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.

• Yasmin Anjum vs Main Muhammad Siddique Javed1984 CLC 419 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
• Yasin vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• Yaseen vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2641 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• Yara and another vs The State1984 MLD 1542 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3024 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
• Y as I N vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2332 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
• Zeboo Mai vs The State1984 MLD 1583 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
• Wazir vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1890 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
• Wazir and Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)1984 CLC 676 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1433 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-25Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ahm Ed vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1589 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
• Wasiq Ali Khan vs Mahmood Afzal Khan and Others1984 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Waris Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2442 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
• Waris Ali and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2179(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore and 5 Others1984 PLC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Walya vs Mst. Zaiban and Others1984 CLC 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2514 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh and others vs The State1984 MLD 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• Vusuf and 6 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 684 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• United Union of Pakistan Railways Workers vs National Industrial1984 PLC 305 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. and Another vs Muhammad Ali and 2 Others ,1984P L C 1 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
• Umar Hayat vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 669 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
• Tufail Maseeh vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 2623 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• Tufail Baig and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2194 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shafqat Ali Chatha and 2 others1984 MLD 1482 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rana Salim Akhtar D.S.P., and others1984 P Cr. L J 2578 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rafique Ahmed Bhatti1984 P Cr. L J 583 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Noor Muham Mad1984 P Cr. L J 1946 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mumtaz Ahmad and Others1984 P Cr. L J 1879 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mu H Ammad Ash Raf and another1984 P Cr. L J 2164 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-01Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mokha and others1984 MLD 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Gul Muhammad and Others1984 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
• The State vs Etabar Khan1984 P Cr. L J 1685 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
• The State through National Bank of Pakistan vs Mumtaz Ahmad and 41984 P Cr. L J 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-30Read full judgment →
• The Punjab, Cooperative Union vs Government of Punjab, Excise and Taxationdeptt. and Another1984 CLC 1539 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• The Province of Punjab vs Mst.Umar Bibi and another1984 MLD 491 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-10Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner QF Incometax, Lahore Zonea, Lahore vs Messrs1984 PLD Lahore 401 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax; Lahore Zone a, Lahore vs Messrs New1984 PTD 401 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →
• Taza Khan and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1308 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Akhtar' vs Hafadat1984 CLC 2301 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• Tasleem Akhtar vs Hafadat1984 KLR Civil Cases 60 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• Tasa War 1Qbal and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 994 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Yahya Khan and Others vs Ali Nawaz and Others1984 CLC 935 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• Tariq Majeed Butt vs The State1984 P. Cr. L J 2956 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
• Tariq Javed vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1984 CLC 662 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Raza vs M.Khalid Mahmood and 4 others1984 MLD 80 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 429 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain and 7 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2259 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Rehmatullah and Others1984 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1970-06-03Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ul Islam vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 274 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• Tahir Maqbool vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1889 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
• Tabraiz vs Said Muhammad and 6 Others1984 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ta Lib Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 337 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• T. V. Service Station vs MRS. Parveen Anwar Afridi1984 CLC 693 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Zawar Hussain Shah vs Rai Ahmad and 3 others1984 MLD 154 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ahmad Shah vs Khawaja Nur Ahmad Chishti and 6 Others1984 CLC 989 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Abbas Shah vs The Chairman, Commercial Court and 21984 P Cr. L J 1455 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Samad Ali vs Lahore Improvement Trust and 2 Others1984 PLC (C. S.) .1 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajjad Hussain and Others vs Syed Izhar Hussain and Others1984 CLC 903 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Safdar Ali Z1APetitioned vs Syeda Umme Rabbab1984 CLC 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
• SYed Qurban Hussain Shah and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2916 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Paidin vs Lahore Development Authority1984 CLC 659 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Naushab Ali Shah vs Col. Mehmood Khan Durani1984 CLC 2945 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Mukhtar Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2181 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Siddique Shah and Others vs Sh. Muhammad Afzal1984 CLC 349 · Lahore High Court
  second appealrestoration of appealdismissal in defaultreview petitionlimitation periodurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was initially dismissed in default and later restored upon an application filed after five months. The respondents filed a review petition against the order of restoration, contending that the restoration application was time-barred under Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied. The court evaluated whether the review petition was barred by Order XLVII, Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and found that rule inapplicable as the prior order was for restoration under Order XLI, Rule 19, not a review. Acknowledging that the restoration application was filed well beyond the thirty-day limitation period, the court held that the delay prejudiced the valuable right accrued to the respondents. Consequently, the review petition was accepted, the previous restoration order was set aside, and the appeal stood dismissed for want of prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for review of an order restoring an appeal is barred under Order XLVII, Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the restored order was passed under Order XLI, Rule 19?
  • Does Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to a petition for the restoration of a second appeal dismissed for default under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a court review its previous order of restoration when the initial application for restoration was admittedly time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Saqib vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2768 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali and Others vs Pakistan1984 CLC 690 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Khadim Hussain Shah and others vs The State1984 MLD 1319 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Jarar Hussain vs The State1984 MLD 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Jarar Hussain and another vs Zaigam Hussain and another1984 MLD 918 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Dawar Hussain vs Town Committee Shahkot1984 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Arshad Ali and Another vs Navid Raza and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 585 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-30
  quashment of criminal proceedingsabuse of process of courtprivate complaintmatrimonial disputeinherent powerscustody of children
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed for the quashment of a private complaint under section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, instituted against the petitioners over matrimonial disputes and custody of minor children. The core legal questions involved whether a quashment petition is premature when an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the Magistrate has not been filed, and whether the impugned complaint constituted an abuse of the process of the court. The Lahore High Court held that while ordinarily an aggrieved party should first approach the trial magistrate, exceptions exist where the complaint is patently frivolous, motivated by malice, and stems from a series of coercive tactics in a matrimonial dispute. The court laid down the principle that high courts may exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A to quash mala fide private complaints without requiring prior resort to the trial magistrate under section 249-A, especially where the proceedings are an abuse of the judicial process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is premature if the petitioner has not first approached the trial magistrate under section 249-A?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed when a private complaint is found to be mala fide, frivolous, and an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Whether the High Court can extend the benefit of quashment to a non-petitioning co-accused facing the same criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abbas Ali Shah and Anothers vs Syed Farhat Ali Shah and Another1984 CLC 881 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sulaiman and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1988 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
• State vs Ziaulhassan1984 P Cr. L J 982 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
• State vs Zafar Ahm Ad1984 P Cr. L J 3159 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• State vs Tauqir Hussain1984 PLD Lahore 315 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• State vs Parvez Iqbal alias Ballo1984 P Cr. L J 748 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-26Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din and Others vs Province of Punjab1984 CLC 1287 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-24
  pre-presentation noticeinterlocutory ordertemporary injunctiondismissal in liminecivil revisionmandatory provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision addresses whether the requirement of issuing a pre-presentation notice to the respondent under rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory, and whether an appeal admitted to regular hearing can subsequently be dismissed for non-compliance with this provision. The petitioners filed appeals against interlocutory orders refusing temporary injunctions without serving the mandatory pre-presentation notice to the respondent. The appellate court dismissed the appeals on this ground. Relying on precedent from the Supreme Court, the High Court held that the issuance of notice under rule 3 is a mandatory condition precedent to the entertainability of an appeal, and failure to comply goes to the root of the competency of the appeal. The Court further held that an appellate court is not barred from dismissing an incompetent appeal merely because it had previously been admitted to regular hearing. Consequently, the revision petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the issuance of notice under rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory before presenting an appeal against an interlocutory order?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal after its admission to regular hearing for failure to comply with the pre-presentation notice requirement under rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to issue a pre-presentation notice to the respondent render an appeal incompetent?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikander and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 807 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• Siddique vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2489 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sheru and Others vs Malik Rustam and Others1984 CLC 1197 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
• Sheraz Elahi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1935 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-07
  criminal revisionconfiscation of vehiclerash and negligent drivingaudi alteram partemnatural justiceproperty used for commission of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the owner of a passenger wagon challenging the trial court's order of confiscation of the vehicle. The driver of the wagon had been convicted under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (later altered to Section 304-A) for causing the deaths of two individuals through rash and negligent driving. The trial court ordered the confiscation of the wagon under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that the owner, by permitting an unauthorized driver to operate the vehicle, provided him the opportunity to cause the accident. The High Court examined whether a vehicle involved in a negligent driving accident could be deemed 'property used for the commission of an offence' and whether confiscation without a show-cause notice was lawful. The Court held that a vehicle involved in a negligent driving accident is not an instrument or weapon of the offence under Section 517. Furthermore, the owner was condemned unheard in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem. The revision petition was allowed, and the confiscation order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vehicle involved in a fatal accident caused by rash and negligent driving be confiscated as 'property used for the commission of an offence' under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an order of confiscation of property passed under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid if the owner of the property was not afforded an opportunity to show cause?
  • Can a vehicle owner be held liable for confiscation if the borrower of the vehicle violates the terms of his driving licence without the owner's knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2515 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman and another vs The State1984 MLD 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Rehman vs The State1984 MLD 1283 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sher MUHAMMADConvict vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1361 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Suleman1984 CLC 367 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Sarfraz Mahmood and 6 others1984 MLD 62 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Muhammad Sharif1984 PLD Lahore 117 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-25
  benami transactionbenamidarburden of proofcustody of title deedsecond appealsource of consideration
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arises from the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the appellant's suit for a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a disputed house. The appellant claimed he purchased the house as a benamidar in the name of the respondent, his brother-in-law, to shield it from potential claims by his brothers during a family property dispute. The core legal question centered on whether the transaction was benami, requiring an examination of the source of consideration, custody of the title deed, possession, motive, and surrounding circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the custody of the title deed and based their findings on possession and tenancy on no evidence, while ignoring relevant municipal site plans and unrebutted evidence of construction by the appellant. The Court concluded that the respondent was merely a benamidar for the appellant. The key principle laid down is that while the burden of proving a benami transaction lies on the person alleging it, direct evidence is not strictly required, and the nature of the transaction must be determined by evaluating the totality of circumstances including the custody of the title deed, possession, subsequent conduct, and intention of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the source of purchase money is conclusive in determining the benami character of a transaction?
  • Does the burden of proving a benami transaction require direct evidence, particularly in old transactions?
  • Are concurrent findings of fact based on misreading of evidence or no evidence open to challenge in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Falaksher and 5 Others1984 P Cr. L J 3002 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and Others vs Shafqat Ullah1984 CLC 2138 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and 2 Others vs Aroora1984 CLC 3292 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shera and Anothers vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2112 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
• Sher Dil and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2997 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Aslam and Others vs Ahmad Khan and Others1984 CLC 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Asghar Ali1984 PLD Lahore 230 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12
  withdrawal of suitliberty to file fresh suitformal defectother sufficient groundsrevisional jurisdictionamendment of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of an appellate court judgment allowing the plaintiff to withdraw their declaratory suit with permission to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the conditions for a formal defect were not met and that amendments to the pleadings should have been preferred. The core legal question was whether the appellate court lawfully permitted the withdrawal of the suit under the expression 'other sufficient grounds' or whether a formal defect was strictly required. The Lahore High Court held that the expression 'other sufficient grounds' in Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is wider in signification, is not ejusdem generis with 'formal defect', and can cover circumstances where denying withdrawal would result in grave injustice. The key principle laid down is that appellate courts have wide discretionary powers to allow the withdrawal of a suit with liberty to sue afresh on grounds other than formal defects to prevent technicalities from defeating substantive justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the expression 'other sufficient grounds' in Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is ejusdem generis with 'formal defect'?
  • Can an appellate court permit the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh suit at the appellate stage?
  • Does the mere wrong description of property or error in the date of a sale-deed constitute a formal defect under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • When will the High Court interfere in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with an order allowing the withdrawal of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mian Zahoor Ahmad vs Thekedar Nazir Ahmad1984 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Gulzar Ahmad vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 31984 CLC 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-27Read full judgment →