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 Tufail and others vs The Stat E1985 P Cr. L J 1371 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and others vs Market Committee, Kamalia1985 CLC 2827 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and another vs The State1985 MLD 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and 5 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2471 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan and 2 others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue1985 CLC 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Zahoor-Ud-Din and 6 others1985 MLD 292 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1985 MLD 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs S.H.0.1985 MLD 831 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2539 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and another vs Muhammad Arif Rana Additional1985 MLD 498 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 6 Others vs Boota1985 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-03
  pre-emptionpartial pre-emptionnotice before appealOrder XLIII Rule 3 CPCremand of suitcaveat systemdismissal of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for partial pre-emption due to the non-joinder of a vendee. The lower appellate court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint and remanded the suit under Order XLI, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The vendees appealed this remand order. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competency of the appeal due to the lack of prior notice under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that Rule 3 applies to any appeal preferred during the pendency of a suit, whether against an order of the trial court or an appellate court, and requires obtaining an acknowledgment of receipt of notice before filing the appeal. The court found that a suit stands revived immediately upon a remand order, making it a pending suit, and that the appellants failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirement. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not entertainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to appeals against orders passed by an appellate court during the pendency of a suit?
  • At what point does a suit become a pending suit after an order of remand by an appellate court?
  • Is obtaining an acknowledgment of receipt of notice mandatory prior to the presentation of an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Does the revival of a suit upon remand depend upon the actual filing of the amended plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2892 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) and others1985 CLC 1893 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq and 2 others vs Settlement Commissioner, Punjab1985 CLC 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher vs The ST a Te1985 P Cr. L J 55 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaukat vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1602 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Secretary, Department of Education, Punjab and others1985 CLC 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Sardar Khan and others1985 CLC 2394 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Saeed Akhtar Hassan and 8 Others1985 PLD Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Sadiq and another1985 CLC 1645 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Amin and 3 others1985 CLC 466 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Additional District Judge1985 MLD 1250 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2730 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and another vs The State1985 MLD 890 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 6 others vs Ali Jan and another1985 MLD 1071(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 4 others vs The State1985 MLD 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 2 others vs Board of Revenue (Colonies1985 CLC 1928 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Iqbal vs The State1985 MLD 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheen Aziz N1azi vs Muhammad Baqir and another1985 CLC 2733 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22
  specific performanceinterim injunctionlis pendensalienation of propertyCode of Civil Procedureconditional injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a trial court order in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The trial court granted the appellant an interim injunction restraining the alienation of the property, but conditioned this relief upon the appellant depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,70,000, failing which the injunction would be rejected and the respondents would be at liberty to dispose of the property. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority to impose such a financial condition when granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that while Order XXXIX, Rule 2(2) allows for conditions such as security, Rule 1—which governs the present case involving the risk of alienation—does not authorize the imposition of financial conditions. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the doctrine of lis pendens prevents respondents from alienating property during litigation, as any such transfer remains subject to the final decree. The appeal was accepted, the condition set aside, and the injunction granted unconditionally.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court impose a financial condition for the deposit of sale consideration when granting a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens render a property transfer made during the pendency of a suit subject to the final decree?
  • Is there a distinction between the power to impose conditions under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Malik vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 858(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 173 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The Pakistan Engineering Co. and Others1985 PLC 738 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Sohrab and 3 others1985 CLC 555 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Rehmat Ali1985 CLC 432 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18
  pre-emption suitcourt-fee deficiencyrejection of plainturban immovable propertycivil revisionpleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a pre-emption suit concerning the sale of land. The petitioner-vendee challenged the lower courts' findings on two primary grounds: first, that the plaint was grossly under-assessed for court-fee purposes, rendering it legally defective; and second, that the property had acquired an urban character, making it exempt from pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The Court held that while the lower courts erred in their assessment of the court-fee issue, a plaint cannot be rejected for deficiency in court-fee without the court first determining the payable amount and granting the plaintiff an opportunity to make good the deficiency. Regarding the nature of the property, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to lay a factual foundation in the pleadings or provide sufficient evidence to establish the property as urban immovable property. The Court affirmed the findings on the merits but directed the respondent to pay the deficient court-fee, failing which the plaint would be liable for rejection, establishing that the Court Fee Act is a revenue measure, not a weapon for litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected for deficiency in court-fee without the court first determining the payable amount and providing an opportunity to make up the deficiency?
  • Is a party permitted to raise a plea regarding the urban character of property in a pre-emption suit if such a plea was not specifically raised in the written statement?
  • Does the Court Fee Act 1870 allow a defendant to use the deficiency of court-fee as a weapon to defeat a suit on technical grounds?
  • What is the procedure for a court to determine the market value of land for court-fee purposes when annual net profits are not provided?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1985 CLC 2991 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs Custodian of Evacuee Property and others1985 CLC 3005 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1494 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 3011 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Niaz Ahmad and 3 Others1985 PLD Lahore 78 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sardar and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1018 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saqlain and 3 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1259 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2923 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State-1985 MLD 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The ST Ate1985 MLD 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1114 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Akhtar vs Government of Pakistan and others1985 MLD 90 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Additional District Judge and others1985 MLD 1248 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Sheikh vs The Director of Remounts Veterinary &1985 CLC 769 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Bhatti vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Mian Muhammad Ali and Others1985 PLD Lahore 616 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Haji Abdul Majid and another1985 CLC 522 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Administrator, Residual Properties, Multan1985 CLC 369 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs The State and others1985 P Cr. L J 2590 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and another vs The State1985 MLD 1327 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Roshan vs Saeed Ali1985 MLD 208 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1985 MLD 876 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Muhammad Aslam and others1985 MLD 413 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Qamar vs Umar Din and 3 others1985 CLC 474 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-28
  specific performancepreliminary decreeextension of timeconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedyrescission of contractconsent decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a suit for specific performance in which a consent decree was originally passed without any conditional time limit for depositing the sale consideration. Subsequently, on an application by a party, the trial court amended the decree to insert a peremptory period for depositing the balance amount and later dismissed the suit for non-compliance, despite an unconsidered pending compromise application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court reviewed the legal nature of a decree for specific performance, holding that such a decree is preliminary in nature and the trial court retains jurisdiction to enlarge the time for deposit under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or rescind the contract under Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, unlike a pre-emption decree governed by Order XX, Rule 14. However, the High Court refused to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, holding that the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy by way of a regular appeal under the ordinary law.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree passed in a suit for specific performance preliminary in nature allowing the trial court to enlarge time for depositing the purchase price?
  • Does a trial court retain jurisdiction to extend the period for payment of sale consideration under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a decree for specific performance?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be entertained when an adequate remedy of appeal is available under ordinary law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzak vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 977 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2145 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The Station House Officer, P.S. Jahanian and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12
  First Information Reportcognizable offencemandatory registrationpolice powersstatutory obligationcriminal investigationwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitutional Order, 1981, seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a criminal case regarding an alleged murderous assault. The S.H.O. had previously refused to register the First Information Report (F.I.R.), contending that the allegations were incorrect and relying on his discretion to refuse investigation under Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a police officer has the discretion to refuse the registration of an F.I.R. concerning a cognizable offence based on their assessment of the information's veracity. The Court held that the police officer is under a mandatory statutory obligation to register an F.I.R. upon receiving information of a cognizable offence. The Court clarified that while Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants discretion regarding the conduct of an investigation, it does not permit the refusal to record the F.I.R. under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle established is that the registration of an F.I.R. is a mandatory ministerial act, and the truthfulness of the information is a matter to be determined only after investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a police officer have the discretion to refuse the registration of an F.I.R. for a cognizable offence based on their belief that the information is incorrect?
  • Is the registration of an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mandatory duty or a discretionary act?
  • Does the power to refuse investigation under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to the refusal of registering an F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Nasim AkhtarPLD 1985 Lahore 404(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2734 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1985 MLD 79 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Judge, Family Court Lahore and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 613 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09
  criminal appealprocedural irregularityretrialrecording of evidencemandatory procedureanti-corruptionSection 364 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves six consolidated criminal appeals challenging the convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, against the appellant, Muhammad Rafiq, under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's procedure—specifically the recording of verbatim witness statements across multiple cases and the failure to provide a handwritten certificate for the accused's statement—vitiated the trial. The Court held that the trial court's procedure was highly illegal and constituted a non-curable irregularity. The Court set aside the convictions and sentences, remanding the cases for retrial. The key principle laid down is that where the law prescribes a specific procedure for performing a judicial act, such as the certification of an accused's statement under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it must be strictly followed. The mere affixation of a stamp cannot substitute for the mandatory requirement of a certificate in the hand of the court, as strict adherence to procedural mandates is essential for the validity of criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of verbatim witness statements across multiple cases constitute a curable irregularity?
  • Can the affixation of a stamp satisfy the requirement of a certificate in the hand of the court under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the legal consequence of a trial court failing to certify the examination of an accused in its own hand?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Mst. Nasim Akhtar and 11 others1985 MLD 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2675 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Niamet Ullah Patwari vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 904 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The State1985 MLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2875 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer vs The State1985 MLD 58 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Sardar Khan and others1985 CLC 796 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasrullah Khan vs Muhammad Janan Khan1985 MLD 461 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim Akhtar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 3000 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 477 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2906 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs The Judge Family Court, Shahpur Sadar, District Sargodha and another1985 CLC 1808 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar and another1985 CLC 415 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz Ahmad Khan and 3 Others vs The Federal Land1985 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 87 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar and others vs Muhammad Javed and others1985 CLC 1521 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 59 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood vs The State1985 MLD 44 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The Additional District Judge, Lahore and others1985 MLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Additional District Judge, Sialkot and others1985 CLC 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Kardar and others vs The President, Lahore1985 CLC 2845 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and Others vs Fazal Haq and Others1985 PLD Lahore 233 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 334 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and another vs The State1985 MLD 799(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil and ANORTHERs vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 400 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kazam through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Janat Bibi1985 PLD Lahore 637 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09
  mortgage by conditional saleabsolute saleagreement to repurchasecontemporaneous documentsdebtor and creditor relationshipsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for declaration and alternate redemption of a mortgage concerning a residential house. The appellant claimed that a transaction ostensibly constituting a sale-deed and a contemporaneous agreement to re-transfer was in reality a mortgage by conditional sale executed to secure a loan of Rs. 2,000 without incurring usury. The trial court decreed the suit, finding the transaction to be a mortgage, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding it to be an absolute sale with a right of repurchase that had since expired. The core legal question is whether two contemporaneous documents—an absolute sale-deed and a separate agreement for re-transfer—constitute a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of the sale-deed established an absolute transfer of title, and mere contemporaneous execution of a separate repurchase agreement does not transform an absolute sale into a mortgage where no debtor-creditor relationship is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an absolute sale-deed coupled with a separate agreement for re-transfer constitutes a mortgage by conditional sale or an outright sale?
  • Does the contemporaneous execution of a sale-deed and a repurchase agreement necessarily establish a mortgage?
  • Can an unregistered document be used to modify or limit the terms of a registered absolute sale-deed?
  • What is the effect of the expiration of the stipulated time limit in an agreement for re-purchase on the vendor's right to recover the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs Shah Wali1985 MLD 370 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javid Iqbal and anothers vs The State and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 520 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Wattoo vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →