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 Amin vs The State1985 MLD 797 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1985 CLC 1216 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and anothers vs Muhammad Mumtaz Ali Qureshi, A.C.1985 P Cr. L J 2773 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad alias Mamman vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Nazra and 7 others1985 P Cr. L J 2752 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Mahmood Ali1985 P Cr. L J 2937 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs A.C./D.S.C. and others1985 MLD 86 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 603 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22
  post-arrest bailillegal detentionjudicial remandcommon intentionpolice negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of Muhammad Ali and Moneer Ahmad facing trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Khairpur. The core legal question concerns the legality of the petitioners' continued detention in jail given that the police failed to obtain a judicial remand order from a court of competent jurisdiction since the case was transferred back from Martial Law Authorities. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners' detention without a valid judicial remand order is illegal and accordingly granted them post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing surety bonds, while clarifying that the State or complainant may seek bail cancellation upon submission of the challan. The key principle laid down is that prolonged detention without a valid judicial remand from a competent court renders custody unlawful and entitles an accused to bail, while also attracting potential penal consequences for the responsible investigating officer.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the police to obtain a judicial remand order render the continued detention of an accused illegal?
  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when their detention in jail is found to be without lawful authority due to lack of judicial remand?
  • Can a court order notice to be issued to an investigating officer for potential illegal confinement when no judicial remand has been secured?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Muhammad Amir1985 P Cr. L J 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 390 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 88 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 338 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-09
  supply of copiesstatements of witnessespolice diaryinspection notepolice reportcriminal revisioninvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application filed under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the accused for the supply of copies of statements of various persons examined during police investigation, inspection notes, and police reports. The core legal questions involve determining whether an accused is entitled under section 265-C to copies of all statements regardless of whether the makers are actual witnesses, subsequent police reports or opinions, and later inspection notes. The Lahore High Court held that the accused are only entitled to statements of persons who qualify as witnesses in substance and essence, and not mere opinions or statements of persons who did not witness the occurrence. Furthermore, the court held that copies of subsequent inspection notes and subsequent police opinions are not mandated under the law. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed with a limited direction regarding specific statements recorded on a particular date.

  Questions settled

  • Are accused persons entitled under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to copies of statements made by persons who do not claim to be eye-witnesses and only express opinions on guilt or innocence?
  • Whether subsequent police opinions and reports prepared after the submission of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be supplied to the accused before trial?
  • Is an accused entitled to copies of inspection notes recorded by investigating officers on visits subsequent to the first visit to the place of occurrence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Khan vs The State1985 MLD 789(2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2912 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The ST a Te1985 P Cr. L J 870 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2911 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2474 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2116 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal alias Achha vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 922 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adrees vs Muhammad Zahid Yameen and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah Dar vs Municipal Corporation and Others1985 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah and others vs Additional District Judge and others1985 CLC 2947 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah and anothers vs Station House Officer Police1985 P Cr. L J 325 · Lahore High Court · 1975-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad a Bdulla H vs Mst.Zubaida Begum and another1985 CLC 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhamma D Aq00b vs Additional District Judge, Kasur and another1985 CLC 774 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muha MM Ad Sa Leem vs Punjab Public Service Commission and another1985 CLC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-01
  constitutional petitiongrace marksdiscretionary powerPunjab Public Service Commissioncivil judge examinationpolicy decisionstatutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions filed by candidates who appeared in the P.C.S. (Judicial Branch) Competitive Examination held by the Punjab Public Service Commission, having failed to obtain the mandatory 33% marks in the compulsory subject of General Knowledge by a margin of two marks. The core legal question was whether the Punjab Public Service Commission could lawfully adopt a blanket policy decision refusing to grant grace marks, contrary to the statutory rules providing for such discretion. The Lahore High Court held that the Commission's policy decision to altogether deny grace marks was illegal, without lawful authority, and violative of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962, as the Commission must exercise its discretion in each individual case rather than bypassing statutory provisions through a blanket policy. The court laid down the principle that discretionary powers conferred by statutory rules cannot be extinguished or fettered by an administrative policy decision unless the underlying statutory rules are formally amended by the competent authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Punjab Public Service Commission adopt a blanket policy decision to deny grace marks provided under statutory rules?
  • Whether discretion regarding the grant of grace marks under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962 is to be exercised in individual cases?
  • Can an administrative policy decision override or nullify a statutory rule making provision for grace marks?
  Read full judgment →
• Muha MM a D Najeeb vs Mst.Talat Shahnaz and 2 others1985 CLC 649 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Shah and another vs Umar Khan1985 CLC 447 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muba and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 741 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mu H a MM a D a Sif vs Noor Ahmad and 7 others1985 CLC 2498 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst.Nargis vs The District Magistrate, Gujrat and 2 others1985 MLD 782 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Bibi vs Nazir Ahmad1985 MLD 203(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohran Bibi vs Jamal Din and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1518 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeenat Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2592 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-03
  post-arrest bailbail for womennon-bailable offencesforgerymisappropriation of public fundspresumption of innocenceBanks (Special Courts) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three bail-after-arrest petitions filed by Mst. Zeenat Ali, who was charged with multiple offences including forgery, fraud, and misappropriation of public funds in connection with the opening of fictitious bank accounts and subsequent withdrawal of substantial sums. The core legal question was whether the applicant, a woman accused of serious non-bailable offences, was entitled to the concession of bail under the proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite the serious nature of the allegations and the opposition by the State. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio establishes that the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the Court discretion to release a woman on bail even in cases involving serious offences punishable by death or life imprisonment. The Court emphasized that bail should not be used as a punitive measure, and that the presumption of innocence entitles an accused to freedom to prepare their defence, particularly given the legislative intent to favor women, minors, and the sick or infirm.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the grant of bail to a woman accused of serious non-bailable offences?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused as a measure of punishment?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to grant bail in cases triable by a Special Court under the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Nazar vs Tallat Ma Hmood1985 MLD 253 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraya Bibi vs Yasin and 3 others1985 MLD 302 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Bibi vs The State and 2 others1985 MLD 1068 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shereen Masood vs Malik Naseem Hassan, Judge, Family Court, Lahore and another1985 CLC 2758 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-11
  family courtsevidence by affidavitcross-examinationdiscretionary powerswrit jurisdictionerror apparent on the face of the recordinterlocutory orderswitnesses residing abroad
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of apostasy, claiming her husband had converted to Islam and later reverted to Parsi faith. To prove his conversion and their marriage, she applied under Section 11(4) of the Family Courts Act 1964 to submit affidavits of two witnesses residing abroad, as procuring their personal attendance would cause undue delay, expense, and inconvenience. The Family Court dismissed the application, solely prioritizing the respondent's right to cross-examination. The Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that the Family Court committed an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to consider relevant factors such as the availability, location, and health of witnesses, and conflating the admissibility of evidence with its evidential value. The Court held that discretionary orders of lower tribunals can be reviewed under writ jurisdiction if they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or suffer from self-evident errors of law, and that the interlocutory nature of an order does not bar interference where it causes injustice or determines substantial rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the discretionary power of a Family Court to permit evidence by affidavit under Section 11(4) of the Family Courts Act 1964 is controlled exclusively by the right of cross-examination under subsection (3)?
  • Can an interlocutory order passed by a lower tribunal be challenged under the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does an order based on a clear misreading of law or failing to consider essential circumstances constitute an error apparent on the face of the record correctable through judicial review?
  • Is the admissibility of a document under Section 11(4) of the Family Courts Act 1964 distinct from its ultimate evidential value?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shehnaz Begum vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima1985 MLD 254(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan vs District Judge and others1985 CLC 2481 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Begum vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1985 MLD 449 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Kausar vs Ghulam Sarwar1985 CLC 2920 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sattan Bibi vs Raees Ahmad1985 P Cr. L J 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1975-09-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwar vs District Magistrate and others1985 P Cr. L J 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwar Bibi and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2430 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Bibi vs Zulfiqar Shah1985 MLD 68 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Bibi vs Zulfiqar Shah and another1985 MLD 762 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardaran Bibi vs Muhammad Din1985 MLD 365 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum vs Jermale and others1985 CLC 2945 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum and others vs .Aziz Begum and others1985 CLC 2613 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum and 5 others vs Sardar Hidayatullah and another.1985 CLC 1066 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saleema Bibi vs Additional District Judge, Fa Isalabab and 2 others1985 CLC 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Durrani vs The State1985 MLD 764(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Durrani and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1366 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saidan Begum vs Aaseeb Khan1985 MLD 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahib Khatoon vs Judge Family Court, Sargodha and others1985 CLC 2917 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2850 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda N1ghat Madni vs Member, Federal Land Commission and 21985 PLD Lahore 174 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ruqia Parveen vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 571 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Bibi and Others vs Fatima Bibi and Others1985 PLD Lahore 273 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30
  special oathcompromiseminor appellantsnext friendguardian ad litemcivil revisioninheritance mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing an appeal relating to a property dispute over 100 kanals of land. The core legal questions involved whether a compromise or agreement to resolve a dispute through a special oath on the Holy Qur'an is binding when entered into by a co-appellant without proper authorization as a special attorney, and whether such an agreement affecting minor appellants requires the prior leave or consideration of the court under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or general principles of equity. The Lahore High Court held that an offer of special oath made by only one appellant who lacked lawful authority to act as a special attorney for the other co-appellants could not form a valid basis for dismissing the appeal as a whole. Furthermore, the Court held that where minors are involved, courts are under a strict duty to safeguard their interests and ensure compliance with procedural protections and equitable principles. The revision petition was accepted, setting aside the lower appellate court's order and remanding the case for fresh disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Can an agreement to resolve an appeal on a special oath made by a co-appellant bind other appellants without proof of valid special attorney authorization?
  • Does an agreement to decide a case or appeal on special oath amount to a compromise requiring court sanction under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when minor parties are involved?
  • What are the duties of a court regarding the protection of minor interests in pending litigation where no formal next friend has obtained express leave?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs The State1985 MLD 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Bibi vs Muhammad Iqbal1985 CLC 1913 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasul Bibi and another vs Manzoor Ahmad and 12 others1985 CLC 2268 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasoolan Bibee vs Muhammad Rashid1985 MLD 1133 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raeesa vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2823 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qammar Sultana vs Muhammad Nasir1985 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Sultan vs Syed Murtaza alias Dhakee Shah1985 CLC 2984 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Puran vs Settlement Commissioner1985 CLC 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Philomina Zaraina Nawab vs Javaid Piaray Lal1985 CLC 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Pathani and ANOTHERs vs Murtaza and 2 Others1985 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Akhtar vs Javed Akhtar and another1985 MLD 454 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Parveen and 3 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 156 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Bibi vs Abdul Ghafar1985 CLC 2693 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naziran Bibi vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2467(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazir Begum and others vs A/C A.S.C. Lands, Okara and others1985 CLC 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazima Begum and 2 others vs Rent Controller, Lahore and 8 others1985 CLC 1892 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs The State and 3 others1985 MLD 1062 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Hakim vs Jamil Ahmad and another1985 MLD 294 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehar Khatoon vs Muhammad Hassan and others1985 P Cr. L J 2598 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Koori and another vs Allah Wasaya and others1985 CLC 2852 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Bibi vs S.H.O./Rehmat Ali, A.S.I.1985 P Cr. L J 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1985 MLD 240 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Akhtar vs Muhammad Saleem Shah1985 MLD 308 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaniz Fatima and another vs Muhammad Asghar and 4 others1985 MLD 304 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaneez Begum vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom Akhtar vs Rana Muhammad Talib Khan1985 MLD 195 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. K a Lsoom vs Muhammad Hanif1985 CLC 1917 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jia and another vs The State1985 MLD 1013(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jantan vs Mst. Maryam1985 MLD 100 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T Bibi and others vs Ahmad and 4 others1985 MLD 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Bibi vs District Magistrate and 3 others1985 MLD 485 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Bibi alias Balo and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement1985 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Begum vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone-B, Lahore1985 PTD 375 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-18
  income taxfresh assessmentreference to high courtwrit jurisdictionassessment set asidecancellation of assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arose from income-tax recovery proceedings initiated by the Income-tax authorities against the petitioner while a reference on the matter was pending before the High Court. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had set aside the assessments for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 but referred a question of law to the High Court regarding whether it should have cancelled the assessments instead of merely setting them aside. While this reference was pending, the Income-tax Officer passed a fresh assessment order. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax authorities could proceed with a fresh assessment while a reference concerning the validity of the initial assessment's disposition was pending before the High Court. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that when a reference is pending before the High Court on whether an assessment should be set aside or cancelled, the Income-tax authorities cannot treat the assessment as simply set aside or cancelled and must await the High Court's decision. Consequently, the fresh assessment order was declared to be of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Income-tax authorities pass a fresh assessment order while a reference is pending before the High Court regarding the validity of the Tribunal's order setting aside the original assessment?
  • Are Income-tax authorities required to await the decision of the High Court on a referred question of law before taking further assessment proceedings on the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Begum vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Zone-B, Lahore.PTCL 1985 (CL) 152 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Huma Ghauri vs Zaheeruddin and 4 others1985 CLC 762 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hayat Begum vs Noor Din and others1985 CLC 2033(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →