CLC 2039 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• Principal College of Community Medicine, Lahore vs Dr. Syed Abdul1987 MLD 996 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh vs Station House Officer ,D.G. Khan and others1987 MLD 1721 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh and 4 others vs Bar Khurdar1987 PLD Lahore 666 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh And 4 Other vs Barkhurdar1987 PLD Lahore 666 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
• Pervez Ahmad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2391 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Iqbal vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 895 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State1987 MLD 2915 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-29Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-20Read full judgment →
• Personnel/ Factory Manager, Packages Ltd., Lahore vs Yousuf Masih1987 PLC 668 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-01Read full judgment →
• Parveen Akhtar vs Muhammad Afzal and another1987 CLC 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) vs Anwar1987 PLC (C.S.) 518 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-01Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco vs Muhammad YarK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Caaca 148 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Board vs Muhammad Yar and 3 others1987 MLD 2480 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through The Secretary, Communications, Islamabad vs Abdul1987 CLC 2403 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Diploma Engineers Federation (Regd.),Lahore vs Federation1987 CLC 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-21
  constitutional petitionaggrieved partylocus standirepresentative capacitymaintainabilitywrit jurisdictionsub-silentio
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a registered federation of diploma engineers, filed a constitutional petition in a representative capacity on behalf of its members to challenge matters concerning their terms and conditions of service. The High Court raised a preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court observed that while any person can invoke constitutional jurisdiction for writs of Quo Warranto and Habeas Corpus, the competency to invoke jurisdiction for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition is strictly circumscribed to an 'aggrieved party'. The Court held that the petitioner, as an association, was not an aggrieved person because the alleged grievance affected the individual terms and conditions of its members and not the federation itself. Since the petitioner suffered no direct injury, it lacked locus standi. Distinguishing unargued sub-silentio precedents, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that representative bodies cannot maintain writ petitions for individual grievances of their members.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a registered association or federation qualifies as an 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to challenge service matters affecting its individual members?
  • Does a representative body have the locus standi to file a writ petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition when it has not suffered any direct personal injury?
  • Can a precedent sub-silentio, where the question of locus standi was neither discussed nor decided, override express judicial precedents on the definition of an aggrieved party?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Day Memorial Committee and another vs Mian Abdul Khaliq &1987 CLC 1169 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-13
  amendment of judgmentaccidental omissionstay of executionsecurity depositfunctus officioclerical or arithmetical mistake
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a petition filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the release of a withheld sum and accrued profit following the dismissal of an appeal arising from arbitration proceedings. The core legal question was whether a court can amend its judgment under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to include directions regarding a sum and its accrued profit withheld by way of security during stay proceedings, where the omission to do so arose from an accidental slip or omission. The Lahore High Court held that the omission to pass directions regarding the withheld security amount and profit in the earlier judgment constituted an accidental omission amounting to a flaw or error under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which the court has the power to correct. The court laid down the principle that no party should suffer due to an act or oversight of the court, and that accidental omissions in judgments concerning security amounts deposited during stay proceedings can be corrected at any time under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court amend its signed judgment under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to supply an accidental omission relating to the disposal of a security amount withheld during stay proceedings?
  • Whether the dismissal of an appeal renders a court functus officio so as to bar the correction of an accidental omission or flaw in the judgment under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does an inadvertent failure by the court to include directions for the payment of withheld security and accrued profit constitute an 'error' correctable under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Packages Limited vs Saeed Hassan And Another1987 PLC 467 · Lahore High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Official Liquidator,the New Jhelum Transport Company Ltd. (in Liquidation), Jhelum vs Mirza Fazal Haq And 9 Other1987 PLD Lahore 618 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-21Read full judgment →
• Official Liquidator, the New Jhelum Transport Company Ltd. (in Liquidation), Jhelum vs Mirza Faz Al Haq and 9 Others1987 PLD Lahore 618 · Lahore High Court · 1987-09-21Read full judgment →
• Nur Muhammad and others vs The State1987 MLD 972 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Nur Ahmad And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1278 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
• Northern Foundry. and Engineering Works Ltd. vs Excise and Taxation Officer, Zone 3, Lahore and another1987 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• Northern Foundry and Engineering Works Ltd. vs Excise and Taxation1987 PLD Lahore 520 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• Noori Masih vs Muhammad Younis And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1115 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
• Noor Samand vs The State1987 MLD 2326 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1987 MLD 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →