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.

• Nayyaz Zaman and Another vs The State1983 P Cr: L J 2476(1) · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Khan Niazi vs Punjab Government and Others1983 CLC 3168 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
• Nawab vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2201 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1939 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-20Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Employees' Union vs The Chairman. Punjab1983 PLC 1256 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• Nathoo vs Muhammad Aslam1983 CLC 2817 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
• Nathanial Naz vs Additional District Magistrate, %Alma' and AnotherPLD 1983 Lahore.244 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
• Nasir Nazeer vs Lahore Board of Intermediate and Secondary1983 CLC 2394 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
• Nasir Malik vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and ANOTHERs1983 CLC 748 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood vs Mustajabi Begum1983 CLC 2872 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-12
  ejectmentsublettingbona fide requirementpartnershiprent controllandlord and tenantreconstruction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhang, against the appellants regarding a shop. The landlady sought eviction on grounds of subletting and the requirement of the premises for personal use and reconstruction. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the application, but the appellate court reversed this, finding evidence of subletting and valid reconstruction requirements. Upon review, the High Court examined the evidence regarding the alleged sub-tenancy and the bona fide nature of the landlady's requirement. The Court held that the mere induction of partners into a business by a tenant does not constitute subletting, as the tenant retains legal possession and no interest in the immovable property is transferred. Furthermore, the Court found that the landlady's claim for reconstruction was not bona fide but was a pretext to increase rent, noting her failure to rebut allegations of rent enhancement demands. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order, concluding that the grounds for ejectment were not established, and dismissed the landlady's application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the induction of a partner into a business by a tenant constitute subletting under rent control laws?
  • Is a landlord's claim for reconstruction considered bona fide if the primary intent is to increase rent?
  • Does the mere use of premises by a partner while the lessee retains legal possession amount to a sub-lease?
  • Can a court of appeal interfere with a finding of fact if the lower court failed to discuss the evidence on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1039 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• Nasir A. Sheikh vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1983 PTD 287 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
• Nasim Shafi vs Tanveer and Others1983 CLC 290 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
• Nasim Akhtar vs Riaz Hussain Shah-1983 P Cr. LJ 2005 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Naqvi Muhammad Abbas vs Admission Board for 'Admissions' to 1ST1983 CLC 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04
  medical college admissioneligibility certificateequivalence of qualificationsadmission board authorityconstitutional petitionadministrative discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition concerns the refusal of admission to the First Year M.B., B.S. class by the Admission Board. The petitioner, having completed 12 years of education in Nigeria, challenged the rejection of his application, arguing that his qualification was equivalent to the F.Sc. (Pre-Medical) standard as certified by the University of the Punjab. The core legal question was whether the Principal of King Edward Medical College possessed the unilateral authority to reject the petitioner's application, and whether the petitioner's eligibility certificate from the University of the Punjab was binding. The Court held that the Admission Board, not the Principal in his individual capacity, is the sole competent authority to grant or refuse admission. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Admission Board failed to record reasons for rejection as required by the prospectus. The Court affirmed that the University of the Punjab is the exclusive authority for determining qualification equivalence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application in light of the eligibility certificate and the proper procedural requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Principal of a medical college competent to unilaterally reject an admission application without the Admission Board's involvement?
  • Does the Admission Board have an obligation to record reasons when refusing admission to a candidate?
  • Which authority is competent to determine the equivalence of foreign educational qualifications for medical college admission in Punjab?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Alias Mushtaq vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan vs Yarn1983 CLC 1469 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Beg and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2482 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Abbas and Another vs University of the Punjab and 21983 CLC 1333 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mustafa and Another vs Yaqoob Sheikh for the State.1983 PCr. LJ 1712 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain vs Muhammad Shafi1983 CLC 2813 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Alias Billo vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 288 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
• Musa vs The State1983 PCr.LJ 16 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
• Mureed Hussain and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2020 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
• Murad-- vs Allah Dad1983 CLC 2840 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-25Read full judgment →
• Munshi vs Khawaja Mahmood Sadiq and Another1983 CLC 609 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-09Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 751 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain and Others vs Mst. Shai Khela and Others1983 CLC 2794 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs The State- Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 2343 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 85 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-29Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Mistri Siraj Din and Others1983 CLC 2789 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Munawar Sultana (through Her Legal Representatives) vs Siddique1983 CLC 2791 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
• Munawar and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2075 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1983 CLC 81 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs The State\1983 P Cr. L J 909 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Begum and Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha. and Others1983 CLC 586 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mulaim vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2160 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Hussain and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 641 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 284 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad and Another vs Muhammad Ali and 5 Others1983 CLC 2019 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhib Ali and Others vs Additional District Judge, Sahiwal and Others1983 CLC 2327 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad. Arif and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 20 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 21983 PLD Lahore 576 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Fateh Shah1983 CLC 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman Khan vs District Judge and Others1983 CLC 3165 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusaf Zaki vs Ch. Muhammad Zafarullah, Civil Judge and others1983 CLC 2224 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 305 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Nawab Din and Another1983 CLC 1961 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Liaquat Hayat and Others1983 CLC 1944 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas and 8 Others vs Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad and Another1983 CLC 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1682 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Mat. Rafia Bibi Rafia Sultana and Another1983 PLD Lahore 377 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-09
  Khuladissolution of marriagecivil liabilityfamily court procedureright to evidenceconditional decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a Family Court judgment that decreed the dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner, the husband, argued that the Family Court erred by closing his evidence after he failed to produce witnesses, and that the decree was conditional upon the return of specific ornaments, which he contended were not returned within the stipulated time, thereby rendering the decree ineffective. The Court examined whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing and whether the dissolution of marriage via Khula could be made conditional upon the return of benefits. The Court held that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to produce evidence and failed to do so, thus the closure of evidence was justified. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while a wife must return benefits to obtain Khula, the dissolution of marriage itself is not conditional upon such return. The return of benefits creates a civil liability, but failure to return them does not invalidate the decree of dissolution. The writ petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula be made conditional upon the return of benefits?
  • Does the failure to return benefits in a Khula decree invalidate the dissolution of marriage?
  • Is a Judge Family Court empowered to close the evidence of a party that fails to produce witnesses after being granted multiple opportunities?
  • Does the failure to submit a list of witnesses within the statutory period under the Family Courts Act 1964 preclude a party from summoning witnesses through the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Fateh Muhammad and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 486 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and Others vs Wali Muhammad and Others1983 PLD Lahore 253 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin and Others vs Muhammad Ismail1983 CLC 2958 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs Mst. Nooran ETc.1983 CLC 1948 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-17
  civil revisionfraud and misrepresentationpre-emptiondoctrine of mergerjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kasur, admitting an appeal and granting a status quo order in a matter concerning an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal question was whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging a judgment on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction can be filed before the Court of first instance when the final judgment in the matter was passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Lahore High Court held that a lower court's judgment merges into the judgment of the appellate or final court, and therefore an application under section 12(2) must be made to the court that passed the final judgment and not to the court of first instance. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order of the Additional District Judge was set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure can be filed before the court of first instance when the final judgment was passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Does a lower court's judgment merge into the judgment of the appellate court for the purpose of seeking a remedy under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  • What is the rationale behind the addition of subsection (2) to section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Khan and Others vs Land Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 1426 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yameen vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Walayat and Others vs Liaqat Hayat and Others1983 CLC 2598 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The Election Tribunal, Union Council/Deputy1983 CLC 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The State1983 P Cr.-L J 324 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs Punjab Province1983 CLC 2425 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2179 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Mahmood vs The State1983 PCr. L J 1654 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman. vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Abdul Karim and 8 Others1983 CLC 913 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-19
  rent restrictionstriking off defencewilful defaultbona fide mistakerent controllertenant's liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This Second Appeal from Order (S.A.O.) challenges concurrent orders by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which struck off the appellant-tenant's defence for failing to comply with a rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the tenant's failure to deposit the rent for June 1974 by the specified date constituted a wilful default warranting the striking off of the defence, or whether it resulted from a bona fide misunderstanding of the court's order. The Court held that the Rent Controller failed to exercise jurisdiction properly by not considering the tenant's plausible explanation for the delay, which arose from confusion regarding whether the June rent fell under 'arrears' or 'future rent'. The Court established that the penalty of striking off a defence is reserved for contumacious or wilful disobedience. Where a tenant offers a reasonable, bona fide explanation for non-compliance, the element of wilfulness is absent, and the court must apply a judicious approach rather than a perfunctory rejection of the tenant's plea.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bona fide misunderstanding of a rent deposit order negate the element of wilful default?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to provide a reasoned order when deciding to strike off a tenant's defence?
  • Can a defence be struck off under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 if the default in rent payment is not wilful?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2394 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 Others vs Registrar Cooperative Societies1983 CLC 1996 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Town Committee, Shahicot and Another1983 CLC 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1983 PCr. LJ 1817 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Begum Saleeman Moeez Khan1983 CLC 2411 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1766 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Others vs Muzaffar Iqbal and Others1983 CLC 3091 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Muhammad Ramzan and 4 Others1983 PLD Lahore 152 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Abdul Ghani and Another1983 CLC 2345 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2281 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Others vs Nazir Ahmad and Others1983 CLC 2266 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Others vs Kaneez Zohra Bibi1983 CLC 2541 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-19
  pre-emptiontemporary injunctiondefendant-vendeeproperty improvementbalance of convenienceirreparable losscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent orders of the trial court and the district court granting a temporary injunction in a pre-emption suit, which restrained the defendant-vendee from making improvements, specifically installing a tubewell, on the disputed land. The core legal question was whether a defendant-vendee in a pre-emption suit can be restrained via temporary injunction from making improvements on the property pending the outcome of the suit. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower courts' orders. The Court held that a defendant-vendee remains the full owner of the property until a pre-emption decree is passed and executed, and thus possesses an absolute right to enjoy the property. The Court established the principle that an injunction restraining a defendant from making improvements in a pre-emption suit is legally impermissible, as the defendant acts at their own risk regarding reimbursement for such improvements. Furthermore, the Court found that the plaintiff suffers no irreparable loss or injury by the defendant's improvements, rendering the issuance of an injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 improper.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction restraining a defendant-vendee from making improvements on land subject to a pre-emption suit?
  • Does a defendant-vendee in a pre-emption suit have the right to enjoy the property and make improvements before a decree is passed?
  • Is a defendant-vendee entitled to reimbursement for improvements made to property before having knowledge of a pending pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Another vs Election Tribunal, Multan and Another1983 CLC 3031 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31
  election petitiondismissal in defaultrestoration of petitioninherent jurisdictiontribunal powersconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Election Tribunal restoring an election petition that had been previously dismissed in default. The core legal question was whether an Election Tribunal possesses the inherent jurisdiction to restore a matter dismissed in default when not expressly authorized by the governing rules. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an adjudicating body or tribunal possesses the inherent jurisdiction to recall an order of dismissal for non-prosecution and restore the matter to prevent a failure of justice, unless such power is expressly taken away by statute. The key principle laid down is that courts and tribunals inherently possess all powers necessary to do justice between the parties and determine matters on merits unless restricted by express statutory provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Election Tribunal have the inherent jurisdiction to restore an election petition dismissed in default?
  • Can a court or tribunal recall an order of dismissal for non-prosecution if not expressly authorized by statute?
  • Does the absence of an express provision in the rules regarding restoration bar a tribunal from restoring a dismissed matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir and 2 Others vs The State and Another1983 PLD Lahore 91 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Muhammad Asghar1983 P Cr. L J 1885(1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs Tim State1983 PLD Lahore 619 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs Inayatullah1983 PLD Lahore 215 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salehoon vs Mst. Bilqis Begum and Others1983 CLC 1853 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 258 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Mazhar Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 101 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Etc.s vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 155 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1852 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs DR. Sultan Muhammad1983 CLC 2407 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Ahmed Khan and 2 Others vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 206 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-18
  legal representationdepartmental inquirynatural justiceright to counseldisciplinary proceedingsLahore Development Authoritycivil service rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by officers of the Water and Sanitation Agency (WASA), Lahore Development Authority (LDA), challenging the Inquiry Committee's refusal to allow them legal representation by counsel in departmental inquiry proceedings conducted under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975, as adopted via Regulation 22 of the LDA Appointment and Conditions of Service Regulations 1978. The core legal question was whether an employee facing disciplinary proceedings that could lead to dismissal is entitled to be represented by legal counsel, and whether Rule 7-B barring counsel representation validly restricts that right. The Lahore High Court held that the refusal to permit representation by counsel was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court declared that the right to a fair defence and cross-examination, guaranteed under principles of natural justice and Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, necessitates legal assistance, particularly given the technical complexities of law. Furthermore, administrative regulations non-statutory in nature cannot override Section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 or constitutional protections.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee facing departmental inquiry proceedings involving major penalties have a right to be represented by legal counsel under principles of natural justice?
  • Can executive rules or non-statutory regulations exclude an advocate's right to appear and plead under Section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973?
  • Whether the prohibition of legal representation contained in Rule 7-B of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 violates Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq+D12221 Akhtar Abbas and Another vs Jaffar and Another the State1983 P Cr. L J 2267 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 915 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Settlement Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 2550 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05
  Settlement Lawsmukhbari applicationrepeal of lawsjurisdictionconstitutional petitionallotment of landdeceased respondent
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner refusing to drop proceedings against the petitioners following a mukhbari application. The core legal questions were whether a mukhbari application filed against a deceased person is competent, and whether proceedings can be initiated or continued against parties impleaded after the repeal of all Settlement Laws. The Lahore High Court held that the mukhbari application filed against the deceased original allottee was incompetent. Furthermore, the Court ruled that because the petitioners were only impleaded as respondents in 1977, which was after the repeal of all Settlement Laws effective from 1st July 1974, the Settlement Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to proceed against them. Consequently, the Court declared the pending proceedings to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The judgment reinforces the principle that settlement proceedings cannot be initiated or maintained against new parties after the statutory repeal of the relevant Settlement Laws.

  Questions settled

  • Is a mukhbari application filed against a deceased person legally competent?
  • Can proceedings under Settlement Laws be initiated or continued against parties impleaded after the repeal of those laws?
  • Does a Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to proceed against parties impleaded after the effective date of the repeal of Settlement Laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and Others vs Shakila Jamil1983 CLC 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02
  pre-emption suitclosure of evidenceOrder XVII Rule 3deposit of decretal amountstay of executiontransposition of partiesOrder XX Rule 14
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal was filed by the plaintiffs-pre-emptors against a trial court decree in a pre-emption suit. The trial court decreed the suit subject to the deposit of the purchase price, expenses, and tube-well costs by a specified date, failing which the suit would stand dismissed, while also closing the plaintiffs' evidence under Order XVII Rule 3, CPC. The appellants challenged the closure of evidence and the enhancement of the decretal amount, while failing to deposit the purchase money or comply with interim orders of the Supreme Court granting conditional stay upon partial deposit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to deposit the decretal amount in a pre-emption suit after interim stay is refused results in the dismissal of the suit and the appeal?
  • Can a court properly close a party's evidence under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when time was explicitly granted on their own responsibility and they failed to produce witnesses or appear?
  • Whether a pro forma respondent in an appeal can be transposed as an appellant after the period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2230 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and 5 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue and 61983 CLC 941 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →