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.

• Ahmad Ali and 4 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1295 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
• Aftab Hussain vs The State1985 MLD 887 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-14Read full judgment →
• Afsar Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-15Read full judgment →
• Abid Shah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Mst. Amir Khatoon and others1985 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-07Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Khan vs Mst. Amir Khatoon and others1985 MLD 200 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and others vs The State1985 MLD 20 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2417 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman alias Abbi vs The State1985 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Allah Ditta and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 643 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid and 6 others vs Muhammad Hanif and 2 others1985 CLC 1887 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rasheed vs United Bank Ltd.1985 MLD 305 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs The State1985 MLD 775(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and others vs Rehmat Ali1985 CLC 2527 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State1985 MLD 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and others vs Universal Oil and Vegetable Ghee Mills, Sheikh Up.Ura1985 PLC (C.S.) 1115 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 3022 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 78 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 771 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State1985 MLD 830 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs Umar Badshah1985 P Cr. L J 2815 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar alias Sain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1974 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam and 4 others vs The State1985 MLD 737 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Nasir-Ud-Din1985 CLC 1532 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman alias Malah and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2975 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs The State1985 MLD 786 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq Khan and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1271 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razak vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1885 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs The State1985 MLD 1069 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf Sultan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2761 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Government of the Punjab through the Chief1985 CLC 199 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16
  constitutional petitionlocus poenitentiaeaudi alteram partemnatural justicecontractual penaltyliquidated damagesalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of Pakistan 1962 (referred to as Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution) challenged an order dated 8-6-1968 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Lahore Region, which imposed a maximum penalty of Rs. 30,195.80 on the petitioner for delayed payment of contract instalments. Initially, the then Chief Conservator of Forests had granted extensions and determined the penalty for late payment at 10% per annum under the contract. However, a successor officer subsequently ordered the imposition of the maximum penalty of 1% per day under clause 8 of the agreement, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The High Court held that once a competent authority has made a decision that has been communicated and taken effect, it cannot be unilaterally rescinded or modified to the detriment of a party under the principle of locus poenitentiae. Furthermore, the court ruled that the successor's order violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) as no prior hearing was granted, and that under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872, the state was only entitled to reasonable compensation rather than the automatic extraction of the maximum penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Can a successor public officer unilaterally modify a penalty determination made by a predecessor that has already taken effect?
  • Is an order imposing a maximum contractual penalty valid if passed without affording the affected party an opportunity of being heard?
  • Does the phrase 'shall be liable' in a penal clause of a contract mandate the automatic imposition of the maximum penalty without considering the actual damage suffered?
  • Does the existence of an alternate remedy by way of a civil suit absolutely bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Allah Ditta and others1985 MLD 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and others vs Chiragh Din and others1985 P Cr. L J 2824 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 2 others vs Mst. Zeenat Sultana and 8 others1985 MLD 1222 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman and another vs Mukhtar Ahmad and another1985 CLC 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-24
  civil revisionlimitationcondonation of delayfiling of decreetime-barred appealinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition before the Lahore High Court arose from the dismissal of an appeal by the District Judge, Sargodha. A civil suit had been decreed against the petitioners, who subsequently filed an appeal appending only a copy of the judgment without the trial court's decree. The decree was produced only after the period of limitation had expired, and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The District Judge held the appeal to be hopelessly time-barred yet proceeded to adjudicate upon the merits. The High Court observed that once an appeal is found time-barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908, the appellate court cannot lawfully enter into the merits. The Court held that submission of a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is indispensable for condonation of delay, and courts possess no power to excuse delay without such an application, even by invoking inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can decide an appeal on merits after finding it barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can delay in filing an appeal be condoned in the absence of a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a court excuse delay in filing an appeal by resorting to its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does an appeal become time-barred if the copy of the trial court's decree is produced only after the expiration of the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim Khan vs Town Committee,Makhdoompur Pahooran and others1985 CLC 2805 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-04
  constitutional petitioncontractual liabilitysuppression of factsdiscretionary reliefdisputed questions of factoctroi leasealternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a lessee of an octroi duty collection contract against the Town Committee, challenging a notice and subsequent resolution that cancelled his lease for alleged non-payment of monthly instalments. The petitioner contended that he had not defaulted and had paid in excess of the due amount. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had suppressed the material fact of having previously filed a civil suit on the same subject-matter, which disentitled him to discretionary relief due to coming to court with unclean hands. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the dispute involved complex, contested questions of fact and the determination of contractual liabilities arising out of a lease agreement, both of which fall outside the scope of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had alternative efficacious remedies available, including an arbitration clause in the contract and the option to file a civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner who suppresses the material fact of having instituted a civil suit on the same subject-matter is entitled to discretionary relief under the constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact and resolve accounts under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a constitutional petition the appropriate remedy for determining and enforcing liabilities arising purely out of a contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Qureshi vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2775 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen Khan and others vs Ghulam Muhammad1985 CLC 2897 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan vs Muhammad Shiblain and 15 others1985 CLC 1876 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State and others1985 P Cr. L J 1610 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The Judge, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore1985 P Cr. L J 890 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23
  bail before arrestscheduled offencesOffences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984jurisdiction of High Courtcancellation of bailCode of Criminal Procedure 1898breach of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple bail petitions filed by accused persons facing charges for scheduled offences under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions addressed were whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to grant bail in scheduled offences, whether the Special Court possesses the authority to grant pre-arrest bail, and whether the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly Section 497, remain applicable to proceedings before the Special Court. The Court held that the High Court retains its inherent and statutory jurisdiction to grant bail, and the Special Court, exercising the powers of a Court of Session, is competent to grant pre-arrest bail. The Court further ruled that Section 5(6) of the Ordinance is not a complete code for bail, meaning the provisions of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, continue to apply. It was established that the jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be ousted except by express legislative enactment, and the Special Court's power to cancel bail under Section 4(7) of the Ordinance is limited to cases where the bail was granted by the court that originally tried the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court retain jurisdiction to grant bail in scheduled offences under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 have the jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail?
  • Are the provisions of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to proceedings before a Special Court?
  • Does bail granted by a court other than the trial court stand cancelled upon the transfer of a case to a Special Court under the Offences in Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Muhammad Yousaf Ali Chishti and others1985 MLD 127 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Additional District Judge and others1985 CLC 3021 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Maalik vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Mst.Bakht Bhari and 2 others1985 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-19
  maintenanceMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceArbitration Councilminor childrenpast maintenanceconstitutional jurisdictionseverability
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the maintenance orders passed by the Arbitration Council and upheld by the Collector under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, whereby maintenance was awarded to a neglected wife and her minor children. The core legal questions involved whether the Arbitration Council has the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the said Ordinance to award maintenance to minor children and for a period exceeding three years, and whether a composite maintenance order for both wife and children is severable. The Lahore High Court held that the Arbitration Council lacks jurisdiction to award maintenance to minor children under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and cannot award past maintenance exceeding three years preceding the claim. Furthermore, since the maintenance was awarded as a composite sum without specifying individual shares, the principle of severability could not be applied. The court laid down the principle that statutory tribunals cannot assume jurisdiction not expressly conferred upon them by law, and set aside the impugned orders, remanding the matter for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Arbitration Council have the jurisdiction under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 to award maintenance to minor children?
  • Can the Arbitration Council award past maintenance for a period exceeding three years preceding the lodging of the claim?
  • Whether a composite maintenance order passed in favour of both a wife and minor children without specifying individual shares is severable in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2580 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs M.S. Javed and another1985 MLD 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and ANOTHERs vs Ali Gauhar1985 PLD Lahore 552 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kalim vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Mansoor Malik and others1985 MLD 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez and others vs The State1985 MLD 873 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ha Mi D vs Settlement Commissioner and others1985 CLC 2838 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2119 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Mst. Mussarat Rehana1985 CLC 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-07
  condonation of delayLimitation Actsufficient causepecuniary jurisdictiongood faithwrong advice of counselpresentation before wrong forumtime-barred appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from a trial court decree ordering recovery of Rs. 52,540 as the value of dowry. The appellant erroneously instituted an appeal before the District Court, which lacked pecuniary jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, and after the appeal was returned, presented it to the High Court with substantial delay. The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 (subsequently seeking conversion under Section 14) seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the appeal was filed before the wrong forum due to the mistaken legal advice of counsel. The High Court observed that while Section 14 applies directly to suits, its principles are relevant for evaluating 'sufficient cause' under Section 5. However, since the jurisdictional threshold was clear and could have been ascertained with due care, the prosecution before the wrong forum was not in 'good faith' as defined under Section 2(7). Holding that the mistaken advice of counsel does not constitute sufficient cause in such circumstances, the High Court rejected the application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 directly apply to compute the period of limitation for appeals?
  • Can the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 be considered while determining sufficient cause under Section 5 of the same Act?
  • Does the erroneous legal advice of a counsel regarding a clear statutory forum of appeal constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
  • Can proceedings instituted before a wrong forum due to lack of due care and attention be deemed to have been prosecuted in good faith under the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Board of Revenue, Punjab1985 CLC 2572 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 877 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Government of Punjab and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor alias Ghafoori vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1495 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor . vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 754 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State1985 MLD 647 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Aslam Khan and others1985 MLD 456 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Berman through Legal Heirs vs Prop. Ghulam Rasool Tanwir1985 PLD Lahore 423 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Sharif and 15 others1985 P Cr. L J 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Siddiqui vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Khan vs Abdur Rehman and Others1985 PLD Lahore 203 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-15
  election petitiontemporary injunctionprocedural non-complianceconstitutional jurisdictionElection Tribunaldiscretionary powerlocal bodies election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition called in question an order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's election petition and temporary injunction application under rule 9 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, due to non-compliance with procedural requirements such as failing to deposit the requisite security, failing to serve a copy of the petition upon the respondent, and failing to properly sign and verify annexures. The core legal questions involved the discretionary nature of the power to dismiss an election petition under rule 9, whether procedural non-compliance mandates summary dismissal without opportunity to lead evidence, and the extent of interference by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that while procedural provisions should not be applied too technically and rule 9 confers a discretionary power rather than a mandatory mandate, the petitioner acted crudely and negligently with gross violations and failed to show sufficient cause. The Court affirmed that the Election Tribunal exercised its discretion on proper judicial principles, and dismissed the petition, ruling that the High Court will not interfere with such judicious exercise of discretion in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of rule 9 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979, mandatorily compel an Election Tribunal to dismiss an election petition for non-compliance with rules or whether the power is discretionary?
  • Should an Election Tribunal frame proper issues and permit parties to lead evidence before dismissing an election petition for procedural non-compliance?
  • Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the discretionary order of an Election Tribunal passed on proper judicial principles?
  • Whether the omission to deposit security, serve a copy of the election petition, and sign annexures constitute gross violations warranting dismissal under the Punjab Local Councils (Election Petitions) Rules, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Khan and 3 others vs Noor Muhammad and 5 others1985 CLC 583 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13
  allotment of ahatadismissal in defaultex parte orderrestoration of appealreview jurisdictionlimitationnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the orders of the Colony Assistant/Collector, the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), and the Member, Board of Revenue, which rejected their application for allotment of an Ahata (village site) and subsequently dismissed their appeal and revision. The petitioners' appeal before the Additional Commissioner had been dismissed not only for default of appearance but also on the merits. Their subsequent application for restoration/review was rejected on the ground that the successor-in-office lacked review jurisdiction. The High Court held that when an appellant fails to appear, the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 may either adjourn the hearing or dismiss the appeal in default, but has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on the merits. Any such decision on the merits in the appellant's absence must be deemed a dismissal in default, making a restoration application under Order XLI Rule 19 competent. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the case to the Collector for a fresh decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have jurisdiction to decide an appeal on the merits in the absence of the appellant?
  • Whether an order deciding an appeal on the merits in the absence of the appellant should be treated as a dismissal in default for the purpose of restoration?
  • Is an application to restore an appeal dismissed in default considered an exercise of review jurisdiction?
  • Can a party claim exclusion of time spent bona fide in seeking restoration of an appeal when calculating the limitation period for filing a revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Butt vs The State1985 MLD 846 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Butt vs Muhammad Arshad and another1985 MLD 148 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz alias Aziz and Another- Convicts vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 534 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• A Uqa F vs Z a Fa R Ulla H and another1985 CLC 2033(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
• A Amer S Aeed vs District Judge and others1985 CLC 2680 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
• A & B Industrial Gases Limited vs Water and Power Development1985 MLD 1462 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3245 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-23Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Alibhatti vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 762 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-15Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1984 MLD 1423 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Muhammad vs Chairman, Admission Board1984 CLC 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ziaulhas San Ha Shmi vs Faiz Ahmad and Another1984 CLC 1491 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Ellahi vs District Judge, Multan and 2 Others1984 CLC 2298 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-30Read full judgment →
• Zarbadshah Masood vs Commandant Magistrate 1ST Class, Sutlej1984 PLD Lahore 449 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 948 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
• Zakir and 5 OTHERSs vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 987 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Zakaullah and 2 Others vs Member, Federal Land Commission and 31984 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Zaka Ullah vs Muhammad Khan & State1984 P Cr. L J 2461 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• Zaka A. Malik vs Mian Saeed Akhtar1984 MLD 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2975 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2917 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs The State1984 MLD 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah and 3 Others vs Civil Judge, Hafizabad and 3 Others1984 PLD Lahore 396 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20
  Section 12(2) CPCcollusive decreefraud and misrepresentationbar to separate suitpre-emption suitdeclaratory decree
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the orders of lower courts which permitted a separate civil suit to proceed, despite the petitioners' objection that the suit was barred by Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a challenge to a decree on the ground of 'collusion' falls within the scope of Section 12(2), which requires that any challenge based on fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction be brought by an application to the court that passed the decree, rather than by a separate suit. The Court held that 'collusion' in judicial proceedings constitutes a form of fraud and misrepresentation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the separate suit was barred by the mandatory provisions of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The principle established is that allegations of collusion in obtaining a decree are effectively allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, necessitating the use of the specific procedural remedy provided under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby precluding the filing of a separate civil suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the plea of 'collusion' in challenging a decree fall within the scope of 'fraud' or 'misrepresentation' under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a separate suit maintainable to challenge a decree on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, or must the remedy be sought via an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a person who is not a judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest challenge a decree by filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafarulla H vs Punjab Government and Others1984 CLC 661 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Zafar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1830 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mahmood vs Rai Muhammad Sher and 3 Others1984 CLC 115 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
• Zafar Abbas Shah vs Chairman Commercial Court, Lahore.PTCL1984 (CL) 312 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
• Zafar Abbas and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 951 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• Za Meer Ali Shah vs Azhar Haider Shah alias Tonni and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1923 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• Z U Lfiqar vs The State1984 MLD 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-21Read full judgment →