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.

• Aish Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1555 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-16Read full judgment →
• Aimna vs District Magistrate, Dera Ghazi Khan and Others1983 CLC 3163 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and Another vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 1261 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1427 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1976 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs Malik Fazal Dad (Represented by Legal Heirs)1983 CLC 74 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-23
  pre-emptionconsolidation of suitsremand orderjudgment on admissionCode of Civil Procedureurban immovable propertyfirst appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal challenges a remand order passed by the District Judge in a pre-emption dispute. The core legal questions were whether pre-emption suits involving different claims can be consolidated and whether a written statement in one suit constitutes a binding admission in another for judgment under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that consolidation under Section 28 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act is permissible regardless of the specific nature of the right claimed. It further ruled that consolidated suits remain distinct, and a written statement in one suit cannot be treated as a binding admission in another. The remand order was set aside as it was based on an erroneous view of the law regarding consolidation and improperly permitted parties to fill evidentiary gaps. The Court established that remand is unjustified where parties were fully cognizant of the real controversy and led evidence accordingly, even if specific issues were not framed. The matter was remitted to the appellate court for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-emption suits be consolidated under Section 28 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act if the nature of the right claimed in each suit is different?
  • Does a written statement filed in one suit constitute a binding admission in a separate, consolidated suit for the purpose of obtaining a judgment under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a remand order justified solely on the ground that the trial court failed to frame specific issues, even when the parties were cognizant of the real controversy and led evidence accordingly?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and Others vs Jaffar Abbas and Others1983 CLC 3043 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and 2 Others vs Mst. Feroz Begum and 6 Others1983 CLC 2916 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-26Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Kabir vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2299 · Lahore High Court · 1983-08-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue and Another1983 CLC 2076 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs A. C., Vehari1983 CLC 2451 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and Another1983 CLC 1385 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Aslam1983 PLC (C. S.) 78 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-29Read full judgment →
• Agha Talat Mahmood vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2144 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2155 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Abid-Ur-Rehman Khan vs Razi Ghazali1983 CLC 1434 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• Abid and Anqthfrs vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 912 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-03Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Janjua vs Punjab Bar Council and 3 oTHERS1983 PLD Lahore 47 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-17
  writ petitionbar association electionseligible voterselection petitioncoram non judicediscretionary jurisdictionestoppel by conduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the order dated 20-5-1982 passed by the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council, which declared the election of the Secretary of the District Bar Association, Sialkot, illegal and directed a fresh election. The core legal questions involved whether the Tribunal committed any illegality in appreciating evidence, whether the inclusion of ineligible voters violated the election rules, and whether the proceedings were coram non judice due to being signed solely by the Chairman. The Lahore High Court held that findings of fact based on evidence by the Tribunal are not open to interference in writ jurisdiction, that inclusion of non-members violates Bar Council rules justifying setting aside an election, and that failure of all members to sign the judgment is a mere irregularity which does not warrant discretionary constitutional relief where no actual injustice has been caused and the petitioner participated without objection. The court established that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction will be refused if the petitioner is estopped by conduct or if the impugned order corrects a manifest illegality rather than causing injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether findings of fact recorded by an election tribunal regarding the eligibility of voters can be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the inclusion of persons not on the rolls of advocates in the list of eligible voters violate the election rules and warrant setting aside an election?
  • Whether proceedings conducted and signed by the Chairman of the Executive Committee are rendered coram non judice if other members participated and approved the decision?
  • Can discretionary constitutional relief be refused when an impugned order corrects a manifest illegality and causes no actual injustice to the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Reh Man vs Shukar Din1983 CLC 1441 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs Mst. Fazal Bibi and 18 Others1983 CLC 283 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid and Others vs Additional District Judge and Others1983 CLC 443 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid and 2 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 263 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 371 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2582 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs Haji Shaukat and 3 Others1983 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and Others vs Additional Commissioner1983 CLC 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and Others vs Abdul Shakoor and Others1983 PLD Lahore 466 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam and 4 Others vs Veterinary Assistant, Animal Hospital, Haroonabad and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Parveen Akhtar1983 CLC 2799 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Municipal Committee, Sargodha and 3 OTHERSs1983 CLC 198 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and 2 Others vs Mst. Zeenat Sultana and 8 Others1983 CLC 1926 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik Etc. vs Sh. Akhtar Ali Etc---1983 P Cr. L J 1413 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik and Another vs Muhammad Iqbal and Others1983 CLC 2225 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 89 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Anwar Ali1983 CLC 2511 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-08
  ejectmentpersonal requirementbona fide needlandlord and tenanturban rent restrictionsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which set aside the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment application and ordered the tenant's eviction. The respondent-landlord sought ejectment under Section 13(3)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on the ground of personal requirement for business after retirement. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application, finding the landlord's claim lacked bona fides because he had previously vacated and re-rented another property instead of using it. The core legal question concerns whether the landlord established bona fide personal need and satisfied the statutory requirements regarding not vacating another suitable building without sufficient cause. The Lahore High Court held that the landlord failed to plead and prove essential statutory prerequisites, specifically omitting required assertions in his application regarding the suitability of other properties and failing to show sufficient cause for previously vacating a similar building. The court established that a landlord seeking ejectment for personal use must affirmatively prove good faith and non-occupation of another suitable building in the same urban area.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on grounds of personal requirement must plead and prove that he does not occupy another suitable building in the same urban area?
  • Is it incumbent upon the landlord to establish sufficient cause for vacating another building after the commencement of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does the omission in the ejectment application regarding the non-suitability of other owned premises affect the bona fides of the landlord's claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan vs Sultan Jehan Begum1983 CLC 2485 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and Others vs Muhammad1983 CLC 577 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 285 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and Others1983 CLC 2970 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Mst. Bilquees Begum and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1451 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Abdul Wahid1983 CLC 2824 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Ham and Another1983 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-11
  execution of decreeexecuting courtpowers of executing courtfinality of decreepro forma defendantsexecution second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Execution Second Appeal concerns the scope of an executing court's authority when faced with a decree that appears inconsistent with the trial court's findings. The appellant sought execution of a money decree against all defendants, including respondents who were initially considered 'pro forma' defendants by the trial court. The executing court and the first appellate court refused execution, reasoning that the trial court had found no cause of action against the respondents. The core legal question was whether an executing court can look behind an unambiguous decree to refuse execution based on perceived errors or contradictory findings in the underlying judgment. The High Court held that an executing court cannot go behind a decree, even if it is erroneous. The court emphasized that the decree itself, not the underlying findings, is the operative document to be executed. Once a decree attains finality, the executing court is bound to execute it as it stands, provided it is unambiguous. The principle laid down is that an executing court lacks the jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in a decree or refuse execution on the basis of findings that contradict the final decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court go behind a decree to refuse execution based on findings in the judgment?
  • Is an executing court permitted to rectify mistakes in a decree?
  • Does a finding in a judgment that contradicts the final decree allow an executing court to decline execution?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Hoshiar Khan and 2 Others1983 CLC 1450 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-14
  civil revisionremand of casepre-emption suitpiecemeal disposalframing of issuesopportunity of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the order of the District Judge, Sialkot, dated 6th March 1982, which accepted an appeal against the dismissal of a pre-emption suit and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the trial court disposing of the suit on a single preliminary issue without recording the contesting defendants' complete evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's procedure of non-suiting the plaintiff prematurely without allowing parties to adduce full evidence was illegal and improper under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby upholding the lower appellate court's remand order. The key principle laid down is that a civil court must not dispose of a suit on a piecemeal basis or solitary issue before the parties have been afforded a full and fair opportunity to lead their complete evidence on all framed issues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can dispose of a civil suit on a single issue before the parties have adduced their complete evidence?
  • Is an appellate court justified in setting aside a judgment and remanding the case for a fresh trial when the trial court adopted an improper procedure?
  • Can a pre-emption suit be decided without recording the contesting defendant's evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hay Uz Zafar vs The State- Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 2010 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13
  post-arrest bailmisappropriationpublic servantprohibitory clausedocumentary evidencebail discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused public servant charged under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged misappropriation of government funds. The core legal questions were whether the large amount involved and the potential for life imprisonment under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessitated the refusal of bail, and whether the ongoing investigation, specifically the pending handwriting expert report, justified continued incarceration. The Court held that the mere magnitude of the misappropriated amount is not sufficient grounds to refuse bail, particularly when the investigation is substantially complete and the evidence is documentary, rendering tampering unlikely. The Court further clarified that the prohibitory clause of Section 497 does not mandate refusal of bail based solely on the maximum potential sentence; rather, the Court must consider the punishment likely to be awarded in the specific circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, provided there is no risk of abscondence or evidence tampering.

  Questions settled

  • Does the magnitude of the amount involved in a criminal case automatically preclude the grant of bail?
  • Is the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 triggered solely by the maximum sentence provided by law?
  • Should a court consider the likely punishment to be awarded rather than the maximum sentence when applying the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Daska, District Sialkot and 4 Others1983 CLC 1492 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-27Read full judgment →
• Arif vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1943 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Abdul Waheed and Others1983 CLC 3075 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-20
  ejectment orderexecution of ejectment orderRent Controllerspecial tribunalobjection petitioncivil revisiontenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent orders dismissing objections filed under Order XXI, rules 97, 99, and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in execution proceedings relating to an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether objections under the Code of Civil Procedure are maintainable before a Rent Controller executing an ejectment order. The Lahore High Court held that following the amendment of Section 17 of the Rent Restriction Act by Ordinance IX of 1979, ejectment orders are executed by the Rent Controller as a special tribunal rather than a civil court. Consequently, the court ruled that objections filed under Order XXI, rules 97, 99, and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were incompetent before the Rent Controller. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Are objections under Order XXI, rules 97, 99, and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable before a Rent Controller?
  • Does a Rent Controller executing an ejectment order function as a civil court or a special tribunal?
  • Whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is competent against the dismissal of execution objections by appellate authorities under the Rent laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2428 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid and 2 Others vs Abdul Aziz1983 P Cr. L J 2241 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Mian Muhammad Akhtar and Others1983 CLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Abdul Rasheed1983 CLC 2805 · Lahore High Court · 1969-06-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ham Eed vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez vs Six Members, Presiding Officer, Union Council No, 113, Multan and 4 Others1983 CLC 1525 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State1983 P. Cr. LJ 2163 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs S. H. O., P. S. Saddar, Sheikhupura and Others -1983 P Cr. LJ 2172 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-02
  registration of FIRcross-versioncognizable offenceconstitutional jurisdictionpolice investigationcancellation of FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a direction to the Station House Officer to register an FIR based on the petitioner's statement regarding the murder of his son. The core legal question was whether the police are legally obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register a separate FIR when a complainant presents a cross-version of an incident for which an FIR has already been registered by the opposing party. The Court held that the Station House Officer is under a statutory duty to record information regarding a cognizable offence. The existence of a prior FIR regarding the same occurrence does not empower the police to refuse the registration of a cross-version, as the two versions are distinct. The key principle laid down is that the police cannot refuse to register an FIR based on a cross-version of an incident; they must register the case and investigate. If the investigation subsequently reveals the information to be false or incorrect, the police may then proceed with the legal process for the cancellation of that FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police officer under a statutory duty to register an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence even if an FIR for the same occurrence already exists?
  • Can the police refuse to register a cross-version of an incident on the ground that an FIR has already been registered for the same occurrence?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for the police if, after registering a cross-version FIR, the investigation reveals the information to be false?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Rehma1983 CLC 3090 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafur and 4 Others vs Raja Mukhtar Ali and Another1983 PLD Lahore 103 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 327 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 139 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-16
  criminal revisionSection 540 Cr.P.C.production of evidencediscovery of truthfilling lacunafair trialpublic documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, which rejected the prosecution's application to produce certified copies of public documents during a murder trial. The trial court had refused the evidence on grounds of delay and the potential for filling lacunae in the prosecution's case. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to admit additional evidence at a late stage to ensure a just decision. The High Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the evidence. The court affirmed that the primary objective of judicial proceedings is the discovery of truth and the attainment of a correct decision. It ruled that Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides wide discretionary powers to receive evidence at any stage of a trial to secure the ends of justice. The court emphasized that such powers should be exercised to prevent technical omissions from obstructing justice, provided the accused is granted a full opportunity to challenge the veracity of the admitted evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the discretion under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to admit additional evidence at any stage of a trial?
  • Is the rejection of evidence on the ground that it fills a lacuna in the prosecution case a valid exercise of judicial discretion?
  • Can a court admit certified copies of public documents into evidence if the application is made after the commencement of the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Muhammad Rafiq and Others1983 PLD Lahore 383 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-26
  court-feeremission of court-feecivil suitsmemorandum of appealappellate stagePunjab Government Notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of multiple civil revisions, regular second appeals, and a writ petition challenging appellate judgments that dismissed appeals due to a lack of court-fees on memoranda of appeal or treated them as time-barred. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the Punjab Government's Notification dated February 4, 1980, issued under section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which remitted court-fees on civil and revenue suits where the value does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees, and whether this remission extends to memoranda of appeal at all stages and in all courts. The court held that the language of the notification is broad and liberal, and when construed to fulfill its purpose and intent, it remits court-fees on all documents filed at every step of the litigation, including review, revision, and appellate stages, originating from civil suits. Consequently, the appellate judgments dismissing appeals for want of court-fees were set aside and the matters remanded for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Government Notification dated February 4, 1980, issued under section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, remits court-fees on memoranda of appeal at the appellate stage?
  • Does the term 'civil suits' and 'at all stages, in all Courts' in the notification cover proceedings in appeal and revision?
  • Whether a suit includes an appeal for the purposes of court-fee exemptions under the Court Fees Act, 1870?
  • Are appellate courts required to grant an opportunity to make good any deficiency in court-fees under section 28 of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Federation of Pakistan and Others1983 CLC 1026 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Chairman, State Cement Corporation of Pakistan1983 P Cr. L J 1891 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and Others vs Land Acquisition Collector, L. D. A. and Others1983 CLC 2652 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2431 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Ali Muhammad1983 CLC 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Abbasi vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi and 2 Others1983 CLC 2372 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-27Read full judgment →
• Abbas vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 87 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs Madad Ali and Another1982 P Cr. L J 1264 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1153 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad and 5 Other vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Zilladar vs iALLAH Banda and Others1982 CLC 1843 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
• Zilladar vs Allah Banda Andother1982 CLC 1843 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
• Zia-Ur-Rehman And Other vs Razia Begum and Other1982 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-15
  civil revisionpermanent injunctionstatement of defendantundertaking before courtdismissal of suitpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner against the respondents regarding possession of land. Initially, the respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement, but later made statements before the trial court that they had no concern with the land and undertook never to interfere in the petitioner's possession. Relying on precedent, the trial court dismissed the suit as the apprehension of the petitioner was found to be conjectural, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that since the defendants had not confessed judgment or stated they had no objection to the suit being decreed, dismissal was justified. The Court further clarified that an undertaking given before a court of law amounts to a stay order or injunction, and any breach thereof would attract legal consequences similar to the disobedience of a court injunction, protecting the petitioner from needing to file a fresh suit in case of future interference.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for permanent injunction should be decreed when defendants state they have no intention to interfere in the plaintiff's possession without confessing judgment?
  • Does an undertaking given by a party before a court amount to an injunction or stay order?
  • Can a plaintiff file a fresh suit if a defendant breaches an undertaking given before the court regarding possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamindara Cooperative Society, Ltd., Okara vs National Bank of Pakistan and 5 Others1982 CLC 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-15Read full judgment →
• Zamindara Cooperative Society, Ltd., Okara vs National Bank of Pakistan and 5 Other1982 CLC 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1971-11-15Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain and ANOTHER's vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 485 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
• Zahoorul Hassan vs Ruqaya Begum and Other1982 CLC 351 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs Superintendent, New Central Jail, Multan and OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1235 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-04Read full judgment →
• Zahid Bashir vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum1982 CLC 1188 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
• Zafarul Haq Etc.s vs Waris Iqbal Etc.1982 CLC 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
• Zafarul Haq Etc. vs Waris Iqbal Etc1982 CLC 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mahmood and Another vs Principal, Government College of Technology, Rasool and Another1982 CLC 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-27Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1195 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmad vs Begum Amir Ahmad Khan and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 785 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-25Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
• Wilayat Khan vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 301 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Wazir Khan Etc. (Legal Reprbsbntrative of Kohli) vs Budh Singh Etc1982 CLC 74 · Lahore High Court · 1975-05-21Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority vs Wazir Muhammad and 31982 CLC 2238 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-01Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority vs National Industrial1982 PLC 461 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Naeem Trading Co.1982 CLC 353 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-13Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and Others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and Others1982 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-24Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and Others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and Otherpetitioners1982 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-24Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and 8 Other vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 100 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• Wajid Ali and 2 Other vs Board of Revenue, Punjab and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 716 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10
  res judicatawrit jurisdictioncolonization of government landtrespasser evictionclean hands doctrineconsent decreegovernment grants
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders of Revenue authorities directing the eviction of the petitioners from government land allotted under the Bara Scheme. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioners, claiming title via a civil court consent decree, could challenge their eviction, and whether the principles of res judicata barred the current petition following the dismissal of a previous writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the matter was barred by res judicata as the previous writ petition, involving the same parties and issues, had been dismissed. Additionally, the Court found the petitioners lacked clean hands due to material concealment and inconsistent pleadings. On the merits, the Court held that any transfer of government land without written government consent is void under Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Furthermore, a civil court decree obtained without impleading the government does not bind the government regarding land title, and the Collector possesses statutory authority under Section 32 of the 1912 Act to summarily evict trespassers from government land.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to a second writ petition when the previous writ petition on the same subject was dismissed?
  • Is a transfer of government land made without the written consent of the government void under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
  • Can a civil court decree regarding land title bind the government if the government was not a party to the suit?
  • Does a Collector have the authority under Section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, to summarily evict a trespasser from government land?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bukhsh vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 4 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
• Waheedi Begum Etc. vs Bakhshoo Etc.1982 CLC 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• Waheedi Begum Etc. vs Bakhshoo Etc19821 CLC 2669 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• Vulcan Company Ltd. vs Punjab Province and Other1982 CLC 527 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-15Read full judgment →
• University of the Punjab and 2 Other vs Rehmatullah1982 PLD Lahore 729 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-03
  Intra-Court AppealLaw Reforms OrdinanceProvisional Constitution OrderVice-Chancellor emergency powersAcademic CouncilUniversity admissionsdiscriminationinterpretation of statutesultra vires regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  These Intra-Court Appeals arose from a Single Judge's judgment declaring the University of the Punjab's refusal to consider respondents' applications for admission to Law College evening classes to be unlawful. The core legal questions involved: (i) whether an intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 is maintainable against orders passed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981; (ii) whether the Vice-Chancellor could invoke emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act 1973 to frame and approve admission regulations bypassing the Academic Council; and (iii) whether excluding self-employed candidates from evening classes violated Section 7 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Article 9 replaced Article 199 pursuant to Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act 1897, preserving the right of appeal. The Court held the admission regulations ultra vires because emergency powers under Section 15(3) cannot be used arbitrarily to bypass an existing Academic Council, and total exclusion of non-government employees from admission was unlawful and discriminatory under Section 7.

  Questions settled

  • Is an intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order 1981?
  • Can the Vice-Chancellor invoke emergency powers under Section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act 1973 to frame admission regulations when the Academic Council is available to perform that statutory function?
  • Does the complete exclusion of self-employed applicants from admission to evening classes violate Section 7 of the University of the Punjab Act 1973?
  • Does the word 'preferably' in an admission notice authorise the total exclusion of candidates who are not government or semi-government employees?
  Read full judgment →