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 Yousaf vs Muhammad Hassan and 7 Others1981 CLC 1181 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Mian Faiz Muhammad1981 CLC 101 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Brig. Muhammad Anwar and Anoyder1981 P Cr. L J 718 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Shahzad Qamar and 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 280 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 693 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State and Another--1981 P Cr. L J 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Mst. Shagufta Begum and Another1981 CLC 143 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-10
  dissolution of marriagekhulares judicatarestitution of conjugal rightsaversionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a husband challenging a family court's decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula. The petitioner contended that the wife's second suit for dissolution was barred by res judicata due to a previous dismissed suit, and that she had failed to provide objective, logical reasons for her aversion to her husband. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the principle of res judicata did not apply because the previous suit challenged the validity of the marriage itself, whereas a claim for khula assumes a valid marriage. On the merits of khula, the Court ruled that under Islamic law, a wife is not required to provide objective or logical reasons to satisfy the court of her aversion. Rather, the court must satisfy its conscience that the rift is so serious that there is no possibility of the spouses living in harmony within the limits prescribed by God, and that forcing them to remain in a hateful union is contrary to Islamic principles.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a wife's suit challenging the validity of her marriage operate as res judicata against a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula?
  • Is a wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula required to provide objective, logical, and sufficient reasons for her aversion to her husband?
  • What is the standard of satisfaction required of a Family Court Judge when deciding whether to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of khula?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob Etc. vs Ghulam Muhammad Etc.1981 CLC 654 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-21
  declaratory suitrejection of plaintpossessory titleevacuee propertyspecific reliefcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a civil suit for a declaration and perpetual injunction claiming that the disputed property belonged to the Provincial Government, was not evacuee property, and that the transfer in favor of the respondents was obtained by fraud. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code, holding that the suit was not maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act since the petitioners were pleading the title of the Provincial Government. The lower appellate court dismissed the appeal. In the civil revision, the Lahore High Court examined whether the petitioners had a possessory title enabling them to maintain the declaratory suit. The High Court held that abstract possessory rights do not warrant a declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, that a mere right to remain in possession can only be protected against illegal eviction, and that possessory title is strictly relevant to a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act when unlawfully dispossessed. The Court concluded that the suit was barred under section 42 and failed to disclose a cause of action. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can maintain a declaratory suit under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act on the basis of an abstract possessory title?
  • Does a suit for declaration lie where the plaintiff pleads title vesting in the Provincial Government rather than in themselves?
  • Is a declaratory suit maintainable when the protection claimed under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 can be raised in eviction proceedings?
  • When is possessory title relevant for filing a suit under the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin vs Muhammad Younis Baig and Another1981 CLC 512 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman and 26 Other vs Federal Government of Pakistan1981 PLD Lahore 537 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Us Man (Represented by His Legal Heirs). Appellant vs Begum1981 CLC 771 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and Another vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore Division, Lahore and 3 Others1981 CLC 1153 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 929 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Mst. Zubeda Begum1981 CLC 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 Other vs Master Muhammad Ibrahim and 31981 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26
  pre-emptioncourt fee deficiencyextension of timelimitationreview of ordermala fidecontumacy
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated regular first appeal arose from two pre-emption suits filed on the final day of limitation with deficient court fees. The trial court initially granted both sets of plaintiffs time under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to make up the deficiency, which was duly deposited within the allowed timeframe. However, the trial court subsequently dismissed both suits, finding that the plaintiffs had obtained the extension based on incorrect statements regarding their efforts to secure revenue records and that the suits were consequently time-barred. The Lahore High Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that in the absence of positive mala fides, gross negligence, or contumacy, the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 149, CPC and Section 28 of the Court Fees Act 1870. The High Court further held that once unconditional time was granted and complied with, the trial court could not unilaterally review its order through general issues without formal review proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court review an unconditional order extending time under Section 149 CPC without a formal application for review?
  • Does filing a suit on deficient court fees on the last day of limitation automatically constitute mala fide or gross negligence?
  • Under what circumstances can a court refuse to grant time to supply deficient court fees under Section 149 CPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 Other vs Malik Allah Ditta1981 PLD Lahore 318 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-23
  civil revisionfraudulent decreeretrospective effectcontinuation of suitamendment of pleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose out of a suit filed by the respondent challenging a decree on the ground of fraud, which was decreed by the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Additional District Judge, section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the insertion of subsection (2) via the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, requiring a challenge to a decree on the ground of fraud to be made by an application to the court that passed the decree rather than by a separate suit. The petitioners applied for the dismissal of the respondent's suit based on this amendment, which the appellate court dismissed. The Lahore High Court upheld the appellate court's view, holding that the amendment is not retrospective and does not affect suits that were filed and decided before its enactment, notwithstanding the general principle that an appeal is a continuation of a suit. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has retrospective effect on suits filed and decided prior to its enactment?
  • Does an appeal being a continuation of a suit render section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to pending appeals arising from suits decided before the amendment?
  • Can a suit instituted and decided before the amendment of section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed on the ground that fraud must now be challenged via an application under the amended provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiqub and 2 Other vs Khalid Rashid and 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 734 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sibtain Shah vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1103 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher Alias Shera and Another vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1175 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 704 · Lahore High Court · 1979-08-31
  post-arrest bailcross versionsmurderprivate complaintfurther inquirycognizable offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, who was accused of murder under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in F.I.R. No. 69/78. The core legal question revolves around whether post-arrest bail should be granted when there are two conflicting cross-versions of the same incident, specifically where the accused party also sustained injuries and instituted a cross-complaint summoning the complainant party as accused. The court held that where a private complaint relates to a cognizable and non-compoundable offence and cross-versions exist with injuries sustained by the accused, it cannot be determined with certainty at the bail stage as to which side was the aggressor, thereby bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the existence of a counter-version supported by prima facie probability and injuries to the accused warrants the grant of bail for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when there are two conflicting cross-versions of an incident involving cognizable offences?
  • Does the existence of injuries on the person of the accused provide a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is there a distinction between a private complaint and a registered police case pertaining to a cognizable and non-compoundable offence regarding the application of section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Ismail1981 CLC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Government of Punjab Etc.1981 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Another vs Mst. Rasool Bibi and 8 Another1981 CLC 533 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-20
  civil jurisdictionrevenue partitionprivate partitionrejection of plaintquestion of titleland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal concerns a dispute over land partition. The appellants challenged a partition ordered by a Tehsildar, asserting that a prior private partition had already occurred, thereby granting them title to specific land parcels. The trial court rejected the plaint under the belief that the suit was barred by the jurisdiction restrictions of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The core legal question was whether a civil suit challenging a revenue partition on the basis of a prior private partition is barred by the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 172(2)(xviii) of the said Act. The Court held that the suit was maintainable. It reasoned that a plea of private partition inherently involves a question of title, which falls outside the bar of jurisdiction imposed by the Act. Furthermore, the Court clarified that when deciding to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court must rely solely on the averments in the plaint rather than the defendant's pleadings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the case remanded for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil suit challenging a revenue partition barred by Section 172 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 when the plaintiff claims title based on a prior private partition?
  • Does a plea of private partition involve a question of title?
  • Should a court consider the defendant's pleadings when deciding to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 6 Others vs The Secretary, Irrigation & Power1981 PLC (C. S.) 562 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 3 Other vs Suleman And4other1981 PLD Lahore 321 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and 2 Other vs The StatePLD 1981. Lahore 191 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Nawaz vs Muhammad Abbas1981 CLC 9 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and 4 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 879 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 991 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Member, Board of Revenue Etc.1981 CLC 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 3 Others vs The Province of Punjab and Another1981 CLC 749 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Judge Family Court and Another1981 CLC 1445 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sardar and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Director, Army Education Etc.1981 PLD Lahore 444 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 550 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways1981 PLC 815 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid Khan and Another vs Punjab Province and Another1981 PLD Lahore 446 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1324 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Chiragh Din and Another1981 CLC 1733 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1304 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qayyum vs Muhammad Ramzan Etc.1981 P Cr. L J 1043 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Saeed Khan and Others1981 CLC 1089 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Shah vs Chairman, Town Committee, Se1aher Sultan1981 PLC (C. S.) 884 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Etc. vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1232 · Lahore High Court · -
  post-arrest bailvicarious liabilityfurther inquirymurdersimple injuriescommon intentionSection 497 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from a case registered against the petitioners and co-accused under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, and 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a land possession dispute resulting in the fatal shooting of a woman and injuries to eyewitnesses. The core legal question was whether accused persons who did not fire the fatal shot and only caused simple injuries to witnesses should be granted bail on the ground that vicarious liability requires further inquiry. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail application for petitioners Muhammad Yaqoob and Dost Muhammad, holding that the question of vicarious liability and common intention to commit murder should not be deeply evaluated at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that where the specific role attributed to an accused involves causing simple injuries without firing at the deceased, the application of vicarious liability remains a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of vicarious liability should be deeply examined at the stage of deciding a bail application?
  • Can an accused accused of causing simple injuries be admitted to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of further inquiry into common intention?
  • Whether active participation resulting only in simple injuries to prosecution witnesses brings an accused's case within the scope of further inquiry during murder proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munshi vs Shahamand1981 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir vs Muhammad Anwar1981 CLC 632 · Lahore High Court · 1976-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar Qureshi vs Punjab Road Transport Board , .1981 PLC 557 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Masud vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 815 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Hakim Nisar Ahmed and Others1981 CLC 1704 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and Another vs Zir Mir Khan and 2 Others1981 CLC 129 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03
  pre-emptionright of pre-emptionre-sale to vendorcivil revisionsuperior right of pre-emption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a pre-emption suit concerning agricultural land. The original vendors (petitioners) sold land to a vendee, who subsequently transferred it to a third party, and finally, the land was re-sold back to the original vendors. The pre-emptor, claiming a superior right of pre-emption, filed a suit against the original sale. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the pre-emptor. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption suit can be defeated if the property is re-sold to the original vendor. The Court held that the right of pre-emption cannot be defeated by a re-sale of the property back to the original vendor. The Court reasoned that the ultimate transfer of the land to the original vendors did not extinguish the pre-emptor's valid claim against the original and subsequent vendees. Consequently, the Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, affirming that the pre-emptor's right remained intact despite the subsequent re-transfer to the vendors.

  Questions settled

  • Can a right of pre-emption be defeated by the re-sale of the property to the original vendor?
  • Does a re-sale of the subject property to the original vendor extinguish a pre-emptor's claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 497 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jahangir Khan vs Government of the Punjab1981 CLC 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1975-07-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs District Judge, Sargodha and 4 Others1981 CLC 361 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad Khan vs Muhammad Khan Zafar Hussain and Another1981 CLC 203 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad and 4 Others vs Sardar Khan1981 CLC 124 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-01
  second appealpre-emption suitsale in disguiseexchange of propertydelivery of possessionfinding of factmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit concerning a parcel of land measuring 4 kanals, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent by the lower appellate court, holding the transaction to be a sale in disguise rather than a genuine exchange. The core legal question was whether the transaction in dispute constituted a genuine exchange or a sale cloaked as an exchange to defeat the right of pre-emption. The Lahore High Court held that the transaction was indeed a genuine exchange supported by mutual delivery of possession and absence of price consideration, and that the lower appellate court's finding was based on no evidence and misreading. The court laid down the principle that while parties may lawfully structure a transaction as an exchange to evade pre-emption, a pre-emptor may challenge it by proving it is a fraudulent cloak for a sale, but findings of fact based on no evidence or misreading are vitiated and open to review in second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction purporting to be an exchange can be treated as a sale in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 require an equivalence of values between properties exchanged for a valid transfer?
  • Can a finding of fact by a lower appellate court be interfered with in a second appeal when it is based on no evidence or misreading of the record?
  • Is it lawful for parties to enter into a bona fide transaction of exchange for the purpose of evading the right of pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Accountant-General, Punjab1981 PLC (C. S.) 572 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 76 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Azhar Hafeez Sheikh and 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 353 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-24
  Section 12(2) CPCexecution proceedingsjudgment-debtorfraud and misrepresentationdecree challengelocus standicivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner, who was not a judgment-debtor, sought to challenge a decree obtained by the third respondent against the fourth respondent on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The core legal question was whether the term 'person' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extends to individuals other than the judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest. The Court held that the application was incompetent, ruling that the scope of Section 12(2) is strictly limited to the judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest. The Court reasoned that the provision was intended to streamline the process for judgment-debtors to challenge decrees, and allowing third parties to invoke it would facilitate abuse and cause inordinate delays in execution proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner’s proper remedy for asserting possession or title lies under Order XXI, Rules 100 and 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who is not a judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest file an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to challenge a decree?
  • Is the term 'person' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 limited to the judgment-debtor or their successor-in-interest?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a third party claiming possession of property subject to execution proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 235 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 848 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1189 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The Gujranwala Improvement Trust1981 CLC 863 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Khan and Others1981 P Cr. L J 1077 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Mst. Surraya Begum and Another1981 CLC 293 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 229 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Province of Punjab through Director of Education, Lahore Region, Lahore and Another1981 PLD Lahore 95 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez and 4 Others vs Abdul Rashid Khan1981 CLC 796 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Etc vs Allah Ditta1981 PLD Lahore 293 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-07
  civil appealOrder VII Rule 3Order XVII Rule 3inherent powersSection 151 CPClimitationcourt fee deficiencydismissal of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a declaratory suit filed by the appellants regarding land ownership, following an earlier declaratory decree and subsequent revenue authority orders mutating only specified khasra numbers. The trial court had directed the appellants to provide complete descriptions of the property under Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Upon their repeated failure to comply, the trial court dismissed the suit, invoking Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court evaluated whether the dismissal order was appealable, whether the appeal was barred by time and court-fee deficiencies, and the merits of the dismissal.

  The High Court held that the dismissal was an exercise of the court's inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 rather than Order XVII Rule 3, making it non-appealable. Additionally, the appeal was time-barred as the application for the decree copy was made after limitation expired, delay was unexplained, and the memorandum was insufficiently stamped without timely deficiency make-up under Sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order dismissing a suit for non-compliance with court directions to provide property descriptions under Order VII Rule 3 appealable when passed under inherent powers of the court?
  • Does merely citing Order XVII Rule 3 CPC change the non-appealable nature of a suit dismissal order actually passed under inherent powers or Order IX Rule 2 CPC?
  • Is an appeal properly presented if the certified copy of the decree sheet is applied for after the expiration of the limitation period?
  • On what date is an appeal deemed to be validly filed when the memorandum of appeal is initially insufficiently stamped?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota and 4 Other vs Feroze Din and 5 Other1981 PLD Lahore 689 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State and Another1981 PLD Lahore 41 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Baqar and Another vs Muhammad Rafi and Another1981 P Cr. L J 432 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and Others vs Qutabuddin and Others1981 CLC 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and 2 Others vs Muhammad Bakhsh and 9 Others1981 CLC 98 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-15
  limitation periodexecution of decreeabatement of appealstay orderpre-emption suitcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two civil revision petitions arising from concurrent decisions of the lower courts that dismissed objections regarding the time-barred status of execution petitions filed by pre-emptors. The core legal question was whether the execution petitions were filed within the period of limitation under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, considering that Article 182 had been deleted and stay orders or pending appeals had previously operated. The Lahore High Court held that the right to apply for execution accrued or the starting point of limitation commenced from the date of the formal High Court order holding the second appeal abated, and that under section 15 of the Limitation Act, the period during which execution remained stayed by injunction or order must be excluded. The court established the principle that where an appellate proceeding concludes with an order of abatement, such an order marks the withdrawal of the stay or provides the operative date from which limitation runs, ensuring execution petitions filed shortly thereafter are within time.

  Questions settled

  • When does the period of limitation for filing an execution application begin when a second appeal has abated?
  • Does the deletion of Article 182 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act make Article 181 applicable to execution applications?
  • Whether the period during which execution remains stayed by an injunction or order should be excluded in computing limitation under the Limitation Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azad Khan vs The State--despondent19813 P Cr. L J 1245 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Alias Nikka vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1029 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Ghulam Nabi and 3 Others1981 CLC 817 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 6 Other vs Muhammad Abdullah Khan1981 PLD Lahore 33 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03
  ejectmentstatutory tenantdefault in rentpersonal needjoint tenancyservice of noticesubsequent cause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the appellants in respect of certain premises originally transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the legal heirs of the deceased statutory tenant on grounds of default, personal need, and property damage. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate court ordered ejectment. In the second appeal, the appellants contended that certain legal heirs were not properly served, that counsel lacked authority to represent some appellants, that the non-joinder of certain co-heirs was fatal, and that ejectment on personal need was initiated before the expiry of the statutory six-year protection period under Section 30 of the 1958 Act. The High Court held that the appellants were either properly represented or had notice and chose not to appear, that non-joinder of absent co-heirs not in possession was not fatal, and that a cause of action maturing during the pendency of proceedings cures any premature initiation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application is rendered incompetent by the non-joinder of certain legal heirs of a deceased statutory tenant who are not in possession of the disputed premises?
  • Can an ejectment proceeding initiated before the expiry of the six-year statutory protection period under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 be sustained if the said period expires during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Whether a tenant who has been personally served but fails to enter an appearance can later challenge an ejectment order on the ground of lack of representation or opportunity of being heard?
  • Does the failure to frame an issue regarding the service of notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 vitiate proceedings when the receipt of such notice is admitted in the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 928 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1343 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar and 2 Others vs Province of Punjab and Anothers1981 CLC 1494 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqil vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 402 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Province of the Punjab and .2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 343 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Etc. vs Mst. Soma1981 CLC 1479 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-26
  civil revisionpre-emption suitmemorandum of appealdecree-sheetmaintainability of appealguardianship
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's order entertaining a pre-emption appeal without a copy of the decree-sheet. The respondent filed a pre-emption suit which was dismissed by the trial court. The respondent appealed, but failed to append a copy of the decree-sheet to the memorandum of appeal as mandated by law. The lower appellate court entertained the appeal reasoning that the trial court had not drawn up the decree-sheet, making its preparation an exercise in futility. The core legal question is whether an appeal can be entertained and properly instituted without being accompanied by a copy of the decree-sheet. The High Court held that the lower appellate court erred in law by dispensing with the requirement of a decree-sheet, as an appeal not accompanied by a copy of the decree cannot be deemed to have been properly instituted. The revision is accepted, the appellate judgment is set aside, and the trial court's judgment is restored, leaving it open for the respondent to move the trial court for the preparation of the decree-sheet in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be properly instituted under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without being accompanied by a copy of the decree-sheet?
  • Whether a lower appellate court can dispense with the mandatory requirement of filing a copy of the decree-sheet with the memorandum of appeal?
  • What is the legal effect on an appeal filed without the annexation of the required copy of the decree-sheet?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar and 2 Others vs The State,1981 P Cr. L J 236 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and Another vs Nazir Ahmed and 3 Others1981 CLC 912 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Karam Ilahi1981 CLC 589 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Batool Bibi1981 CLC 816 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and Another vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1328 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Khan vs Bahadur Khan and Another1981 CLC 1516 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1191 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Chaudhri vs Commissioner, Lahore Division , . (1981 PLC (C. S.) 846 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar and Another vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 863 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ali and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. LJ 986 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-23
  maintainability of appealplea of guiltysmugglingnotified goodsjurisdictional factCustoms Actconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Lahore High Court arose from the conviction and sentencing of two appellants under Section 156(1)(89) read with Section 178 of the Customs Act 1969, following their plea of guilty before the trial court. The appellants were charged with possession of foreign playing cards, padlocks, and glass water-sets. On appeal, a preliminary objection was raised by the State under Section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the maintainability of the appeal after a plea of guilty. The High Court held that a plea of guilty does not bar an accused from challenging the prosecution if the alleged facts do not constitute an offence in law, nor does it allow the court to apply the law incorrectly. On the merits, the court observed that under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969, the offence of smuggling requires the goods to be notified by the Federal Government and to exceed Rs. 1,000 in value. Only playing cards were notified under S.R.O. No. 1426(1)/73, and the prosecution failed to prove that their value exceeded Rs. 1,000. Absent proof of this jurisdictional fact, the conviction was set aside and the appeal allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal from a conviction based on a plea of guilty is maintainable when the alleged facts fail to establish a criminal offence in law?
  • Does an accused person's plea of guilty relieve the court of its duty to ensure that the ingredients of the charged offence are actually satisfied?
  • Can a conviction for smuggling under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act 1969 stand where the prosecution fails to establish that the notified goods exceeded Rs. 1,000 in value?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Jan vs Abdul Rashid1981 CLC 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-10
  civil revisionrejection of plaintcause of actiontemporary injunctiontenant ejectmentpre-trial dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioner-tenant's suit for a permanent injunction against forcible ejectment was dismissed at the preliminary stage for allegedly failing to disclose a cause of action. The core legal question was whether a trial court can dismiss a suit or reject a plaint by looking beyond the contents of the plaint and examining evidentiary documents at the preliminary stage without framing issues or recording evidence. The Lahore High Court accepted the revision, holding that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the court must examine the plaint alone and nothing else, and that the petitioner's plaint did disclose a cause of action. The court laid down the principle that a suit cannot be dismissed or a plaint rejected on the basis of extraneous material or a lack of supporting documents at the pre-trial stage without trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss a suit at a preliminary stage by examining documents outside the plaint?
  • What material can a court examine when considering the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a suit seeking a permanent injunction against forcible ejectment disclose a cause of action when a tenant alleges threats of illegal eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahoor Elahi vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 700 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraya Azeem vs Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement1981 CLC 938 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →