Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Muhammad Rafiq vs Muhammad Ramzan and 2 Others1984 CLC 2183 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Mian Masood Ahmad and 6 others1984 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Malik vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and others vs The State and another1984 P Cr. L J 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and Others vs Khalid Rauf and Others1984 CLC 2135 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05
  writ petitionejectmentlandlord and tenantunregistered rent notecollateral purposeforfeiture of defensedismissal in default
  Summary & questions settled

  The writ petition challenges an appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat, which reversed the Rent Controller's decision and ordered the eviction of the petitioners-tenants from the disputed shop. The core legal questions involved whether a fresh ejectment petition was maintainable after the dismissal of a previous one in default, whether an unregistered rent note could be used for collateral purposes, and whether the wanton denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant results in the forfeiture of the tenant's defense regarding other grounds of ejectment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dismissal of a previous petition in default does not bar a fresh one for recurring grounds like personal need or reconstruction, that an unregistered rent note is admissible for collateral purposes to show the nature of possession, and that a tenant who falsely and wantonly denies the tenancy forfeits the right to contest remaining eviction grounds. The court affirmed that misdescription of a shop's serial number is immaterial when its physical identity is established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the dismissal of a previous ejectment petition in default precludes a landlord from filing a fresh petition on recurring grounds of personal need and reconstruction?
  • Can an unregistered rent note be used for collateral purposes to determine the nature of a tenant's possession?
  • Does the wanton and false denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant by a tenant result in the forfeiture of their defense regarding other grounds of eviction?
  • Does a slight misdescription in the serial number of a rented property affect the landlord's right to seek eviction when the physical identity of the property is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and another vs The State1984 MLD 1395 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq alias Feeqa vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 484 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi Patwari vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3181 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raf1q vs Bashir Ahmad and Another1984 P Cr. L J 476 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nishan vs Anjum Rauf and 7 others1984 MLD 410 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1903 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and Others vs Punjab Province and Others1984 CLC 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1984 MLD 1284 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The ST Ate1984 MLD 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The ST a Te1984 MLD 1354 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore and 3 Others1984 CLC 1776 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Malik Muhammad Aslam1984 PLC (C. S.) 209 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs Ghulam Hassan Khan and Others1984 CLC 1439 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 928 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2780 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1656 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza vs The State1984 MLD 1262 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasrullah vs The State1984 MLD 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir Siddique and Others vs Muhammad Salahuddin Khan1984 CLC 879 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem alias Naseem Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1822 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2472 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs Pir Bakhsh and Another1984 CLC 1274 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-30
  regular second appealpre-emption suitlimitation periodpre-sale possessionagreement to sellattestation of mutationsuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning a parcel of agricultural land sold via an oral transaction followed by a mutation attested on 24th August 1962. The trial court dismissed the suit as time-barred, holding that limitation commenced from an earlier date of delivery of possession under an agreement to sell, and also found waiver. The District Judge reversed these findings on appeal, decreeing the suit. The core legal question is whether pre-sale possession delivered under an agreement to sell triggers the period of limitation under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, or whether limitation runs from the date of the actual sale/attestation of mutation. The Lahore High Court held that possession prior to the actual sale cannot be equated with a sale, and pre-sale possession must be ignored for calculating limitation. The court laid down the principle that the relevant possession for the purpose of Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 must be possession under the completed sale which is the subject-matter of the pre-emption suit, not prior possession under an agreement to sell.

  Questions settled

  • Does pre-sale possession delivered under an agreement to sell trigger the period of limitation under Section 30 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • Can an agreement to sell be equated with a sale for the purpose of calculating limitation in a pre-emption suit?
  • When does the period of limitation commence for a pre-emption suit arising from an oral sale followed by an attested mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2657 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir and 4 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 581 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar and 6 Others vs Muhammad Yaqub1984 CLC 2289 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtazul Hassan vs Ata Ullah Mehar and Others1984 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-23
  intra-court appealservice ruleseducational qualificationsphysiotherapist appointmentpublic service commissionconstitutional petitionlocus standiinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal addresses the interpretation of service rules prescribing qualifications for the post of Physiotherapist (N.P.S. 18) in the Punjab Health Department. The appellant was selected by the Public Service Commission and appointed by the Provincial Government despite holding a diploma rather than a Bachelor of Science degree in Physiotherapy. Respondent No. 1, a competing candidate, challenged the selection and subsequent appointment through a constitutional petition, which the learned Single Judge allowed, holding that possession of a B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) or equivalent academic qualification under clause (a), coupled with the requisite experience under clause (b), was mandatory. The core legal question was whether the statutory qualifications allowed a diploma with ten years' practical experience to serve as a substitute for the basic academic degree requirement. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the rules distinctly separate academic qualifications from practical experience and that a diploma cannot replace the prerequisite university degree for a post in Grade 18. The key principle laid down is that service rules prescribing educational qualifications and experience in separate clauses must be satisfied cumulatively as distinct requirements rather than disjunctively.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a candidate holding a diploma in physiotherapy with practical experience can be appointed to a post requiring a B.Sc. degree in physiotherapy under the applicable service rules?
  • Does an unsuccessful candidate before a public service commission possess the locus standi to maintain a constitutional petition challenging the selection and appointment of another candidate?
  • Can a constitutional petition initially directed against the advisory recommendations of a public service commission be amended to challenge the subsequent appointment made by the provincial government?
  • How should statutory service rules prescribing separate clauses for academic qualifications and practical experience be construed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Malik and Others vs Punjab Government and Others1984 CLC 1397 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1984 MLD 1292 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Taj Muhammad Gill1984 MLD 393(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khushnood vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2608 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2068 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2769 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and Another vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 522 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1410 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Khan vs Quaidiazam University, Islamabad and 31984 CLC 721 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamal Khan vs Lahore Development Authority and Others1984 CLC 1173 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javedulhaq vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resourcesand 5 Others1984 CLC 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Tabey Hussain1984 CLC 2150 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs Aftab Khan and Others1984 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jalil Akhtar vs Principal, King Edward Medical College1984 CLC 2681 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr Nabi vs Punjab Province and Others1984 PLC (C. S.) 269 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1433 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2660 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1628 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Tue Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1984 CLC 422 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs R1az Sabtr1984 CLC 2375 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-28
  arbitration awardobjections to awardlimitation periodsubstance over formremoval of umpirespecific performanceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit for specific performance where the dispute was referred to arbitration under section 21 of the Arbitration Act 1940. An award was filed by the umpire, following which the trial court directed objections to be filed within 30 days. The appellant filed an application purportedly under section 11 of the Arbitration Act within the limitation period, seeking the removal of the umpire and requesting that the award be ignored due to lack of notice and bias. Subsequently, the appellant filed formal objections under sections 30 and 33, which were dismissed by the trial court as time-barred, and the award was made a rule of the court under section 17. The Lahore High Court held that courts must be guided by the substance and contents of an application rather than the specific legal provision cited in its heading. The High Court found that the appellant's initial application within the limitation period, though labelled under section 11, substantially embodied objections against the validity of the award under sections 30 and 33. Consequently, the trial court erred in treating those objections as time-barred without deciding them on merits. The appeal was accepted, the impugned order and decree were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision on the merits of the objections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application filed within the period of limitation, though incorrectly labelled under section 11 of the Arbitration Act 1940, can be treated as an objection under section 30 and section 33 of the Act?
  • Does the mere misquotation or citation of a wrong section in the memo of appeal or application denude a party of its legal rights?
  • Whether an appeal is competent under section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 against an order refusing to set aside an arbitral award?
  • Under what circumstances can a decree passed in terms of an award under section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940 be assailed in appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Attaullah Nisar and Others1984 CLC 454 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal represented by Legal Heirs and another vs Nazir Ahmad1984 MLD 930 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2445 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and another vs Ziaullah Khan1984 MLD 414 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inayat vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3095 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilya S vs Muhammad Shafi and 6 Others1984 PLD Lahore 404 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ily as vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 358 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2950 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and others vs The State1984 MLD 1459 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad I Nayat vs Jacob Issac, Additional Sessions_ Judge, Sa H1984 P Cr. L J 2546 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain' vs Raja Muhammad Afzal and 5 Others1984 CLC 1313 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2271 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Pakistan and Others1984 CLC 1429 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Amir and Another1984 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Farooq and others1984 MLD 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Shah vs Board of Revenue and Others1984 CLC 1146 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs The State1984 MLD 1386 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore1984 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05
  constitutional petitionevacuee propertyredemption of mortgagesettlement authoritiesdisputed questions of factprinciples of natural justiceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition called in question an order of the Settlement Commissioner dismissing the petitioners' application for delivery of possession of property allegedly redeemed as non-evacuee Muslim property. The core legal questions involved whether the disputed property was evacuee or non-evacuee at the relevant time, whether an ex parte order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner could bind respondents who were not parties to those proceedings, and whether a high court under constitutional jurisdiction could resolve disputed questions of fact based on fresh evidence. The court held that the ex parte rehabilitation order violated principles of natural justice and was not binding on the contesting respondents holding transfer orders, and that determining the true nature and character of the property involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for resolution through fresh evidence in writ jurisdiction. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the competent authority for a fresh decision after allowing parties to produce relevant documentary evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte order passed by a Rehabilitation Commissioner is binding on respondents who were not party to those proceedings?
  • Can a High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction determine disputed questions of fact based on fresh evidence produced for the first time?
  • Whether the non-production of documents at an earlier stage can be excused under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when necessary for determining the real controversy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Others vs Punjab Province1984 CLC 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and others vs Aleem1984 MLD 923 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2603 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 4 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 438 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain alias DH Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1842 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2475 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore1984 PTD 303 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and Others vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1984 CLC 2210 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasil vs Punjab Labour Court1984 PLC 365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State and 3 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Monnoo vs Income Tax OfficerPTCL 1984 (CL) 291 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haneef Monno O vs The Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle1984 PTD 171 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21
  reassessmentincome taxjurisdictionnotice validitypresumption of regularitywrit petitiontax evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the validity of notices issued under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979, which sought to reopen the petitioner's tax assessments for the years 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. The petitioner contended that the notices were issued without lawful authority, lacked the requisite prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and were based on pre-judged findings. The Court examined whether the Income-tax Officer had complied with the jurisdictional requirements of Section 65. The Court held that the issuance of such notices does not require the disclosure of specific grounds or the fact of prior approval on the face of the notice itself. It is sufficient if the record demonstrates that the Income-tax Officer possessed definite information or obtained necessary prior approval before initiation. Finding that the respondent had complied with these procedural requirements and that the presumption of regularity attached to official acts had not been rebutted, the Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to raise substantive objections before the tax authorities during the reassessment proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Must a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 explicitly state the grounds or the fact of prior approval to be valid?
  • Is the presumption of regularity applicable to the initiation of reassessment proceedings by an Income-tax Officer?
  • Can a High Court interfere with the issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 if the jurisdictional requirements are met?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haider Shah vs Muahammad Akbar and Others1984 CLC 471 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafiz vs Mst. Rabia Bibi and Another1984 CLC 2131 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez and Anothers vs Government of Punjab, Home1984 CLC 3479 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib vs Lal Din and Others1984 CLC 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghafran vs The State1984 MLD 1496 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1669 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa vs The State1984 MLD 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs Allah Lok and 2 Others1984 CLC 3118 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota and 2 Others vs National Construction Company1984 CLC 256 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal and Others vs Mst. Kaniz Fatima and Others1984 CLC 1427 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2488 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2267 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Muhammad Shafi and Others1984 CLC 681 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Bashir Ahmad1984 CLC 2934 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 496 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →