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.

• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others1984 CLC 3451 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Qureshi vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 283 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1457 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ah Mad vs The S. H. 0., Police Station, Munawan1984 P Cr. L J 1454 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20
  counter-versionFirst Information Reportregistration of criminal caseprivate complaintwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a writ petition seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a counter-version of a criminal occurrence for which a case under Section 302/307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 had already been registered against the appellant. The core legal question was whether the police are legally obligated to register a second First Information Report (F.I.R.) when an accused party seeks to present a counter-version of the same incident. The Court held that once a case has been registered regarding an occurrence, no second case can be registered for a counter-version by the accused persons. The Court reasoned that allowing such a practice would lead to an unmanageable multiplicity of F.I.Rs for every crime. The key principle laid down is that the police cannot be directed to register a second F.I.R. for a counter-version of an incident already under investigation; the appropriate legal remedy for the aggrieved party in such circumstances is to file a private complaint before the relevant court.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police duty-bound to register a second F.I.R. when an accused party presents a counter-version of an occurrence for which a case is already registered?
  • Can a court issue a direction to the police to register a second F.I.R. regarding the same criminal occurrence?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an accused party wishing to present a counter-version of an incident already under police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Murid Kazim and Others vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1984 CLC 428 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Murid and Anothers vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies)and Others1984 CLC 1185 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-12Read full judgment →
• Munshi Jan Muhammad vs Ida and Others1984 CLC 878 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-17Read full judgment →
• Munira Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3018 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
• Munir vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2481 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-23Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Jhang vs Ch. Muhammad Ishaq1984 CLC 1161 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali vs The State1984 MLD 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ala vi Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 576 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Munaw Ar Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 767 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz N a Ngi a N a vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2462 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-04Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 407 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1062 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmad alias Taji and Another vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 48 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain vs The State1984 MLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar alias Mukha and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 375 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1438 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1984 MLD 1403 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahm a D and Others vs The State and Others1984 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammd Rashid vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 370 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammd Hasil vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1984 PLC (C. S.) 464 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Za Man vs Syed Abdur Rehman and Another1984 CLC 1326 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusaf vs Rehmat Khan and Others1984 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunus vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1648 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunus vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1984 PLC 378 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Muhammad Anwar1984 P Cr. L J 2325 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Imran Ishtiaq-Ur-Rahman and others1984 MLD 399 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 820 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis vs Election Authority and Others1984 CLC 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and Anothers vs Mst. 1Nay at Begum1984 CLC 3279 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis alias Mushtaq vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2188 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Chairman Municipal Committees, Sahiwal and Others1984 PLD Lahore 345 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16
  advance income-taxoctroi dutytoll taxpublic auctionsale of propertylocal bodiesconstitutional jurisdictionalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  Thirty constitutional petitions were filed challenging demands by Income-tax Authorities requiring local bodies to collect advance income-tax under Section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 from contractors awarded leases through public auctions for collecting octroi duty, toll tax, and other municipal fees. The central legal issue was whether auctioning the rights to collect statutory octroi, tolls, and fees levied under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 or the Cantonments Act 1924 constitutes a 'sale of property by public auction' within the meaning of Section 50(7-A). The High Court held that delegating or leasing the right to collect statutory taxes and fees does not amount to an absolute transfer or sale of property belonging to a local body. The court reasoned that local revenues forming part of the local fund cannot be equated with property, and the arrangement merely delegates collection powers under strict local authority supervision. The High Court further held that an alternative statutory remedy under Section 138 does not bar constitutional jurisdiction when the impugned demand is patently without jurisdiction. The petitions were accordingly accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether auctioning rights to collect octroi duty, toll tax, and municipal fees constitutes a sale of property under Section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether contractors awarded collection leases by local councils are liable to pay advance income-tax under Section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether the existence of an alternative revision remedy under Section 138 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 bars constitutional jurisdiction where an order is passed without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas And Other vs Chairman, Municipal Committee, ShiwalPTCL 1984 (CL) 343 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yausaf alias Babu vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and Anothers vs Fajar Ali (Represented by 7 Legal1984 CLC 3428 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs The Additional Sessions, Judge, D.G.Khan and others1984 MLD 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs Shamsul Haq and 2 Others1984 CLC 3312 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub alias Ayyub vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 358 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Abdul Haq1984 CLC 2207 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2100 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yahya vs The State1984 MLD 1419 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Waris Shad vs Federal Public Service Commission1984 PLD Lahore 491 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3036 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Muhammad Hanif1984 MLD 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and omens vs The State and Others1984 PLD Lahore 196 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufa Il vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3055 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1984 MLD 1551 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1984 MLD 1290 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Muhammad Aslam Bhatti and others1984 MLD 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Controlling Authority (Deputy Commissioner, Jhang) and Another1984 P Cr. L J 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Tehsildar, Bhakkar, Revenue Tehsildar Bhakkar1984 MLD 495 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Punjab Election Authority and Others1984 CLC 2198 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Shafi and others1984 MLD 297 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mahmood and Another1984 CLC 2380 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1872 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1411 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif alias Sher Jang vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2050 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft and Others vs Commissioner, Multan and Others1984 CLC 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq alias Teddy vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1690 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Ahmad Khan vs Shabbir Ahmad Khan and Others1984 CLC 376 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1984 MLD 1543 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Sh. Muhammad Amin and Another1984 CLC 1528 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-13
  civil revisionnotice before presentation of appealmandatory provisionsinterlocutory appealstay orderdismissal of appealprejudice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from an order passed by an Additional District Judge dismissing the petitioner's appeal against an interlocutory order of a Civil Judge on the ground of non-compliance with rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether an appeal preferred against an order during the pendency of a suit is entertainable and liable to be dismissed if the appellant fails to give prior notice and deliver copies of the memorandum of appeal to the respondent pursuant to rule 3 of Order XLIII, and whether such omission causes prejudice when an ex parte stay order is granted. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are mandatory, and an appeal filed without fulfilling this condition precedent is not entertainable and can be dismissed, especially where the respondent suffers prejudice due to an ex parte stay order. The key principle laid down is that prior notice to the respondent under Order XLIII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is a mandatory condition precedent for the entertainability of an appeal against an order, and failure to comply with it—resulting in prejudice to the respondent—warrants dismissal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding notice before presentation of an appeal mandatory?
  • Can an appeal preferred against an order be dismissed solely for failure to comply with the notice requirements of rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does failure to give notice under rule 3 of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cause prejudice to a respondent when an ex parte stay order is obtained?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs A. M. Khan Leghari and Another1984 CLC 1192 · Lahore High Court · 1972-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and another vs Jalal Din1984 MLD 14 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 5 others vs The State1984 MLD 1305 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad SH a Bbir Abbasi vs Abdur Rashid Mughal1984 CLC 270 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-07
  moral turpitudeelectoral disqualificationlocal government electioncriminal convictionSummary Military Courtpublic officeconduct unbecoming
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the election of a councillor to the Municipal Committee, Murree, on the ground that the respondent was disqualified due to a criminal conviction. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s conviction by a Summary Military Court for offences including assault and criminal intimidation constituted "moral turpitude" under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, thereby disqualifying him from holding elective office. The Lahore High Court held that the respondent’s conduct—assaulting a government servant and threatening him with a firearm—was sufficient to shock the moral conscience of society and was highly unbecoming of an elected representative, thus constituting moral turpitude. The Court decided that the respondent was disqualified from being a member of the local council. The key principle laid down is that "moral turpitude" is a relative term whose meaning varies with the context of the law and the circumstances of the offence. In the context of electoral law, it encompasses conduct contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals that violates the standards expected of public representatives.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conviction for assault and criminal intimidation constitute an offence involving moral turpitude for the purpose of electoral disqualification?
  • Is the definition of 'moral turpitude' fixed, or does it vary depending on the context of the law and the circumstances of the offence?
  • Can a candidate be disqualified from local council membership based on a conviction by a Summary Military Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1916 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3086 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Muhammad Ismail1984 MLD 490 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Seema vs Sardar Khan through His Legal1984 PLD Lahore 179 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-13
  ejectment proceedingspersonal requirementlandlord and tenantexecution of decreeheritability of eviction orderestoppelrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from execution proceedings concerning an ejectment order passed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal questions were whether the death of a landlord during execution proceedings deprives successors of the benefit of an eviction order based on personal requirement; whether premises described as part of a factory fall outside the Ordinance's jurisdiction; and whether a change in ownership of the underlying land renders an eviction order unenforceable. The Court held that execution proceedings do not abate upon the landlord's death, as the right to possession vests in the heirs. It further determined that the premises constituted a "building" under the Ordinance, and the tenant was estopped from challenging the landlord's title or the validity of the tenancy. The key principles laid down are that an ejectment order for personal need obtained during the landlord's lifetime is heritable and enforceable by legal representatives, and that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title during the continuance of the tenancy, nor can they challenge the decree's validity in execution proceedings unless it is a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a landlord during execution proceedings abate an ejectment order based on personal requirement?
  • Can a tenant challenge the Rent Controller's jurisdiction in execution proceedings by claiming the premises are part of a factory?
  • Does a change in ownership of the land underlying a rented building affect the executability of an eviction order against the tenant?
  • Is a tenant estopped from denying the landlord's title during the continuance of the tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem alias Bhola vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 428 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and Others vs The State and Others1984 P Cr. L J 1373 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and Another vs Muhammad Bashir and 7 Others1984 CLC 3284 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed and 3 Others vs The State and Another1984 PLD Lahore 323 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17
  criminal revisionprivate complaintSection 202 CrPCprima facie casenon-bailable warrantsinquiry stagejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, which issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners following a private complaint alleging murder. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a material irregularity by failing to examine specific witnesses cited in the complaint during the inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether such an omission invalidated the finding of a prima facie case. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Additional Sessions Judge acted within his discretion. The judgment clarifies that the primary object of an inquiry under Section 202 is not a full-dress rehearsal for trial or a determination of guilt, but rather a limited exercise to ascertain whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused. Consequently, the court is not obligated to examine every witness cited by the complainant if the evidence already produced is sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and the trial court's decision to proceed based on available evidence did not constitute a perversity warranting revisional interference.

  Questions settled

  • What is the primary objective of an inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a trial court legally obligated to examine all witnesses cited in a private complaint during the inquiry stage under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to examine specific witnesses during a Section 202 inquiry constitute a material irregularity if a prima facie case is otherwise established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Saee and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 112 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2574 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and 3 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2944 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir Hussain and others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 915 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and Anothers vs Allah Yar1984 CLC 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Agha vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 678 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 445 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Agha Rahimud Din and 9 others1984 MLD 183 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1630 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2052 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1906 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Election Tribunal/D. C., Multan and Others1984 CLC 3263 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Barkat Ali and Others1984 CLC 3049 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17
  pre-emption suitconditional decreesecond appealrevision petitionpayment out of courtcertification of paymentOrder XX Rule 14 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the appellant obtained a consent decree conditional upon depositing the sale price by a specific date. The appellant failed to deposit the money in court by the deadline, instead claiming to have paid the vendee out of court and seeking subsequent certification. The trial court certified this payment, but the Additional District Judge, treating the challenge as a revision, set aside the certification and dismissed the suit. The High Court held that the second appeal was incompetent because the order passed by the Additional District Judge was in revision, not appeal. Furthermore, on merits, the Court affirmed that payment made out of court in a pre-emption decree, even if later certified, does not constitute lawful compliance with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court emphasized that a conditional decree remains inchoate until the condition is strictly satisfied, and failure to deposit the amount in court by the deadline results in the automatic dismissal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order relating to the payment or non-payment of money in compliance with a conditional pre-emption decree appealable?
  • Can a payment made out of court be considered lawful compliance with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a second appeal lie against an order passed by an Additional District Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2283 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1816 · Lahore High Court · 1975-01-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Noor Ahmad and Others1984 CLC 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →