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.

• Mst. Nasreen Akhtar vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Arif1986 MLD 2103 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Sughra vs Ghulam Hussain And 2 Other1986 CLC 2515 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Farhat vs Muhammad Hameed Ahmad Khan1986 CLC 2399 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Alias Shamim vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Mst. Mukhtiar Bano1986 CLC 1267 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mussarat Bibi vs Muhammad Hanif1986 MLD 2105 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarrat Sultana vs Bashir Ahmad and Another1986 PLD Lahore 189 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarrat Afza Naz vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Munawar Khatoon and 2 others vs The Settlement Commissioner1986 MLD 552 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Manzoor vs District Magistrate, Muzaffargarh And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2935 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Begum and another vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1986 MLD 1001 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar Begum vs Ghulam Nabi1986 CLC 2247 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar Begum And Others vs Muhammad Aslam And 16 Other1986 CLC 2113 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehri vs Palhu and others1986 MLD 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehr Nish an vs Mst. Gulzar Begum And 2 Other1986 CLC 1706 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-14
  partition suitnecessary partynon-joinder of partieslimitation periodcondonation of delayappellate court powerssecond appealjoint property
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for partition of property originally owned by Muhammad Ibrahim, who died leaving multiple heirs including the appellant Mst. Mehr Nishan and co-defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the property vested in the deceased and devolved upon his heirs. The appellant filed an appeal before the District Judge but omitted to implead one of the necessary co-defendants, Manzoor Hussain, within the period of limitation. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal as imperfectly constituted due to the absence of a necessary party, declining to allow belated impleadment or condonation. The Lahore High Court affirmed this decision, holding that in a partition suit involving joint property, all co-sharers entitled to a share are necessary parties. The appellate court cannot adjudicate or issue orders adverse to the interests of an absent necessary party once limitation has expired against them, and provisions such as Order XLI Rules 4, 20, and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not cure the fatal defect of failing to implead a necessary respondent in time.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a co-heir in a partition suit is a necessary party to an appeal arising therefrom?
  • Does the omission to implead a necessary party within the period of limitation render an appeal liable to dismissal?
  • Can an appellate court exercise its powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to pass an adverse order against a non-appealing or unrepresented necessary party?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court permit the impleadment of a necessary party after the expiration of the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Meher Khatoon vs Additional District Judge; Multan and others1986 MLD 2569 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Masooda Anwar vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Daska and another1986 MLD 442 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maryam Zohra vs Younus Jamal And 2 Other1986 CLC 1857 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maqsoodan Bibi vs The State1986 MLD 2677 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maqsooda Bibi vs Sadiq Ali1986 MLD 2578 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mandan and others vs Shah Muhammad and others1986 MLD 629 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majida Begum vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1986C L C 2314 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lal Begum vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And Other1986 CLC 2401 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khanzadi vs The Superintendent, Dar-Ul-Aman, Multan and otherss1986 P Cr. L J 942 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Bibi vs Aflatoon and another1986 MLD 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1986-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Begum vs The Sessions Judge, Sahiwal and others1986 P Cr. L J 945 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kauri Mai And Others vs The Station House Officer, Police Station1986 P Cr. L J 353 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kareem Bibi vs Mst. Naziran And Other1986 CLC 2046(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaniz Fatima vs The State1986 MLD 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsum vs Shahama and 2 others-- Respondents1986 P Cr. L J 2383 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Begum vs Abdul Qattar And Other1986 CLC 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ismat Bibi alias Azmat Bibi vs Muhammad Akbar1986 MLD 2294 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Muhammad Nawaz1986 MLD 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hurmat vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1017 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hassan Perveen and Others vs Muhammad Zafarullah and Others1986 PLD Lahore 409 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hashmat Bibi And Others vs Member Board of Revenue1986 CLC 2324 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Begum And 6 Others vs The Additional District1986 CLC 1697 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Begum and others vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and another1986 MLD 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Begum And Another vs Malik Abdus Rashid (Deceased) And 181986 CLC 433 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haidran Bibi vs Muhammad Ibrahim1986 MLD 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Habiba Khanum vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) and others1986 MLD 717 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Sughran and Others vs Sahibzada Ijaz Hussain and Others1986 PLD Lahore 194 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-24
  TamleekIslamic giftdelivery of possessionrevenue entriespresumption of correctnessadverse possessionco-heirsjoint possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves cross-appeals arising out of a suit for joint possession filed by the legal heirs of Sahibzada Muhammad Yar regarding multiple urban and rural immovable properties. The plaintiffs contended that the alleged 'Tamleek' (gift) transactions made by the donor in favour of his brother and nephew were sham transactions, as the donor never divested himself of ownership or possession during his lifetime. The trial court decreed the suit in part. The High Court evaluated the three essential requirements of a valid gift under Islamic law—declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. It reaffirmed that revenue entries do not create title and carry only a rebuttable presumption of correctness, requiring the party relying on them to establish the underlying transaction. Where delivery of possession or donor's intention to divest was unproven, the gifts were declared invalid. Additionally, the Court held that possession by a co-heir is not hostile without proof of adverse possession. Consequently, the High Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal regarding Property No. 5 while dismissing the defendants' cross-appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Do entries in revenue records create title or carry conclusive proof of a valid gift transaction under Islamic law?
  • Who bears the burden of proving delivery of possession and the genuineness of a transaction when a gift made via revenue mutation is challenged?
  • Can a co-heir establish title by adverse possession against other legal heirs without proving continuous and hostile possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Mai vs Khizar Hayat and Others1986 PLD Lahore 44 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima vs Fazal And Other1986 CLC 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07
  second appealvested right of appealcourt-fee deficiencydeclaratory suitgiftrevision petitionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition, converted into a regular second appeal, arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petitioners' first appeal on the ground of deficient court-fee and expired limitation. The core legal question concerns the correct valuation for court-fee purposes in a suit challenging a collusive decree and gift, and whether the right to a second appeal is a vested substantive right governed by the law in force at the institution of the suit. The court held that the suit falls under section 7(iv-c) of the Court Fees Act 1870 rather than section 7(iv-a), that the right of appeal is a vested substantive right available from the date of the suit's institution unaffected by subsequent procedural amendments unless applied retrospectively, and that an appellate court must grant an opportunity to make good any court-fee deficiency rather than dismissing the appeal outright. The key principle established is that the right of appeal is a vested right surviving until the end of litigation from the date of the suit, and suits challenging a gift and decree are governed by section 7(iv-c) of the Court Fees Act 1870.

  Questions settled

  • Is a right of appeal a substantive vested right available from the date of the institution of the suit?
  • Whether a suit seeking to set aside a collusive decree and gift falls under section 7(iv-a) or section 7(iv-c) of the Court Fees Act 1870?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal for deficient court-fee without first affording the appellant an opportunity to make good the deficiency?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghammon vs The Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore and 31986 MLD 572 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Firdaus Begum and another vs The State1986 MLD 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dopi vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1986 CLC 1815 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Deeba Khanum vs The StatePTCL 1986 CL. 247 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Deeba Khanum vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 790 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Akhtar vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bavi vs Barkat Ali1986 MLD 2787 · Lahore High Court · 1986-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran And Others vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1986 CLC 2796 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balques Barkat And Others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land)1986 CLC 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balqis Begum vs Ali Sher1986 MLD 608 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Arshad Jabeen vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 598 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwari Begum And Others vs Abdur Rashid1986 CLC 2130 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Mai vs Ghulam Qadir Shah And 2 Other1986 CLC 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Allah Rakhi and others vs Habib Khan and others1986 MLD 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. A. Farooqi vs Additional District Judge and others1986 MLD 729 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Surrya Edwin and others vs Professor Javaid Jiwan Mall and others1986 MLD 2203 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rukha Rafiq Chaudhry And Another vs Major Malik Muhammad1986 CLC 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18
  doctrine of mergerSection 12(2) CPCfinal judgmentspecific performancelimitationfraud and misrepresentationappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, which held that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside a decree on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, was not maintainable before the trial court. The petitioners argued that because their appeal to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation, the trial court's decree had not merged into the appellate decisions, and thus, the trial court retained jurisdiction to hear the Section 12(2) application. The court held that the doctrine of merger applies regardless of whether the appellate court dismissed the appeal on merits or on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the final judgment in the case was that of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The court affirmed the principle that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 must be filed before the court that passed the final judgment, decree, or order, which, following the appellate process, is the highest forum that adjudicated the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court's decree merge into the appellate court's decision if the appeal is dismissed solely on the ground of limitation?
  • Where must an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be filed when a decree has been affirmed by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the doctrine of merger apply when an appellate court dismisses an appeal without examining the merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1346 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mohy-Ud-Din and another vs Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others1986 MLD 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
• Moh a Mmad Irsha D vs The State1986 MLD 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
• Miuhammad Afzal Khan And Others vs Mst. Tayyaba Khanum And Other1986 CLC 2836 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Iqbal Beg and others vs International Estate1986 MLD 2785 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-26Read full judgment →
• Mirajdin and another vs Saleh-Ud-Din Ahmad Khan and 2 others1986 MLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mir Zaman vs Member,Board of Revenue And Other1986 CLC 1713 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Millat Tractors Limited vs Muhammad Maqbool And Another1986 PLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mian Zahur Ahmad vs The State and 3 others1986 P Cr. L J 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Sharif and others vs Additional District Judge and others1986 MLD 2276 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Akram vs Settlementand Rehabilitation1986 CLC 830 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Abdullah vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 335 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mian Manzoor Ahmad and 4 others vs The State1986 MLD 2898 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Dastgir Bari vs Salah Ud Din1986 CLC 2676 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mian Fazal Ahmad vs Rohail Asghar-1986 P Cr. L J 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Rehman vs Syed Izhar-Ul-Hassan Rizvi and others1986 MLD 1574 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sial Enterprises through its Managing Director, _ Partner , Faisalabad vs Director Oil Operations, Ministry of Fuel, Power & Natural Resources, Islamabad and another1986 MLD 550 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaukat and Co. vs Director, Oil Operations And Other1986 CLC 1031 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rafique Industries Ltd., And 3 Others vs Allied Bank of Pakistan1986 CLC 201 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Ibrahim & Sons vs Deputy Collector of Central1986 MLD 2091 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs M. A. Rashid and Company vs The Punjab Small Industries1986 PLD Labour 254 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fecto Sugar Mills, Darya Khan vs Commissioner, Dera Ghazi1986 MLD 649 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Delite House Ltd. vs Ch. Fayyaz Akbar1986 CLC 495 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Baithak-E-Kataban and others vs Muhammad Yaqub and others1986 MLD 2036 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Allah Ditta Musical Company vs Muhammad Idrees Baqir And 81986 CLC 591 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-20
  ejectmentbona fide personal needreconstructionnon-residential buildingrent restrictionlandlord and tenantconversion of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, which ordered the tenant's ejectment from a non-residential property based on the landlord's bona fide personal need and reconstruction. The core legal questions were whether a non-residential building can be vacated for residential use by the landlord, and whether the landlord's right to reconstruct is limited by the tenant's right to reoccupy under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Court held that there is no legal restriction against converting a non-residential building into a residential one for the landlord's personal use. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the landlord's right to reconstruct under the relevant clause is not subject to the tenant's right of reoccupation, provided the reconstruction is bona fide. The key principles laid down are that the bona fide nature of a landlord's requirement is a question of fact not subject to interference in revision, and that no legal bar exists preventing the conversion of non-residential premises into residential property for personal use.

  Questions settled

  • Can a non-residential building be vacated for the purpose of converting it into a residential house for the landlord's personal use?
  • Is the landlord's right to reconstruct a building subject to the tenant's right to reoccupy the premises under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Does the Rent Restriction Ordinance prohibit the conversion of a non-residential building into a residential house?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehraj Din alias Majhoo vs The State1986 PLD Lahore 159 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mehr Muhammad Tariq vs Muhammad Shafi And Other1986 CLC 2309 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Khan vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2537 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mazhar vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1841 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain Shah vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-06
  bail after arrestsummonsprivate complaintSection 204 CrPCSection 91 CrPCSection 497 CrPCissuance of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for bail by police officials accused in a private complaint case involving murder charges. The core legal question was whether an accused person appearing in court in response to a summons issued under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be treated as seeking pre-arrest bail, and whether the threshold for issuing process under Section 204 CrPC is equivalent to the 'reasonable grounds' test for bail refusal under Section 497 CrPC. The High Court held that the Sessions Judge erred in treating the application as one for pre-arrest bail. When an accused appears in response to a summons, the court is required to proceed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by requiring the execution of appearance bonds. The Court established that the opinion of 'sufficient ground for proceeding' under Section 204 CrPC, which justifies the issuance of process, cannot be equated with the existence of 'reasonable grounds' for believing an accused is guilty of a non-bailable offence under Section 497 CrPC. Consequently, the petitioners were entitled to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the court to treat the appearance of the accused as a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Is the standard of 'sufficient ground for proceeding' under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 equivalent to the 'reasonable grounds' test for bail refusal under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the correct procedure for a court to follow under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused appears in response to a summons?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain And Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2842 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mazhar And 2 Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mateeullah vs The State1986 MLD 2186 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mat. Hamida Fida Hussain Khoja and another vs Mat. Anees Iqbal1986 MLD 443 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-26Read full judgment →
• Masood Khan vs Settlement Commissioner Multan and Bahawalpur1986 CLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
• Masood Akhtar And Others vs Agha Inamur Rahim Khan And Other1986 CLC 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
• Maqsooda Begum vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and others1986 MLD 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 787(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-11Read full judgment →