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.

• Ch. Muhammad Aslam vs The Regional Transport Authority, Multan1983 CLC 2956 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Aslam and Another vs Regional Transport Authority, Multan and 3 Others s1983 CLC 1137 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ch. M. Sharif Mumtaz vs Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala and Others1983 CLC 2417 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Hashmat Ali vs Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sialkot1983 CLC 1940 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ghulam Sarwar and Others vs Muhammad Sarwar and Others1983 CLC 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ch. Fateh Muhammad vs Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sargodha and 4 Others1983 CLC 899 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdur Rashid and Another vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and 3 Others1983 CLC 744 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Shakoor vs Water and Power Development Authority and Another1983 PLD Lahore 404 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Hamid vs Settlement Commissioner Lahore and 3 Others1983 CLC 1968 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Abdul Hameed and Comm vs National Bank of Pakistan and Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 61 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
• Captain DR. Muhammad Rafiq vs Muhammad Abdul Hayee1983 CLC 237 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• Capt. Ch. Ghulam Rasool Randhawa and Another vs Ali Muhammad1983 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Brig. Muhammad Ishaq and 6 Others vs Punjab Province through Collector and Others1983 CLC 520 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
• Bilquees Begum and 3 Others vs Lahore Municipal Corporation and 21983 PLD Lahore 113 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
• Bilal Hussain vs The State--1983 P Cr. LJ 2046 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
• Bhai Khan and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2498 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
• Begaan vs Abdul Hamid1983 P Cr. L J 1470 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
• Bashir vs The State---1983 P Cr. LJ 2027 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2149 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Aid Mad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2170 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Khurshidul Haq and Another1983 PLC (C. S.) 652 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Hassan Din and Others1983 PLD Lahore 455 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1549 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Rent Controller, Gujranwala1983 CLC 229 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Malik Abdul Hamid and Others1983 CLC 2056 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Khurshidul Hassan and Othesrs1983 PLC (C. S.) 1265 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-07Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and Anotehr vs Muhammad Aslam and Another1983 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and 4 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue and 4 Others1983 CLC 3117 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Ahd Others vs The-State1983 P Cr. LJ 2191 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali vs Arshid Ali and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1826 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Barkha and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 502 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
• Barkat vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali and Others vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and Others1983 CLC 3149 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Baqir Hussain vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2556 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
• Bani Israel and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2164 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
• Bakhsha vs The State.1983 P Cr. L J 1547 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
• Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Social Security Court1983 PLC 242 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Bahawalnagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1983 PLC 247 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
• Bagh and Others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Badarul Salam vs Assistant Commissioner Saddar, Lahore and Another1983 P Cr. L J 821 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
• Badar Din vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 122 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
• Baboo Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2376 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• B. P. Bomanji vs Government of Pakistan and Another1983 CLC 2058 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-01Read full judgment →
• Azhar Hussain and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2154 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
• Azhar and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2529 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-23Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali Khan vs Government of Punjab1983 CLC 2514 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
• Azeem vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2373 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• Azam Beg Mirza vs Tajammal Hussain and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1476 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Mehr vs Punjab Government1983 CLC 2903 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-21
  writ jurisdictionpublic service commissioneducational qualificationslocus standijudicial reviewservice rulesappointmentamendment of pleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission for the post of Physiotherapist (NPS 18), arguing the selected candidate lacked the mandatory educational qualification of B.Sc. (Physiotherapy) prescribed by the Punjab Health Department (General, Specialists and Miscellaneous Posts) Service Rules 1981. The core legal question was whether the Commission could recommend an ineligible candidate and whether the government could lawfully appoint them. The Court held that the Commission’s recommendation and the government’s subsequent offer of appointment were without lawful authority, as the candidate failed to meet the mandatory educational requirements. The Court established that statutory bodies must strictly adhere to prescribed qualification rules; 'suitability' for a post implies meeting these mandatory requirements. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it has the power of judicial review over recommendations of statutory bodies when they act in flagrant disregard of the law. The Court also permitted amendments to the writ petition to include subsequent developments, emphasizing the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. The impugned actions were declared to be of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does a candidate for a public post have locus standi to challenge the selection of an ineligible candidate?
  • Can a court exercise judicial review over the recommendations of a Public Service Commission?
  • Is a Public Service Commission required to strictly adhere to the educational qualifications prescribed in service rules when recommending candidates?
  • Should amendments to a writ petition be allowed to include events that occur during the pendency of the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Ata Muhammad and 3 Others vs Muhammad Ashraf and Another1983 CLC 3311 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-10Read full judgment →
• Asst: Naziran vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-29Read full judgment →
• Asmat vs Modern Estates Ltd.1983 CLC 2601 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
• Aslam Ali Shah vs Collector of Central Excise & Land Customs and Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 498 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2187 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-17
  quashment of proceedingscancellation of FIRre-investigationpolice powersmagisterial supervisioncriminal proceduredischarge of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the legality of police re-investigation following the judicial cancellation of a criminal case. The petitioner, initially accused of cheating and breach of trust, was discharged after the police reported the matter as civil in nature and the Magistrate ordered the case's cancellation. Subsequently, the police re-investigated the matter without judicial authorization and submitted a new challan. The core legal question was whether the police possess the authority to re-investigate a case once a Magistrate has ordered its cancellation. The Court held that the police lack such authority. It established that while the Code of Criminal Procedure does not explicitly define 'cancellation,' the power is derived from the Magistrate's supervisory role. Once a Magistrate cancels a case, the police cannot unilaterally re-investigate. The Court laid down the principle that if the police obtain new information, they must first apply to the Magistrate to recall the cancellation order. Absent such a judicial order, any subsequent investigation and trial proceedings are unlawful. Consequently, the Court quashed the pending proceedings against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police re-investigate a criminal case after a Magistrate has ordered its cancellation without obtaining a fresh order from the Magistrate?
  • Does the police have the authority to unilaterally re-investigate a case that has been closed as being of a civil nature?
  • What is the legal procedure for the police to follow if they possess new information regarding a case that has previously been cancelled by a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 2470 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2146 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali and 3 Others vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and 3 Others1983 CLC 3307 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Arif Nawaz alias Goldy and 2 Others vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 594 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 1823(2) · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-29Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain Shah vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
• Anwaruddin and Others vs Settlement Department and Others1983 CLC 2463 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
• Anwar Masih vs Wailat and 2 Others1983 CLC 2365 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali Shah vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1983 PLC 812 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Talimulislam (Regd.), Sheikhupura vs Province of West1983 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09
  proprietary rightsresumption of landland grantarbitration clausecivil court jurisdictiondeclaratory suitbreach of conditions
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant challenging the resumption of a land grant by the Collector. The appellant had purchased the land from the Provincial Government via a sale-deed in 1959 for the purpose of constructing an oriental languages school. The Collector subsequently resumed the land under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, alleging that the appellant had violated the conditions of the grant by using the property for commercial purposes. The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that a declaratory suit without a prayer for possession was not maintainable, and that Section 36 of the Act barred civil court jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court reversed these findings. It held that once proprietary rights are conferred and a sale-deed is executed, the purchaser ceases to be a tenant, and the Collector loses the unilateral power of resumption under Section 24. Any alleged breach of conditions must be resolved either through civil litigation or by invoking the arbitration clause contained in the sale-deed, as mandated by paragraph 155-A of the Colony Manual and Section 30 of the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Collector has the jurisdiction to unilaterally resume land under Section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 after proprietary rights have been conferred and a sale-deed executed?
  • Does Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts where the action of the statutory authority is ultra vires or without jurisdiction?
  • Should a civil suit fail solely because the plaintiff did not pray for the consequential relief of possession, or must the court allow an opportunity to amend the plaint?
  • How must the Government enforce a right of re-entry for breach of conditions in a land grant once the grantee has acquired proprietary status and the deed contains an arbitration clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Din and Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 2836 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-08Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Amir and Others vs Punjab Province and Others1983 CLC 406 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-08Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali Bajwa and Others vs Superintending Engineer, Canal and Another1983 CLC 84 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan and Another vs The State- Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs Noor Muhammad1983 CLC 1388 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 983 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta Waheed vs Lahore Municipal Corporation and Another1983 PLC (C. S.) 67 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2259 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and Others vs Sher Muhammad and Others1983 CLC 3087 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-11Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and Others vs Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement1983 CLC 219 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05
  evacuee propertypending proceedingsallotment confirmationrepeal of evacuee lawslocus standivested rightaudi alteram partem
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue confirming land in favor of respondent No. 3, while vendees-petitioners claim the right to purchase the same land based on an earlier order of the Assistant Commissioner under the scheme for disposal of unallotted agricultural land. The core legal questions involve whether the respondent's claim constituted pending proceedings under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975, whether the evacuee laws and related schemes survived the repeal, and whether the petitioners possessed a vested right or locus standi to challenge the confirmation. The Lahore High Court held that the respondent's earmarking and entries constituted pending proceedings under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act / relevant repealing legislation, which had to be finalized under the repealed Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958. Consequently, the land was not available for sale to the petitioners, rendering the Assistant Commissioner's prior order allowing the sale void and without jurisdiction. The court laid down that void orders confer no vested rights and do not attract the principle of audi alteram partem, and that persons without a valid title or eligibility have no locus standi to question third-party allotments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether earmarking of land and entries in revenue registers constitute pending proceedings under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975?
  • Does a void order passed without jurisdiction create any vested right or entitle a party to a hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem?
  • Whether unallotted agricultural land subject to pending proceedings remains available for sale to third parties under the disposal schemes framed upon the repeal of evacuee laws?
  • Do petitioners lacking eligibility or a valid title have the locus standi to question the allotment and confirmation made in favor of a respondent?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1825 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Di Waya and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2205 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Dawaya vs The State and OTHERSs1983 P Cr. LJ 2224 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2477 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2394 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab and Another1983 CLC 2281 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Ghulam Rasool1983 CLC 446 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Abdul Hafeez and Others1983 CLC 2663 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh Sabri vs The Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and Another1983 PLD Lahore 167 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh and Others vs Mst. Khurshid1983 CLC 450 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Alif Din and Another vs Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha and Another1983 CLC 2051 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State1983 PCr. L J 2238 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Ashraf and Another1983 CLC 3142 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and Others vs Collector, Vehari and Others1983 CLC 2888 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2022 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Islama ppellant vs Province of Punjab and Another1983 PLD Lahore 262 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14
  intra-court appealexamination re-evaluationwrit jurisdictionstatutory bodyarbitrary markingeducational boardconstitutional petitiongross injustice
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition filed by a student against the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore. The appellant sought re-evaluation of an examination paper after an expert examiner, appointed by the Board, assessed his paper at 41 marks compared to the original 21. The Board refused to refer the matter to its Review Committee, citing rules that restricted such referrals to cases where "zero" marks were awarded for correct answers. The core legal question was whether the High Court could intervene in the internal affairs of an educational board to rectify manifest injustice when the Board's own internal expert identified arbitrary marking. The Court held that while it generally does not interfere in academic marking, the Board’s departure from its strict rules by initiating an expert review created a situation where it could not ignore the expert's findings of arbitrary evaluation. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal and directed the Board to refer the case to the Review Committee, establishing that constitutional jurisdiction may be invoked to prevent gross injustice and ensure compliance with the Board's own regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to intervene in the internal marking processes of an educational board?
  • Does a statutory educational board have the authority to ignore findings of arbitrary marking by its own appointed expert?
  • Can a court rectify a misdescription of a party in a petition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a student entitled to relief when an educational board's internal expert identifies gross injustice in the evaluation of an answer script?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Bakhsh vs Mst. Zohra Ashraf1983 PLD Lahore 61 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2143 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The Election Authority, Punjab Local Govern Ment and 21983 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
• Alamgir vs S. H. O., Model Town, Lahore1983 P Cr. L J 76 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-31Read full judgment →
• Alam Ali and Another vs District Judge, Multan and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 278 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-08
  compromise decreeSection 12(2) CPCrejection of plaintwrit jurisdictionfraud and misrepresentationprocedural due processWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges a judgment of the District Judge, Multan, which, in revision, set aside a compromise decree and rejected the petitioners' plaint. The core legal question was whether a court, while deciding an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, can summarily reject a plaint or set aside a decree without framing issues and recording evidence when allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are disputed. The High Court held that the District Judge acted without lawful authority. While the District Judge could set aside the trial court's dismissal of the application, he could not proceed to reject the plaint or set aside the decree without conducting a factual inquiry. The court established that Section 12(2) proceedings require strict adherence to procedural fairness; where factual allegations like fraud or lack of authority are contested, the court must frame issues and allow parties to lead evidence rather than deciding summarily. The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is distinct from the power to adjudicate under Section 12(2).

  Questions settled

  • Can a court, while deciding an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, summarily reject a plaint without framing issues?
  • Does the term 'want of jurisdiction' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 encompass the grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11?
  • Is a compromise decree challengeable under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without a full factual inquiry when allegations of fraud are denied?
  • Can a District Judge, while sitting in revision against an order dismissing a Section 12(2) application, exercise powers beyond those of the trial court to reject a plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1473 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1362 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →