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 Sa Leem alias Seema vs Sardar Khan (Represented by Legal1983 CLC 2787 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Rashid Ahmad and Others1983 CLC 2376 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Muhammad Amir and Others1983 P Cr. L J 2392 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1501 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Khushi Muhammad1983 CLC 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rasheed vs Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and 21983 CLC 739 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Sarwar1983 P Cr. L J 2425 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Rafiq and Others1983 CLC 2837 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Janatan and 4 Others1983 CLC 1899 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore1983 PLD Lahore 372 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Abdul Hadi and Others1983 CLC 2820 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Ansari vs Government of Pakistan and Others1983 PLC (C.S.) 52 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Arif Ali and Another1983 CLC 1636 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique and Others vs Malik Khizar Hayat and Others1983 P Cr. L J 2011 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Ahmad vs Executive Board, United Bank Ltd. and 31983 PLC 96 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State-1983 PCr.LJ 2161 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Mehr Din and Others1983 CLC 3179 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi and Others vs Mst. Batoolan Bibi and Others1983 CLC 2517 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ra Fique vs MRS. Abdul Karim and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 96 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs Nook Elahi and 2 Others1983 P Cr. LJ 914 · Lahore High Court · 1983-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazeer and 4 Others vs The State1983 PCr. LJ 72 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The Station House Officer, C. I. A. Staff Police, Chiniot1983 P Cr. L J 630 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1726 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1580 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and 2 Others vs The Assistant1983 PLD Lahore 178 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-22
  land acquisitionurgency clauseWAPDApublic purposedefinition of companyjudicial reviewsubjective satisfactionSection 17(4)
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a notification issued under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 by the Commissioner, Lahore Division, dispensing with the application of Section 5-A objections on the ground of urgency for acquiring land for WAPDA to construct a grid station. The petitioners contended that WAPDA was a company under Section 3(e) of the Act and that the mandatory provisions of Section 39 had not been complied with prior to invoking Section 17(4). They further argued that no urgency existed and that the Commissioner's decision was subject to judicial review. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that although WAPDA falls within the definition of a company under Section 3(e) as an entity incorporated by a Pakistani law, where land acquisition is for a public purpose for a company simpliciter, prior compliance with Section 39 is not mandatory before invoking Section 17(4). Furthermore, the Court held that the forming of an opinion as to urgency under Section 17(4) is an executive function based on subjective satisfaction, which is immune from judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Does WAPDA constitute a company under Section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is prior compliance with Section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 mandatory before invoking Section 17(4) when acquiring land for a public purpose for a company simpliciter?
  • Is the opinion formed by the Commissioner regarding urgency under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 subject to judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musa vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2048 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir and Others vs Muhammad Shafi1983 CLC 2404 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mosawwar Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala1983 PLD Lahore 102 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-08
  constitutional petitionoctroi auctionmisreading of evidenceprinciples of natural justicedoctrine of severabilitywithout lawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, which set aside the auction of octroi collection for the year 1982-83 in favor of the petitioner. The core legal questions involve whether an administrative order based on an erroneous assumption of fact and misreading of record is sustainable, and whether an order passed without notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice can be maintained. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was vitiated due to a clear misreading of documentary evidence regarding auction amounts, reliance on a bad reason which could not be severed under the doctrine of severability, and a violation of the principles of natural justice by failing to issue notice to the petitioner. The court laid down the principle that an administrative order partly based on a material misreading of fact and passed without affording an opportunity of hearing is without lawful authority, and that where bad reasons cannot be severed from good reasons, the entire order must be struck down.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrative order based on a misreading of documentary evidence is liable to be set aside?
  • Does an order passed without notice to the affected party violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can the doctrine of severability be applied to separate good reasons from bad reasons in an administrative order where the extent of the impact of the bad reason is indeterminate?
  • What is the effect on an administrative order when it is found to be partly based on erroneous assumptions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2245 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and 2 Others vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 622 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2543 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Malik vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad through Its Chairman and 2 Others1983 CLC 2833 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and Another vs Pehalwan and Others1983 CLC 404 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1806 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jan and Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Etc.1983 CLC 605 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamshed Ali and Others vs Ghulam Mustafa and Others1983 CLC 209 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1983 CLC 406 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1341 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque and Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Kasur and Others1983 P Cr. L J 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Rationing Controller and Others1983 CLC 3040 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq and Others vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Vehari and Others1983 CLC 1824 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2426 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Isa vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The STATEs1983 P Cr. L J 1351 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-12
  Customs Actsmuggled goldburden of proofreasonable suspicionconfiscation of goodsSarafa Bazaracquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the judgment of the Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, convicting the appellant under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act 1969 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment, fine, and whipping after he was intercepted carrying 2,000 tolas of gold. The primary legal question before the High Court was whether the prosecution had established reasonable belief or suspicion that the seized gold was smuggled so as to shift the statutory burden of proof onto the accused under Section 156(1)(89) and Section 156(2) of the Customs Act. The High Court observed that while the statute shifts the onus of proof to the accused, this shift occurs only after the prosecution successfully establishes foundational facts giving rise to a reasonable belief or suspicion of smuggling. Given that the appellant and his family were established gold merchants, the gold lacked foreign markings, and gold of similar purity was locally available, mere possession did not raise suspicion. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • When does the burden of proof shift to an accused person under Section 156(1)(89) and Section 156(2) of the Customs Act?
  • Whether the mere possession of a large quantity of unmarked gold by a verified gold merchant is sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion of smuggling?
  • Can a conviction under the Customs Act be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish preliminary grounds for believing the seized goods were smuggled?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Sardar Sakhawat Din and Others1983 CLC 2975 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission1983 CLC 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inayat and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 108 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ILYASs vs Zarina1983 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-17
  transfer of family suitordinary residencerecovery of dowerrestitution of conjugal rightsconvenience of lady litigantjurisdiction of Family Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 25-A(1) of the W. P. Family Courts Act, 1964 seeking the transfer of a suit for recovery of dower from Shorkot to Lahore to be heard alongside the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question involves determining whether the wife ordinarily resides at Shorkot for the purposes of jurisdiction under Rule 6 of the W. P. Family Courts Rules, 1965, and whether the husband's earlier institution of a suit or convenience warrants transferring the wife's suit. The Lahore High Court held that the wife was ordinarily residing at Shorkot with her brother, that the convenience of a lady litigant is a dominant factor in transfer applications under family law, and that the husband's earlier filing of a suit does not impede the wife's choice of forum or justify transfer. The application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the convenience of a lady litigant is a dominant factor in deciding transfer applications under the W. P. Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Does the institution of a suit by the husband earlier in time prevent the transfer of his suit to the place where the wife subsequently institutes her suit?
  • How is the ordinary residence of a wife determined for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction under Rule 6 of the W. P. Family Courts Rules, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1824(1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikram and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Muhammad Shafi and Another1983 CLC 818 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Salamati Begum and 2 Others1983 CLC 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 366 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Havaldar Muhammad Ilyas and 3 Others1983 CLC 963 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-19
  pre-emptionborder area landMartial Law Regulationtenant rightsright of substitutionagricultural landconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land allotted under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959, situated in a border area. The petitioner, a tenant, sought to pre-empt a sale made by an allottee to army personnel. The lower appellate courts dismissed the suit, reasoning that border area land sales were restricted to army personnel and required General Headquarters approval, thereby barring pre-emption. The core legal question was whether such a sale, once proprietary rights are obtained, remains subject to the right of pre-emption. The High Court held that the right of pre-emption is a right of substitution, not re-purchase, and that statutory restrictions on alienation do not preclude a pre-emptor from exercising their right under the law. The Court ruled that the pre-emptor merely steps into the shoes of the vendee, and the prohibition on direct sale does not apply to the enforcement of a pre-emption decree. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, declaring the lower appellate orders illegal and restoring the trial court's decree in favor of the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sale of agricultural land by an allottee under Martial Law Regulation No. 9 of 1959 subject to the right of pre-emption?
  • Does the restriction on the sale of land in border areas to army personnel bar a tenant from exercising the right of pre-emption?
  • Is the right of pre-emption considered a right of re-purchase or a right of substitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 674 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Manzoor Hussain1983 CLC 3154 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2537 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Others vs Member; Board of Revenue and Others1983 CLC 425 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Others vs Abdul Aziz1983 CLC 2785 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1983 PCr. L J 1573 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs District Judge/Election Tribunal, Multan and1983 CLC 2965 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25
  constitutional petitionelection petitiondismissal in defaultrestoration applicationelection tribunalcivil procedureimplied powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Muhammad Hanif to challenge the order of the Election Tribunal, which held that an application for the restoration of an election petition previously dismissed in default was not maintainable. The core legal question was whether an application for the restoration of an election petition dismissed in default by an Election Tribunal is competent and maintainable in law. The Lahore High Court held that the application for restoration is maintainable, ruling that since the Election Tribunal has the powers of a Civil Court and follows the procedure for the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable. The key principle laid down is that in procedural law, what is not expressly excluded is impliedly permitted, and where election rules apply the procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure, remedies such as restoration of petitions dismissed in default are available unless expressly barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for restoration of an election petition dismissed in default by the Election Tribunal is competent and maintainable in law?
  • Does the Election Tribunal possess the power to apply Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for restoring an election petition dismissed in default?
  • Whether the absence of an express provision for restoration in the election rules implies the exclusion of the power to restore a petition dismissed in default?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and Another vs The State1983 P Cr.L J 2311 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2032 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs Abdul Sattar1983 CLC 3166 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib and Others vs Ibrahim and Others1983 CLC 438 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faz1l vs Ch. Nazir Ahmad and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 540 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Syed Irshad Ali Shah and 2 OTHERs1983 CLC 804 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Mst. Amna Khatoon and 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 323 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Maqsood Ahmad and Another1983 CLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bilal vs Nasim Akhtar and Others1983 CLC 2390 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1812 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Allah Dad and Another1983 CLC 1309 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and 6 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1955 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baran and 5 Others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land)1983 CLC 765 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 55 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and Others vs Province of Punjab and Others1983 CLC 448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baga Khan vs Chairman, Lahore Improvement Trust and Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 73 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore1983 CLC 915 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Yunus and Another1983 CLC 2304 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1422 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Hashmi vs WAPDA and Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 935 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and Another vs Assistant Collector1983 CLC 408 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Alias Asloo and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 844 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore1983 CLC 2509 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2432 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2002 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1840 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Khan vs Ghulam Rasul and Another1983 PLD Lahore 110 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and Another vs The State1983 PCr. LJ 1567 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2474 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State--1983 P Cr. L J 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Punjab Province and Others1983 CLC 576 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-29Read full judgment →