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.

• Ilam Din and 44 Others vs Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab1984 CLC 221 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-15Read full judgment →
• Ikramullah Khan vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ikramullah Khan vs Muhammad Umar1984 CLC 645 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-04
  ejectmentbona fide personal usesecond appeallandlord and tenantabatement of appeallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by the appellant landlord against the respondent tenant regarding a workshop. The core legal questions involve whether the appeal abates under the amending Ordinance of 1980, whether the appeal is barred by limitation due to omitting certain certified copies, and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The Lahore High Court held that the appeal did not abate as it was filed before the relevant cutoff, and condoned the omission of the certified copies of the Rent Controller's orders. However, on the merits, the court upheld the appellate authority's finding that the landlord's claim was not bona fide, noting discrepancies between the ejectment petition and testimony regarding whether the premises were for the father or the son, the omission of personal need in the initial notice, and the unexplained availability of another vacant property. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs. The key principle laid down is that contradictory pleadings regarding personal use, improvements in the landlord's case during trial, and failure to explain vacant properties undermine the bona fides of a personal requirement claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal filed in 1978 abate under the amending Ordinance of 1980?
  • Can the omission to append certified copies of the Rent Controller's orders to a second appeal be condoned?
  • Does the omission of personal need in an initial notice to quit vitiate a subsequent bona fide personal use claim?
  • Is a landlord's claim for personal use affected by failing to explain the availability of another vacant property?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikhtiar Hussain and Anothers vs Qamaruzzaman1984 CLC 3298 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain vs Haji Muhammad Hussain and 3 Others1984 CLC 1322 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Ahmad vs The State1984 MLD 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and Another1984 PLD Lahore 69 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-03
  banking courtsuperintendence and controlsubordinate courtjudicial powerconstitutional petitionadministrative tribunalbanking recovery of loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a constitutional petition filed under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, read with the Provisional Constitution Order 1981, challenging an order passed by a Special Judge under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, which had withdrawn an attachment warrant and directed the petitioner to pay a decreed loan amount in a lump sum. The core legal questions examined by the Lahore High Court were whether a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 constitutes a court subordinate to the High Court, and the nature and scope of the High Court's power of superintendence and control under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the Special Banking Court is indeed a court exercising judicial power and is a court subordinate to the High Court, and that the power of superintendence and control under Article 203 encompasses both administrative and judicial superintendence. However, finding no miscarriage of justice or illegality warranting interference, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 a court subordinate to the High Court?
  • Does the power of superintendence and control conferred on the High Court under Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include judicial as well as administrative superintendence?
  • What are the defining characteristics that distinguish a judicial court from an administrative tribunal under the constitutional framework of Pakistan?
  • Can a High Court interfere with the orders of a subordinate court under its constitutional power of superintendence in the absence of a miscarriage of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrar Asghar vs District Magistrate, Gujrat and Another1984 CLC 3361 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
• Hussain Shah and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 695 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• Humayun Khan vs Messrs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and 21984 PLD Lahore 35 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
• Huhammd Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 922 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah vs District Judge, Sialkot and 7 Others1984 CLC 1472 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2278 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Hazur Bak HSH, vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2503 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-19Read full judgment →
• Hassan Shah and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-11Read full judgment →
• Hashim and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2491 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-19Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and 4 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
• Haq Naw Az vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1085 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
• Hamid and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1057 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
• Halim Sarwar vs S. H. 0. Police, Head Marala and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 2993 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-10
  constitutional petitionregistration of criminal casefirst information reportcognizable offencecross-versionpolice duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed seeking a writ to direct the respondent police authorities to register a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an incident where the petitioner's party sustained numerous serious injuries, while the opposing party allegedly maneuvered to have a first information report registered first. The core legal question was whether the police are bound to register a second first information report containing a cross-version or a distinct grievance of the same occurrence when one first information report has already been recorded at the instance of the other party. The Lahore High Court held that the police are under a statutory duty to record information disclosing a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and cannot refuse to register a counter-version or a separate grievance merely because an initial first information report was already registered. The court established that where parties present distinct grievances rather than mere defensive counter-versions, the registration of a cross-first information report is necessary to ensure justice and prevent the aggrieved party from being left without a proper remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police bound to register a first information report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Can the police refuse to register a second first information report or a cross-version of an occurrence merely because an initial first information report has already been registered at the instance of the other party?
  • Whether a party presenting a distinct grievance by way of a cross-version is entitled to the registration of a formal first information report rather than being relegated solely to a private complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Najmul Haq and Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property and Others1984 CLC 1187 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-16Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Khurshid Ahmad and 5 others vs The State1984 MLD 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
• Hakam Ali vs Saudagar and Others1984 P Cr. L J 910 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Zulfiqar Ahmad vs Mumtaz Muhammad Khan1984 CLC 619 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Sohna alias Ramzan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Sardar Muhammad Khan and others vs Board of Revenue, Lahore1984 MLD 454 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2321 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs Haji Jan Muhammad1984 CLC 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Tariq vs Muhammad Naveeduzzafar Malik, Additional1984 PLD Lahore 502 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-12
  election petitiondisqualification of candidatethrowing away votessubversive activitiesconstitutional jurisdictionpenal statute strict constructionno evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Election Tribunal setting aside the election of the petitioner to a seat in the Lahore Municipal Corporation and declaring the rival candidate elected. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner suffered from disqualifications under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 due to alleged political party affiliation or involvement in subversive activities, and whether the principle of "throwing away votes" was rightly applied. The Lahore High Court held that the findings of the Election Tribunal were based on no positive evidence, as unproven assertions, unproduced newspaper reports, and ambiguous conviction records without proof of moral turpitude or subversive acts were insufficient to establish disqualification. The Court ruled that statutory provisions depriving a valuable right of franchise must be strictly construed, and in the absence of evidence, the Tribunal's finding was without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that disqualifications from contesting elections must be established by positive, reliable evidence, and findings based on surmises or no evidence are amenable to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an election tribunal's finding of candidate disqualification based on no positive evidence is open to judicial review in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can provisions of a statute that deprive a person of the right of franchise be construed liberally?
  • Whether the principle of throwing away votes can be applied when a candidate's alleged disqualification is not notorious and unproven at the time of election?
  • Does a conviction for raising slogans without proof of an offence involving moral turpitude or subversive activities attract disqualification under section 21 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Siddiq vs Aurangzeb and Others1984 PLD Lahore 375 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sadiq and Others vs K H Air Ati1984 CLC 2239 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04
  evacuee propertynatural justicenecessary partywrit jurisdictionletters patent appealsettlement authoritiesrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of an evacuee property in Okara between local claimants and a non-claimant respondent. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had transferred the property to the appellants in a revision petition where the respondent was not impleaded, while simultaneously dismissing the respondent's own revision petition on technical grounds. The respondent challenged these orders via a writ petition, which a Single Judge accepted, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the case. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could grant relief not specifically prayed for in a writ petition and whether the respondent was a necessary party to the appellants' revision proceedings. The Court held that the respondent was indeed a necessary party, and the failure to implead him violated principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it could permit amendments to pleadings to grant effective relief, ensuring that technicalities do not defeat the ends of justice. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the remand order for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party who has contested the transfer of property before lower settlement authorities a necessary party to a revision petition filed by the opposing party?
  • Can the High Court permit the amendment of a writ petition to include a challenge to an order not specifically prayed for, in order to grant effective relief?
  • Does the failure to implead a necessary party in revision proceedings before the Chief Settlement Commissioner constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Faqir Ali vs Siraj Din and Another1984 CLC 1004 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Dur Muhammad vs Malik Muhammad Akram1984 P Cr. L J 2308 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
• Haji and Others vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1984 CLC 1167 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
• Haji and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1080 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdur Rehman vs Ghltlam Hassan and Another1984 CLC 572 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah vs Pakistan and Others1984 CLC 1270 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Sultan and Another vs Naika1984 PLD Lahore 342 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-16Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Nazir Ahmad vs Muhammad Siddique and Others1984 CLC 3328 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Abdul Aziz vs Anticorruption Committee and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1007 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• Hafazat Ali Shah vs The State1984 PLD Lahore 494 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-25Read full judgment →
• Habib vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2474 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Workers' Union vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Others1984 PLC 1667 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Staff Union vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1984 PLC 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Ijaz Ahmad Butt and Others1984 PLC 253 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
• H. Mumtaz vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1984 MLD 421 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• H a Bi B vs The State1984 MLD 1414 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
• Gulander Khan and another vs Province of Punjab and 3 others1984 MLD 206 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• Gulab Din and 4 others vs Ibrahim Ali Khan and 12 others1984 MLD 361 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
• Gul Habib vs Federation of Pakistan and another1984 MLD 418 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Gul Anar and others vs The State1984 MLD 1336 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
• Gujjan Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
• Government Transport Service through Chairman,Government1984 PLC 101 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan vs Muhammad Nisar and Others1984 CLC 2310 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2040 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Mst. Muniran and Others1984 CLC 1688 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Khan vs Assistant Commissioner and Others1984 CLC 909 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar and Others vs Haji Muhammad Ali and Others1984 CLC 172 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2588 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-21
  bailfurther inquirymurdergrave and sudden provocationpolice remandjudicial remandchallanadjournment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a bail application filed by two co-accused in a double-murder case registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners abducted and murdered the male deceased and the wife of petitioner Ghulam Sarwar over an alleged illicit relationship. The petitioners argued grave and sudden provocation, unexplained delay in the FIR, and illegal detention due to mechanical remands. The High Court held that evaluating grave and sudden provocation was premature at the bail stage. On the merits, medical evidence established that fatal injuries were inflicted with a sharp-edged weapon attributed to Ghulam Sarwar, who was witnessed holding a blood-stained knife, thereby disallowing his bail. Conversely, co-accused Allah Bakhsh, armed only with a lathi causing non-fatal minor injuries and not seen striking the deceased, was admitted to bail as his case called for further inquiry. Additionally, the Court issued comprehensive mandatory guidelines governing the lawful grant of remands and adjournments by Magistrates under Sections 167 and 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the plea of grave and sudden provocation can be determined and appreciated at the pre-trial bail stage?
  • Whether an accused armed with a blunt weapon is entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry when fatal injuries are solely attributable to a co-accused wielding a sharp-edged weapon?
  • What statutory procedures and guidelines must a Magistrate strictly follow when granting police or judicial remand under Section 167 and Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What course of action must a Magistrate adopt if the police fail to submit a complete or incomplete challan after the expiry of the initial 15 days of remand?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Saman Mas vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sakhi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sabir vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 680 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Naseeruddin, and 6 Others1984 P Cr. L J 2041 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and others vs The ST Ate1984 MLD 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1984 MLD 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State and 2 others1984 P Cr. L J 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Nab1 Khan1984 CLC 2441 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Haji Barkat Ali and 2 others1984 MLD 28 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Ha Snat Ahmad1984 CLC 1500 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool alias Rangeela vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2528 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1870 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nasir vs Election Tribunal/Deputy Commissioner and others1984 MLD 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1984 MLD 468 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and another vs The State1984 MLD 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and Another vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 675 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and Another vs Khairati and Others1984 CLC 2145 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and 4 Others vs Ghulam Sarwar and Others1984 CLC 1254 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and 3 others vs The ST a T E1984 MLD 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Dilawar and Others1984 CLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2487 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mujtaba vs Mst. Naeema Khan Um1984 CLC 1458 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Zubaida Begum and 12 Others1984 CLC 874 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The StatePTCL 1984 (CL) 324 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and otherss vs Muhammad Sharif and others1984 CLC 2718 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 423 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad alias Mamman vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1866 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohyuddin Khan and Others vs Barkat. Ali and Others1984 CLC 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani vs Election Tribunal, Shahpur Sadarand 4 Others1984 CLC 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1424 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 5 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1807 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hazoor vs The State1984 MLD 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hassan vs Muhammad Shah1984 CLC 1684 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hassan vs Master Majid1984 CLC 670 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 478 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali and 5 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1151 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulab Shah and Others vs Settlement Commissioner and Others1984 CLC 1412 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulab Din vs Collector/D. C., Kasur and Others1984 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and 2 Others vs Habib Bank Ltd.1984 PLD Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-12
  banking courtleave to defendrecovery of loanstriable issuespeaking orderremand of casesummary judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Special Judge (Banking) in a recovery suit filed by Habib Bank Limited against the appellants, which included the Ghee Corporation of Pakistan. The appellants had applied for permission to defend the suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with section 7(2) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, raising substantial questions of law and fact, including jurisdictional issues and the discharge of debt through pledged receipts. The Special Court summarily rejected the application and decreed the suit on the same day without adverting to the raised pleas. The Lahore High Court held that the Special Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in a judicial manner and neglected to pass a speaking order reflecting an objective application of mind to the triable issues. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment, decree, and intermediate order, and remanded the case back to the Special Court for a fresh decision on the application in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a defendant raising substantial questions of law and fact is entitled to permission to defend a banking recovery suit?
  • Does a laconic order refusing leave to defend without addressing the defendant's pleas vitiate the subsequent judgment and decree?
  • Can an appellate court examine the correctness of intermediate orders affecting the final decision of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghani Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 261 · Lahore High Court · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →