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.

• Azizur Rehman vs L.D.A.1985 CLC 2028 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22
  remand of caseframing of issuesamendment of plaintprocedural irregularitycivil proceduredevelopment chargesdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged a demand by the Lahore Development Authority for payment regarding excess land and development charges, seeking a declaration of ownership and injunction. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant but failed to frame specific issues regarding the development charges, relying instead on a general issue. The appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the case for a fresh trial, citing the absence of proper issues. On appeal, the High Court held that the trial court’s failure to frame distinct issues for each material proposition of law or fact, as mandated by Order XIV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, resulted in an improper trial and prejudiced both parties. The Court affirmed the remand order, emphasizing that appellate courts possess the authority under Section 107(1)(b) and Order XLI, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to remand cases where the trial was fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, the Court directed that the appellant be permitted to amend the plaint to incorporate the necessary relief, ensuring the entire controversy is resolved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court has the jurisdiction to remand a case for fresh trial due to the trial court's failure to frame proper issues?
  • Does the failure to frame distinct issues for each material proposition of law or fact constitute a procedural irregularity that prejudices the parties?
  • Can an appellate court order a remand for fresh trial even if the parties did not request it?
  • Should a trial court allow an amendment to the plaint if it is necessary to resolve the entire controversy between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ur Rehman vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1282 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• Aziz -Ud-Din vs Shah Muhammad and others1985 MLD 553 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Zafar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2818 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs S. H. O. Police Station Sahuka and 2 Others1985 PLD Lahore 210 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Muhammad Aslam and others1985 MLD 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Election Tribunal and others1985 CLC 2956 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Chiragh and two others1985 CLC 10 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• Atta Hussain Khan and 2 others vs Ghulam Rasool Khan1985 MLD 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 873 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Aslam vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 656 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Mahmood vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1349 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-08Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Shah vs The State1985 MLD 1225 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Masih and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Irshad alias Maqsood vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 44 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1447 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain and others vs Khuda Bakhsh1985 MLD 1243 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq alias Ashfaqa and 2 others vs The State1985 MLD 796 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad Cheema vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2104 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
• Asghar Hayat and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2638 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-24Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2594 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Khushi Muhammad1985 P Cr. L J 2440 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-03Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and Another vs Tilt State1985 PLD Lahore 258 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Asgh Ar Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 131 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• Asgh Ar Ali vs Muhammad Saleem and 6 others1985 CLC 526 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• Aschar Al1 vs Ahmad Naseem and another1985 CLC 2616 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Asad Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1676 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-02Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood and 2 others vs The State1985 MLD 1075 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-21Read full judgment →
• Arshad Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1966(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Arshad alias Ashraf vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
• Arif and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 69 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Anwar vs The State1985 MLD 1417 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• Anwar Maqbool vs Mian Abdul Qadir and another1985 MLD 1047 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali Shah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2686 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• Amjad Saeed alias Maham and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 3013 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
• Amjad Rashid Khan vs The State1985 MLD 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• Amjad and another vs The State1985 MLD 848 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
• Amira and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2864 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• Amir Sultan and 9 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1834 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan and 3 Others vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 18 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08
  triple murderchild witnesshostile complainantcorroborationbenefit of doubtcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock, whereby four appellants were convicted of the triple murder of Mst. Nur Begum and her two daughters, and sentenced to death along with fine and compensation. The Lahore High Court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant had repeatedly changed his version of the occurrence and the motive, ultimately failing to maintain his status as an eye-witness. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of two minor child witnesses, whose statements were recorded belatedly after fourteen days and suffered from tutoring and material contradictions. Furthermore, the medical evidence and alleged recoveries of weapons and a lantern failed to provide credible corroboration linking the appellants to the crime. The Court held that in criminal cases, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Finding the prosecution evidence unreliable, contradictory, and lacking sufficient corroboration, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and death sentences, rejected the murder reference, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of minor child witnesses can form the sole basis for a capital conviction without reliable corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of delayed police statements of child witnesses recorded weeks after the occurrence?
  • Does the shifting stance of a complainant regarding the identity of the assailants and the motive vitiate the prosecution's case?
  • Are recoveries of weapons from open houses nearly two months after the incident sufficient to corroborate ocular testimony when forensic reports are negative?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh and others vs Fateh Muhammad and 11 others1985 MLD 1471 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Amir Ahmad and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
• Amin Jan vs Directorgeneral, T & T and Others1985 PLD Lahore 81 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15
  constitutional petitionwrit of mandamusinter-departmental disputeRules of Businessjudicial restraintdepartmental promotionLaw Division consultation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an Assistant Engineer in the T & T Department seeking a writ of mandamus for the implementation of a promotion order issued by the Secretary Establishment, Government of Pakistan, which was contested by the Director-General of the Pakistan Telegraph and Telephone Department. The core legal question involved the propriety of invoking writ jurisdiction to resolve inter-departmental disputes and the mandatory requirement of consulting the Law Division under the Rules of Business. The Lahore High Court held that courts should exercise judicial restraint and avoid interfering in inter-departmental affairs that ought to be resolved administratively, deprecating the practice of government functionaries bringing internal disputes to court. The Court laid down the principle that mandatory rules such as the Rules of Business must be strictly observed by government ministries to ensure harmonious functioning and avoid unnecessary litigation, and accordingly adjourned the matter to enable the Deputy Attorney-General to facilitate an inter-departmental settlement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court should interfere in inter-departmental disputes through its writ jurisdiction?
  • Is consultation with the Law Division mandatory under the Rules of Business for government divisions?
  • What is the effect of non-observance of the Rules of Business by Federal Government departments?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 270 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Allah Yar and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain And One Other vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL.) 242 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Faiz Ahmadmanzoor Ahmad and Others1985 PLD Lahore 188 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04
  recovery of bank loansleave to defendsummary proceduremortgage securitytriable issuesbanking companies
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for the recovery of Rs. 21,26,560 instituted by Allied Bank of Pakistan against a firm and its partners under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, based on credit facilities, pledge of goods, and mortgages of immovable property. The core legal question is whether the defendants disclosed a plausible or bona fide defence sufficient to entitle them to leave to appear and defend the summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the defendants failed to raise any triable issue or substantiate their vague allegations regarding unauthorized transfers, incorrect insurance debits, or bank non-co-operation, and noted that the existence of a mortgage does not automatically warrant granting leave to defend. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was dismissed and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff bank. The key principle laid down is that under summary banking recovery proceedings, leave to defend is not a matter of right and will be refused unless the defendant establishes a genuine, plausible defence giving rise to triable issues rather than sham or illusory pleas.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the existence of a mortgage of property valued higher than the bank's claim entitles a defendant to unconditional leave to defend a recovery suit?
  • What constitutes a sufficient plausible defence to warrant the grant of leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Whether a defendant can claim leave to defend based on vague and unsubstantiated allegations of unauthorized debit entries and bank non-co-operation?
  • Does the statutory presumption of correctness attached to a statement of accounts certified under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891, place the burden on the defendant to specifically disprove entries?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Kohinoor Cotton Mills Ltd. and 3 Others Defendants1985 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2777(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar Khan vs Mst. Nasim Akhtar and another1985 CLC 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and 3 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya vs The State1985 MLD 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha Sulehria vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 907 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1985 MLD 1363 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another s1985 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20
  termination of serviceindustrial relationsgrievance petitioncommunication of orderfabricated documentsreinstatementlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reversed a Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioners. The core legal question was whether a written termination order is effective without communication to the employee, and whether the Appellate Tribunal could ignore a finding of fact regarding the fabrication of termination documents. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal acted without lawful authority. The Court ruled that a termination order must be communicated to the employee to be effective; otherwise, the statutory right to seek redress under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, would be rendered nugatory. Furthermore, the Tribunal erred by failing to address the Labour Court's finding that the termination orders and postal receipts were fabricated. The Court established the principle that legal provisions must be interpreted reasonably to give effect to their purpose; an uncommunicated termination order is ineffective, as the law requires termination to be a transparent process allowing the aggrieved workman to seek legal remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Is a written order of termination effective if it is never communicated to the employee?
  • Does the failure of an appellate tribunal to address a finding of fact regarding fabricated documents constitute an error of law?
  • Can an employer terminate an employee's services without serving the termination order?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Ziaul Haq and others1985 CLC 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Akbar and others1985 P Cr. L J 3002 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 24 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 2 others vs The State1985 MLD 1067 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-18Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1914 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Punjab Local Councils Election Authority and others1985 CLC 2810 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux and others vs The State1985 MLD 865 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux and others vs Muhammad Habibullah Khan1985 MLD 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2152 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and 3 others1985 CLC 2254 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and others vs Land Acquisition Collector and others1985 CLC 2677 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and 7 others vs Khuda Bakhsh1985 MLD 1233 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Bashir and others1985 MLD 929 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Allah Dit Ta and others1985 CLC 2817 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26
  allotment of landcivil court jurisdictionadministrative ordersuppression of factssecondary evidencecolonization of government landsrevision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a regular second appeal, treated as a revision, challenging the dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the allotment of an Ihata. The core legal question was whether the Collector’s allotment of the disputed Ihata to the respondent was valid, and whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of this administrative order. The High Court held that the Collector’s order was void, as it was obtained through the suppression of material facts regarding the appellant’s pre-existing, long-term possession and prior allotment. The Court ruled that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not barred when an administrative order is void or based on fraud. Furthermore, the Court established that the rights of a party cannot be defeated merely by the misplacement or destruction of official records when secondary evidence confirms the existence of prior rights. Additionally, the Court emphasized that existing government policy protecting long-term occupants must be respected, and an allotment cannot be made to a new party without the lawful cancellation of a previous, valid allotment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Civil Court have jurisdiction to challenge an allotment order passed by a Collector under the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912?
  • Can an allotment order be sustained if it is based on the suppression of material facts regarding the prior possession of the land?
  • Can a party's rights be defeated solely due to the misplacement or destruction of official records when secondary evidence is available?
  • Is a new allotment of land valid if a previous allotment has not been lawfully cancelled?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and another1985 MLD 1622(2) · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs The State1985 MLD 1347 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Anwar Shah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2736(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2546 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The Election Tribunal, Mandi Bahauddin and 4 others1985 CLC 2909 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad Sabir vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2542 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Albert Masih vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2731 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-28Read full judgment →
• Alam and others vs Muhammad Din1985 CLC 2567 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Alam and others vs Member,Board of Revenue-1985 CLC 2690 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Zaidi vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 662 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-09
  quashment of proceedingscheatingcriminal breach of trustcivil liabilityparallel proceedingsdishonoured chequesabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused dishonestly induced him and his relatives to invest Rs. 12,17,000 in a business expansion, which was never carried out, and subsequently issued dishonoured cheques. The petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially a civil transaction, as evidenced by a pending civil recovery suit, and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a single transaction can give rise to both civil and criminal liabilities, and there is no inflexible rule requiring the quashment of criminal proceedings merely because a civil suit is pending. The Court ruled that whether the transaction constitutes a criminal act of cheating or a mere civil liability is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court after examining the evidence, making the quashment petition premature.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pendency of a civil suit is an absolute bar to the continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction?
  • Can criminal proceedings for cheating be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the trial court has appraised the evidence regarding dishonest inducement?
  • Does a single transaction giving rise to civil liability preclude the aggrieved party from seeking a remedy under criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2387 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2222 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 538 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ajun Khan vs Mu H a MM a D1985 CLC 728 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ahqar Sarhadi vs Kh. Rashid Ahmad, Magistrate 1st Class1985 P Cr. L J 2435 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Bakhsh vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 653 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2178 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sher vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2510 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sher Bhatti vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1975 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Javed vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 329 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs The State1985 MLD 655 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Bashir Ahmad and others1985 CLC 2524 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1111 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali Shah and others vs The State1985 MLD 690 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-27Read full judgment →