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.

• Mst. Farhat and Another vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fakhra Mali K vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab Local1982 PLD Lahore 606 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Begum vs Syed Khalid Mahmood and Another1982 CLC 2460 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs Sh. Altaf Hussain and Other1982 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Balqis Bibi vs Allah Ditta1982 CLC 920 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Badarun Nisa and Others vs Kh. Hidayatullah and Other1982 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ba Darunnisa and Others vs Kh. Hidayatullah and Others1982 CLC 2348 · Lahore High Court · 1971-08-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asghari Khanum vs Maj. Iqbal Cheema and 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 569 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24
  evacuee propertyrevision petitionrepeal of statutepending proceedingsgeneral clauses actconstitutional petitionsettlement commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a dispute over evacuee property transferred to the petitioner by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Respondents challenged this transfer by filing a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The core legal question is whether a revision petition could be validly filed and entertained after the repeal of the parent statute under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or if such remedy was impliedly excluded by the repealing statute. The Lahore High Court held that the repealing Act provided exclusively for pending proceedings and remanded cases, thereby impliedly excluding the institution of new revision petitions whose limitation period had not expired prior to the repeal. The Court concluded that the Settlement Commissioner lacked lawful authority to entertain the revision petition and accordingly quashed the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revision petition can be filed under a repealed statute after its repeal if the period of limitation had not expired before the repeal?
  • Does section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 save the right to file a fresh revision petition under the repealed Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • What constitutes a pending proceeding within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtari Sultana vs Federal Land Commission1982 CLC 687 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aishan Bibi vs Khuda Bakhsh and Others1982 CLC 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
• Mst, Sharifan vs Noor Muhammad and Another1982 CLC 1552 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst, Aishan Bibi vs Khuda Bakhsh and Other1982 CLC.2405 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
• Msr. Ilam Bibi and 8 Others vs Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and Another1982 CLC 2109 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
• MRS.Iqbal Siddiqui vs Muhammad Sardar Khan1982 CLC 227 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mrs. N. G. Hassan Etc. vs Taxation Officer, District Council, Sargodha1982 CLC 534 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
• MRS. Bushra Aitzaz Ahsan vs Superintendent, Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore1982 P Cr. L J 683 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-11Read full judgment →
• Moharram Ali Shah and Another vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Food Department and Others1982 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• Moharram Ali Shah and Another vs Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Food Department and Other1982 CLC 2004 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Yousaf vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 914 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Tufail and 3 Others vs Board of Revenue (Colonies) Punjab1982 CLC 342 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Shafi vs District Judge, Lahore and 2 Other1982 CLC 642 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ramzan vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 688 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Anwar Khan vs President, Summary Military Court1982 P Cr. L J 441 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Afzal vs President Summary Military Court, Rawalpindi1982 P Cr. L J 442 · Lahore High Court · 1978-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mit. Masooda Begum and 6 Other vs Muhammad Siddique1982 CLC 1194 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mistri Sardar Ali vs Ghulam Muhammad1982 CLC 1844 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• Miss Talaat Iqbal vs Secretary Health Department, Governmentof1982 CLC 274 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• Miss Surriya Sultana Butt vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral of Police and Another1982 P Cr. L J 1236 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
• Miss Shahida Perveen vs The Controller of Examinations, University of the Punjab1982 CLC 574 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mirza vs The S. H. O.1982 P Cr. L J 171 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03
  cross-version F.I.R.registration of F.I.R.cognizable offenceconstitutional petitionpolice dutycriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a criminal case regarding the murder of one individual and a murderous assault on another. The petitioner alleged that the police and the opposite party committed these acts, but the police refused to register the First Information Report (F.I.R.). The respondent argued that an F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence had already been registered by the opposite party, and thus, a second F.I.R. was legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether the police are obligated to register a cross-version F.I.R. when the petitioner's version of events conflicts with an existing F.I.R. regarding the same incident. The Court held that where a party presents a distinct counter-version of a cognizable offence, the police must record that version. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the S.H.O. to receive the petitioner's written complaint and proceed in accordance with the law. The principle established is that the existence of an earlier F.I.R. does not preclude the registration of a cross-version F.I.R. when the allegations constitute a separate, conflicting account of the same incident.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police officer in charge of a police station legally obligated to register a cross-version F.I.R. when a distinct counter-version of a cognizable offence is presented?
  • Does the existence of an earlier F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence bar the registration of a subsequent F.I.R. containing a conflicting version of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza vs Mst. Hasni1982 CLC 509. · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-09Read full judgment →
• Mirza Saleem Baig vs Ittefaq Foundries, Federal Government of Pakistan and Another1982 PLC 1045 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Hussain vs Abdul Hamid and Other1982 CL C 81 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Hanif and Another vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1982 PLD Lahore 641 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Rafi and 2 Other vs Mian Sharif Ahmad1982 PLD Lahore 380 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
• Minhas Industries, Wazirabad vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore46 TAX 147 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Mushtaq Ahmad vs Deputy Commissioner_Elction Tribunal, Sargodha and Others1982 CLC 2132 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mian Mushtaq Ahmad vs Deputy Commissioner_Elction Tribunal, Sargodha and Other1982 CLC 2132 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Amin and 7 Others vs Amanat Ali1982 CLC 1770 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18
  landlord and tenantejectment applicationrent restrictionburden of proofassessment registerconcurrent findings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which upheld the Rent Controller's dismissal of an eviction application filed by the appellants against the respondent. The appellants sought the respondent's ejectment from the disputed property, alleging a landlord-tenant relationship and non-payment of rent. The respondent contested the application, denying the existence of any tenancy and asserting his own ownership of the property. The core legal question was whether the appellants had successfully established the relationship of landlord and tenant to warrant eviction under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that entries in the Excise and Taxation Department assessment registers, made without notice to the parties, do not carry a presumption of absolute genuineness. Furthermore, evidence showing the respondent paid property taxes as the responsible party contradicted the appellants' claim. The key principle laid down is that official assessment register entries are insufficient to prove a landlord-tenant relationship when contradicted by other evidence of possession and tax liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does an entry in the Excise and Taxation Department assessment register create a presumption of absolute genuineness regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Can an eviction application under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 succeed if the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established?
  • Is a concurrent finding of fact regarding the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship liable to be interfered with in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 471 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Murtaza vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore45 TAX 21 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Hasan and 4 Other vs Aqeel Ahmad Khan Additional1982 PLD Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mian Alauddin and Another vs Rashid Ahmad1982 PLD Lahore 652 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Rehman vs Government of Pak1stan and 2 Other1982 CLC 693 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mi Mani Ma D Hussain vs Member Board of Revenue and Others1982 CLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Urdu Digest Printerss vs Hakeem Muhammad Idrees and Other1982 CLC 470 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sunshine Estate Ltd. vs Abdul Rehman, Assistant Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Lahore1982 PLD Lahore 301 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sunshine Biscuits Ltd. vs Muhammad Hassan Lodhi and AnotherPLD 1982 Lahore 189' · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-09
  co-operative societiesrejection of plaintstatutory noticeindustrial loanarbitration disputecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from the rejection of a declaratory suit filed by the appellant, Messrs Sunshine Biscuits Ltd., challenging a reference of an industrial loan dispute to arbitration by respondent No. 1. The appellant argued that it was not a member of respondent No. 2, the National Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd., a society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for want of a statutory notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, a decision affirmed by the Additional District Judge. The core legal question was whether a suit against a co-operative society by a non-member requires a prior notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The Lahore High Court held that the statutory bar requiring notice under Section 70 applies universally to any suit against a society or its officers touching its business, regardless of whether the plaintiff is a member. The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit against a co-operative society requires a mandatory pre-institution notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Does the requirement of notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, apply to non-members as well as members of the society?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for failure to serve a mandatory statutory notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shahzad Ice Factory and 2 Other vs Special Judge Banking (II), Lahore and Anothbr1982 PLD Lahore 92 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-25
  constitutional petitionbanking courtleave to defendsummary procedureinterlocutory orderjurisdictionrecovery of loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Special Judge Banking Court. The core legal questions concerned whether a Special Court, upon transfer of a pending suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, could grant leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without issuing the prescribed special summons (Form 4 of Appendix B) and without a formal application supported by an affidavit, and whether High Courts can interfere with illegal interlocutory orders in constitutional jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, arbitrarily, and in violation of mandatory procedural requirements. The Court ruled that where a statute prescribes a specific procedure, it must be followed strictly, and that failure to issue proper summary summons and require a formal application vitiates the proceedings. Furthermore, the High Court held that it is fully competent to interfere with interlocutory orders in its constitutional jurisdiction if they suffer from jurisdictional defects or grave illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 can grant leave to defend without issuing summons in Form 4 of Appendix B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Can a court grant leave to defend a summary suit without an application supported by an affidavit from the defendant?
  • Does the High Court have the power in constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an illegal interlocutory order passed by a tribunal?
  • What is the correct procedure to be followed by a Special Court when a suit is transferred to it under section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak Malik Constructors Ltd., Ra"Ialpindi vs Government of1982 PLD Lahore 57 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kaghan Impex and Another vs Central Board of Revenue and Another1982 PLD Lahore 608 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fatima Export Corporation and Another vs Habib Bank Ltd., Faisalabad1982 PLD Lahore 436 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ally Brother & Co. (Pak.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and Another1982 PLD Lahore 398 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmad Autos and Another vs Habib Bank Ltd.1982 PLD Lahore 439 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Agro Marketing Corporation Ltd., Lahore Petitioner vs Pakistan and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 20 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07
  Evidence Actproof of documentshandwritingSection 47 Evidence Actadmissibility of evidencecivil procedurerevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged trial court orders in a suit for damages arising from the alleged illegal blacklisting of the petitioner. The core legal question was whether foreign documents could be proved under Section 47 of the Evidence Act 1872 by a witness acquainted with the handwriting or signatures of the authors, or if such documents strictly required direct evidence from the signatories. The High Court held that the trial court erred in restricting the application of Section 47 only to instances where the author is dead or denies execution. The Court clarified that Section 67 of the Evidence Act 1872 does not mandate that only the author can prove a document's execution. It established that Section 47 provides a recognized, alternative mode of proof for handwriting and signatures. The Court emphasized that admissibility is distinct from evidential value, and the trial court must determine, based on the facts, whether a witness is sufficiently acquainted to testify. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to attempt proof through the proposed witness.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 47 of the Evidence Act 1872 require the author of a document to be dead or to deny execution before a witness can prove the handwriting?
  • Does Section 67 of the Evidence Act 1872 mandate that a document can only be proved by the direct testimony of its signatory?
  • Is the admissibility of a document distinct from its evidential value?
  • What are the recognized modes of proving a document under the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Messers Salman Mehmood Cotton Ginners, Kabirwala and 2 Other vs Special Judge, Banking (1) and Another S1982 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-16
  writ jurisdictioninterlocutory orderbanking recoverylegislative intentleave to defendspecial courtconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Special Judge (Banking), which mandated the petitioners to deposit a specific sum as a condition for granting leave to defend a recovery suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with such an interlocutory order when the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, expressly limits appeals to final orders and aims for the expeditious disposal of banking cases. The Court held that the writ petition was not competent. It reasoned that the constitutional jurisdiction of superior courts should not be invoked to defeat or deflect the clear legislative intent of ensuring speedy recovery of bank loans. Since the Ordinance provides a specific appellate remedy against final orders, allowing constitutional challenges to interlocutory orders would undermine the statutory scheme. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not interfere with interlocutory orders of a Special Court that do not dispose of the entire case, thereby upholding the legislative objective of summary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an interlocutory order passed by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does an order granting leave to defend a suit subject to a condition of deposit constitute a final order appealable under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Should the High Court interfere with interlocutory orders if such interference would defeat the legislative intent of ensuring the speedy disposal of cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Meraj Sons, Contractors vs Income Tax Officer Contarctors45 TAX 2 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Meraj and Others vs Majid Khan1982 CLC 1546 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mehr Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Aslam Etc1982 CLC 224 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din vs Siddique Khan.1982 CLC 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din vs S1ddique Khan1982 CLC 1752 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mehr Din vs Alamdar Hussain and Another1982 PLD Lahore 327 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mehr Ali vs Razaullah Etc.s1982 P Cr. L J 599 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali Khan vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Health1982 PLC (C. S.) 559 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maulvi Muhammad Tufail vs Abdul Rehman and Others1982 CLC 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Muhammad Tufail vs Abdul Rehman and Other1982 CLC 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Abdul Aziz vs Nawabzada Sarfraz Ali Khan1982CLC 106 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mat. Maryam Mai and Another vs Qadir Bakhsh1982 PLD Lahore 457 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
• Masudul Hassan Qureshi vs The State and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 530 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
• Master Ghulam Rasul vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and Another1982 PLD Lahore 305 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
• Masood Hussain Anwar vs Sheikh Muhammad Amin1982 CLC 1777 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16
  ejectment petitionpersona designatareference to arbitrationrent controller jurisdictionestoppel against statuteurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an ejectment petition against the respondent under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds including default in rent and personal need. During proceedings before the Rent Controller, the parties agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrators filed an award, which the Rent Controller made a rule of the court, dismissing the ejectment petition. The lower appellate court dismissed the appellant's subsequent appeal. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to refer a rent dispute to arbitration and make an award the rule of the court. The Lahore High Court held that a Rent Controller acting under the Ordinance is a persona designata and not a civil court, and the statute does not contemplate reference to arbitration; consequently, an order based on an arbitration award is without jurisdiction and a nullity. The principle laid down is that there is no estoppel against a statute, and statutory tribunals cannot bypass prescribed procedures by referring matters to arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller exercising jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is competent to refer a dispute between a landlord and tenant to arbitration?
  • Can an order passed by a Rent Controller on the basis of an arbitration award be considered valid and lawful?
  • Does the principle of estoppel apply against a statute when a party willingly participates in referring a matter to arbitration?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Akhtar vs Ch. Muhammad Iqbal1982 PLD Lahore 248 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Ahmad vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 503 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
• Maqboql Ahmed vs The State1982P Cr. L J 350 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 593 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 724 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-07Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Shah and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 344 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Nazar and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 594 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-02Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and Other vs Muhammad Ali and Other1982 PLD Lahore 632 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mansha vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 494 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mansab Khan and Another vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab1982 CLC 1294 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Rehamatullah vs Sheikh Muhammad Amjad and Others1982 CLC 827 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
• Malik Rehamatullah vs Sheikh Muhammad Amjad and Other1982 CLC 827 · Lahore High Court · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
• Malik Murid Ahmad vs Faiz Muhammad1982 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Saleem1982 PLD Lahore 702 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-24
  civil revisionejectment orderrent controllerrejection of plaintexecution of decreethird party dispossessionbar of separate suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent rejection of the petitioner's plaint in a civil suit filed to declare ownership and seek an injunction regarding property affected by an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether a separate civil suit is barred when a third party, claiming independent ownership and possession, is dispossessed through the execution of an ejectment order under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Lahore High Court held that while section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller, section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, makes the execution provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable, treating the Rent Controller as an executing court. The court laid down the principle that a dispossessed third party claiming title must seek remedy via an application under Order XXI rule 100 before the Rent Controller rather than filing a separate civil suit, rendering such a suit barred under Order XXI rule 103.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Can a person dispossessed under an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller file a separate civil suit to establish title and secure possession?
  • Do the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the execution of ejectment orders passed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akram vs Mahmooda Begum and Other1982 CLC 473 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Akbar and 6 Other vs Mian Qamaruddin and 10 Othe1ts1982 PLD Lahore 558 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-01
  temporary injunctioncivil revisionprima facie casejoint propertymultiplicity of proceedingsinterlocutory orderbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged an appellate court's judgment refusing a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning land ownership. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience sufficient to warrant the issuance of a temporary injunction in a dispute involving unpartitioned joint property. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the lower courts' orders, and granted the temporary injunction. The Court held that to succeed in an application for a temporary injunction, a party need not prove their case conclusively but must demonstrate an arguable case. It further established that in disputes involving unpartitioned joint property, issuing a temporary injunction is appropriate to prevent the introduction of third parties and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. The Court emphasized that when disposing of applications for temporary injunctions or passing interlocutory orders, it is desirable to avoid detailed discussions on the merits of the case to prevent prejudice to either party during the subsequent trial.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required for a party to succeed in an application for a temporary injunction?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to discuss the merits of a case in detail when disposing of an application for a temporary injunction?
  • Should a temporary injunction be issued in disputes involving unpartitioned joint property to avoid the induction of strangers?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Abdullah vs Sahib Yar1982 CLC 2161 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Mljrid Ahmad vs Faiz Muhammad1982 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Masih vs The Election Tribunal/Civil Judge, Bhakhar and1982 CLC 1693 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Masih vs The Election Tribunal/Civil Judge, Bhakar and Another1982 CLC 1693 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• Major Muhammad Suleman Khan vs S. Sultana Fakhira Begum1982 CLC 128 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
• Majeeda Begum vs Muhammad Din1982 CLC 1560 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Maj. Z. A. Ismail and Others vs Begum Hamida Saadat Ali Khan and Others1982 CLC 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
• Maj. Z. A. Ismail and Others vs Begum Hamida Saadat Ali Khan and Other1982 CLC 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-22Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan vs Muhammad Sharif and Others1982 CLC 2 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan vs Muhammad Sharif and Other1982 CLC 2141 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan and Others vs Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah Etc.1982 CLC 2355 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan and Others vs Ghazanfar Ali and Others1982 CLC 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan and Others vs Ghazanfar Ali and Other1982 CLC 1493 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →