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 Bakhsh vs Ministry of Petroleum and others1984 CLC 2653 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh alias Mamdoo vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1885 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs Bashir Muhammad and Others1984 P Cr. L J 3182 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub Khan vs Ch. Muhammad Aslam and Another1984 CLC 2259 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-14
  specific performanceagreement to selltime as essence of contractseverability of contractsale of immovable propertyready and willing
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Lahore, which decreed respondent No. 1's suit for possession through specific performance of a contract of sale regarding a plot of land. The appellant had purchased the plot at an open auction from the Lahore Improvement Trust and subsequently agreed to sell it to respondent No. 1 for Rs. 68,000. Disputes arose regarding the stipulated period for registration, the actual consideration amount mentioned for tax purposes, and the procurement of clearance certificates. The core legal questions involved whether time was the essence of the contract, whether the agreement was void due to an unlawful collateral term regarding deflated consideration, and whether the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The Lahore High Court held that time was not of the essence in the sale of immovable property, that the lawful main contract for sale could be severed from the collateral deflated price agreement, and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the specific performance decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time is the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property where a specific period for completion is fixed?
  • Can an agreement of sale be specifically enforced if a collateral term relating to the sale price for tax purposes is found to be unlawful?
  • Whether a party can unilaterally revoke an agreement to sell upon the expiry of a stipulated time limit when time is not of the essence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyaz vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2967 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1826 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Khan vs Addl. D. C. (General), Sheikhupura and 21984 CLC 544 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslain Mian, Walayat vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1429 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 544 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1984 MLD 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 18 Others1984 CLC 2950 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-04
  right of pre-emptiontenant versus lesseeland reformsconstitutional petitionagricultural leaserevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner claiming to be a tenant of the disputed agricultural land under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 115). The Collector and Additional Commissioner decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the Member, Board of Revenue accepted the respondents' revision and dismissed the suit, holding that a lessee does not qualify as a tenant entitled to a right of pre-emption. The core legal question was whether a lessee (Thekedar) holding land for a fixed period under a lease agreement falls within the definition of a 'tenant' under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, so as to exercise the statutory right of pre-emption. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that a lessee is distinct from a tenant and is excluded from the definition of a tenant under the Land Reforms Regulation, its notifications, and subsequent amendments. The court laid down the principle that the special right of pre-emption granted under Land Reforms legislation is intended exclusively for actual tillers and cultivating tenants to improve their socio-economic conditions, and does not extend to commercial lessees or fixed-term leaseholders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a lessee cultivating agricultural land under a fixed-term lease agreement qualifies as a tenant for the purpose of claiming a right of pre-emption under paragraph 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Did the Land Commission's notifications validly exclude lessees from the definition of tenants under Martial Law Regulation No. 115?
  • Does the Land Reforms Regulation (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1982 explicitly exclude lessees from the definition of a tenant?
  • Can a revisional authority interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts where those findings are based on a misinterpretation of law regarding tenant status?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Abdul Khaliq1984 CLC 906 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 903 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The Secretary, Government of Punjab, Food1984 CLC 1453 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Mahmood and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3129 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Gondal vs Mst. Ghulam Sughra and 2 onmks1984 CLC 3493 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 5 Others vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 309 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and 4 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3063 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 931 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad alias Achhu and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1703 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 413 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-05
  dying declarationmurderkerosene burnsbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecorroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly killing his wife by sprinkling kerosene oil and setting her on fire. The prosecution's case rested primarily on a dying declaration recorded by the police and the testimony of two eye-witnesses. The trial court had already disbelieved the eye-witnesses and the recovery evidence, relying solely on the dying declaration for conviction. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the dying declaration and found it highly doubtful due to the extensive nature of the burns, which likely caused shock or unconsciousness, the absence of the doctor's signature or a consciousness certificate, and the potential for tutoring by present relatives. Applying established principles of evidence appreciation, the Court held that an uncorroborated and doubtful dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on a dying declaration if its genuineness and the declarant's mental capacity are doubtful?
  • What factors must a court consider when evaluating the reliability and truthfulness of a dying declaration?
  • Does the failure of the police to obtain a doctor's attestation or consciousness certificate affect the credibility of a dying declaration recorded in a hospital?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Muhammad Siddique and Others1984 CLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan vs Deputy Martial Law Administrator and Others1984 CLC 706 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan Tiwana vs Mst. Sadeeqa Begum and 4 Others1984 PLD Lahore 411 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2258 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and Others vs Mst. Balqees Begum and Others1984 CLC 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26
  ejectment petitionlandlord and tenant relationshipdefault in payment of rentsummary evictiondenial of titlerent restrictionwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the ejectment orders passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, which were issued immediately after determining the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller may summarily order eviction upon establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant without inquiring into the merits of the default or personal need claims, particularly when the tenant asserts that rent has been deposited. The Court held that while a contumacious denial of title may justify summary eviction, such an order is improper where the tenant provides evidence or a plausible defense of rent payment. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller is duty-bound to frame issues and record evidence regarding default and personal requirement in such instances to avoid injustice. The principle established is that summary eviction is not a substitute for a trial on merits when the tenant’s denial of title is not frivolous and is accompanied by claims of rent deposit, thereby necessitating a full adjudication of the eviction grounds under the relevant rent laws.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller order summary eviction immediately after finding the relationship of landlord and tenant exists without inquiring into the alleged default?
  • Does the denial of a landlord's title by a tenant automatically disentitle the tenant from leading evidence on the issue of rent payment?
  • Is the assignment of arrears of rent to a new owner a valid basis for seeking the eviction of a tenant under the rent laws?
  • When is a tenant entitled to a full trial on the merits of an eviction petition despite having denied the landlord's title?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and Another vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1984 MLD 1557 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Nasim Begum and 2 Others1984 CLC 1745 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-20
  constitutional petitiondefault in rentstriking off defencewilful defaulturban rent restrictionsecurity depositmistaken advice of counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders of the lower appellate authority and the Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant's defence was struck off and his ejectment from the disputed shop was ordered for a one-day delay in depositing the monthly rent. The core legal questions involve whether a one-day delay in rent deposit under a mistaken advice of counsel constitutes a wilful default under section 13(6) of the relevant rent restriction law, and whether the existence of a security deposit adjustable against arrears renders such a default merely technical. The Lahore High Court held that the delay occurred due to a bona fide mistake and the advice of counsel, lacking the element of negligence or wilful default necessary to warrant striking off defence. Furthermore, the court held that a technical default is mitigated where a security deposit is held by the landlord. The petition was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside as being without lawful authority, and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay of a single day in depositing monthly rent under the mistaken advice of counsel constitute a wilful default under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Whether the mere non-compliance of a rent deposit order automatically obligiges the Rent Controller to strike off the tenant's defence without proof of negligence?
  • Can the existence of a security deposit held by the landlord transform a delay in rent payment into a mere technical default precluding summary ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1984 CLC 1389 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and another vs The State1984 MLD 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1984 MLD 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Amjad Hussain Chughtai and 2 Others1984 PLD Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Thorugh Legal Representatives vs Additional District1984 CLC 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ashraf1984 CLC 2708 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and others vs The State1984 MLD 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and Others vs Sharifan Bibi1984 CLC 945 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 19 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs Barkat Ali and Another1984 CLC 2223 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs Mst. Begum Bib1 and others1984 MLD 1239 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 730 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Raza vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3244 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1984 MLD 220 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 836 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal Khan vs The State1984 MLD 1312 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajmal and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3015 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State1984 MLD 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs S.U.O. and others1984 MLD 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2653 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 7 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afz Al vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1815 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aezal vs Abdul Karim and Others1984 CLC 1406 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2103 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas vs Muhammad Riaz and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1753 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhamma D Mansha and Others vs Government of the Punjab and Others1984 CLC 2231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-27
  quo warrantodisqualification of government servantlocal council electionnomination papersresignation from serviceretrospective acceptance of resignation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought to restrain the notification of a returned candidate in a local council election on the ground that he was a government servant and therefore disqualified from contesting. The core legal question was whether a candidate who tendered his resignation from government service prior to the filing of nomination papers, but whose resignation was formally accepted after the filing date with retrospective effect, remained subject to the disqualification under the relevant local government law. The Lahore High Court held that since the resignation was duly tendered within the permissible notice period and subsequently accepted to take effect from the date of tendering in accordance with the terms of service, the respondent had effectively shed his disqualification before the crucial date. The court established that a resignation tendered in time and accepted to be effective from the date of submission removes a candidate's disqualification under the local government laws, rendering them eligible to contest the election.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government servant who tenders his resignation before filing nomination papers is disqualified from contesting local council elections if the resignation is accepted after the filing date?
  • Can a resignation from government service be accepted with effect from the date of its submission in accordance with the terms of appointment?
  • At what point in time must a candidate be free from disqualifications to contest a local council election?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhamm Ad Ashraf vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 253 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muham Mad Rafique and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-06Read full judgment →
• Muham Mad Ali alias Mahanda and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muham Ma D Rashid vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3062 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muha Mmad Bakhsh vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3041 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muha MM a D Wa Ris vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1902 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muha MM a D Naeem and 2 oTHERS vs Tue State1984 P Cr. L J 283 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muha M Mad Ra M Zan and Others vs Noor Muhammad and Others1984 CLC 474 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muh Ammad Idris vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 738 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muh a MM a D SH Afi and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1850 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mu N Ir H Ussa I N vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2439 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mu H Am Mad Mushtaq vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 980 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
• Mst.Shahida Khan vs Abdul Rehim Khan and 2 Others1984 PLD Lahore 365 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-30
  khuladissolution of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightsirretrievable breakdown of marriagefamily lawwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two writ petitions challenging the dismissal of a wife's suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula and the granting of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the husband. The core legal question is whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the plea of khula by failing to adequately consider evidence of the wife's intense aversion and the irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The Court held that the lower courts treated the issue of khula in a perfunctory manner, ignoring material evidence regarding the wife's mental state and the persistent nature of the marital rift. The Court established that if a wife has firmly decided not to live with her husband, and the court is satisfied that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, forcing the woman to remain in a hateful union is contrary to the principles of khula. It is not necessary for the wife to prove specific, rational causes for her hatred; the court's primary duty is to determine if the parties can perform their marital obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for a wife seeking khula to prove specific, rational causes for her aversion to her husband?
  • Does the existence of children from a marriage preclude the granting of a decree for khula?
  • What is the primary duty of a court when considering a plea for khula based on the wife's hatred for her husband?
  • Can a court interfere with findings of fact regarding cruelty and non-maintenance in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst.Shafqat Naz vs Samuel Javaid Iqbal1984 MLD 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 897 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Parveen vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Parveen vs Babu and others1984 MLD 1231 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraya Bibi vs Sher Muhammad and Another1984 CLC 2200 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraiya Mirza and Others vs Muhammad Saeed and Others1984 CLC 2304 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sheran Bibi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shatabi and Others vs A. C./Collector Kasur and Other1984 CLC 1418 · Lahore High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharman vs Superintendent, Darul Aman and Others1984 P Cr. L J 343 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Mai and another vs The State1984 MLD 1578 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Bibi and others vs The State and others1984 P Cr. L J 2522 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen Khakwani vs Mst. Taskeen Khakwani and 4 Others1984 CLC 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Seema vs Abdul Majeed and Others1984 P Cr. L J 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Bib! and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1048 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Bibi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeedan vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others1984 MLD 448 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saadia Bibi vs Iqbal Masih and 2 others1984 MLD 473 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rizwana Bokhari vs Abdul Majeed Shah and another1984 P Cr. L J 2582 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-14
  habeas corpuscustody of minorhizanatSection 491 CrPCguardianshipwelfare of minormaternal custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was filed by a mother seeking the recovery of her six-year-old son from the custody of the paternal grandfather and uncle. The respondents contended that the minor was in their custody pursuant to a family settlement and that a guardianship petition was already pending before the Guardian Judge, thereby ousting the High Court’s jurisdiction. The Court held that under Islamic law, the mother is entitled to the Hizanat (custody) of a male child until he reaches the age of seven. The Court affirmed that it possesses two-fold jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898: to deal with a person according to law and to set them at liberty if illegally detained. Even where a guardianship petition is pending, the High Court may exercise its powers to restore custody to the lawful guardian to prevent delay. The minor’s stated preference to remain with the grandfather was disregarded due to his tender age. The Court ordered the restoration of custody to the mother, without prejudice to the pending guardianship proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to determine the custody of a minor when a guardianship petition is pending before a Guardian Judge?
  • Is a mother entitled to the Hizanat of a male child under the age of seven years under Islamic law?
  • Can a minor's expressed preference to live with a relative override the mother's right to custody when the minor is under seven years of age?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rivi vs Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 2 others1984 MLD 464 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Bibi vs Mst. Zubaida Khanum and 3 others1984 MLD 269 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashidan Bibi vs Shafi Muhammad1984 CLC 112 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rani vs Riaz Ahmad Khan and Others1984 P Cr. L J 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Akhtar vs Ghulam Sarwar Khan and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1329 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nooran vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1857 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan vs Abdul Razzaq Shah1984 CLC 2220 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naziran Bibi vs Muhammad Roshan and 2 Others1984 CLC 3330 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Mai vs Shahada T1984 MLD 1507 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majidan Khanum vs District Judge, Vehari1984 CLC 3270 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10
  revisional jurisdictionpre-presentation noticeappeal versus revisionlimitation in revisionlachesinterlocutory orderremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged two orders of the District Judge, Vehari, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The first revision petition was dismissed on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-presentation notice requirements under Order XLIII Rules 3 and 4 CPC, while the second revision petition was dismissed as time-barred. The core legal questions were whether Order XLIII Rules 3 and 4 CPC apply to revisional proceedings under Section 115 CPC, and whether a revision petition can be dismissed as barred by time under the Limitation Act.

  The Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition, holding that Order XLIII Rules 3 and 4 CPC govern appeals under Order XLIII read with Section 104 CPC and do not extend to revisions under Section 115 CPC. The Court further held that no period of limitation is prescribed for revisional applications, distinguishing statutory limitation from the equitable doctrine of laches. The impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority and the matter was remanded for decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Do the notice requirements under Order XLIII Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to revision petitions under Section 115 CPC?
  • Can a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act?
  • What is the legal distinction between statutory limitation and the doctrine of laches in revisional proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Lakhan vs Abdul Rehman and Others1984 P Cr. L J 2102 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs DR. Muhammad Rafiq and Others1984 P Cr. L J 1530 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →