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. Sughra Begum vs Ashfaq Ahmad ButtP L D1981 Lahore 393 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Siftan vs Muhammad Anwar and 2 Others1981 CLC 1653 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Mst. Insha Allah Begum1981 CLC 1072 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Begum vs Mst. Surat Bibi1981 CLC 398 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Begum and Others vs Muhammad Ajmal Khan and Others1981 CLC 620 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Akhtar and Other vs Lal Din Ahd Other S1981 PLD Lahore 623 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-28
  specific performanceagreement to sellcompromise decreeestoppel by electionuncertainty of contractfraudulent transferres judicataidentity of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court decree granting specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The respondent, a creditor of the deceased vendor, had entered into a compromise agreement in previous money suits, which included an option for the vendor to transfer one square of land to the creditor. The appellants, daughters of the deceased vendor, contested the suit, arguing that the land was not identifiable, the suit was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the respondent was estopped by electing to pursue execution of the money decree. The Court held that the suit was not barred by Order II, Rule 2, as the causes of action were distinct, nor was the respondent estopped, as the remedies were cumulative. However, the Court found that the respondent failed to prove the identity of the land agreed to be sold, as the suit land did not match the description in the agreement. Consequently, the Court held that the contract lacked the necessary certainty for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act 1877, and allowed the appeal, dismissing the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance is barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a previous suit was filed for the same debt under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does the existence of alternative remedies in a compromise agreement create an estoppel by election that prevents a party from pursuing specific performance?
  • Can a contract be specifically enforced if the subject matter lacks reasonable certainty as to its identity?
  • Is a compromise agreement that includes matters extraneous to the suit enforceable through a separate suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Sultana vs Abdul Razzaq1981 CLC 820 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Begum vs Muhammad Ali1981 PLD Lahore 116 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Bibi vs Imam Bakhsh1981 CLC 1297 · Lahore High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Mehboob1981 CLC 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mussarat Tahira vs Muhammad Yaqoob1981 CLC 501 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 386 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Manzoor Zohran vs Manzoor Hussain and 2 Others1981 CLC 907 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kausar Parveen vs Ghulam Rasool ..1981 PLD Lahore 511 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-20
  restitution of conjugal rightsdeferred dowerwrit jurisdictionappraisal of evidencefamily lawdower debt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated writ petitions arising from a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner, Mst. Kausar Parveen, challenged a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, arguing that the decree should have been made conditional upon the payment of her deferred dower debt. The respondent, Ghulam Rasul, separately challenged the appellate court's findings regarding a receipt he produced to prove payment of that dower. The core legal question was whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights can be conditioned upon the payment of deferred dower, and whether findings of fact regarding evidence appraisal are reviewable in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that because the dower was deferred, it is payable only upon the dissolution of marriage by death or divorce, not on demand; therefore, the decree for restitution could not be conditioned on its payment. Furthermore, the Court held that findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence by an appellate court cannot be disturbed under writ jurisdiction. Both petitions were dismissed, with the Court affirming the decree and declining to interfere with the factual findings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree for restitution of conjugal rights be made conditional upon the payment of deferred dower?
  • Is a finding of fact recorded by an appellate court based on the appraisal of evidence reviewable in writ jurisdiction?
  • When is deferred dower payable to a wife in a marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janat vs Additional District Judge, Mang and 2 OtherPL D 1981 Lahore 68 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Bibi and 2 Others vs Issac Nazirullah and 2 Others1981 CLC 229 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Ara and Another vs Mst. Amir Begum and Another1981 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussain Bibi Etc.s vs Mst. Aisha Bibi1981 CLC 962 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-29
  undue influencegift deedburden of prooflimitation periodspes successionismental capacityinheritance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent for possession of land, claiming to be the sole daughter of the deceased owner, Nizam Din, and challenging a gift deed executed by him in favor of the appellants (granddaughters through a pre-deceased son) on the grounds of undue influence, old age, and lack of a disposing mind. The trial court and the first appellate court both decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding the gift deed to have been procured via undue influence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 16 of the Contract Act 1872, heavy burden lies on the donee to prove absence of undue influence when dealing with an infirm and aged donor. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908, limitation for an heir to challenge a voidable instrument executed by a predecessor commences from the date of the death of the donor, as no cause of action accrues during the donor's lifetime due to the rule against spes successionis.

  Questions settled

  • Does a gift made by an aged and infirm donor to a family member standing in a fiduciary relationship raise a presumption of undue influence?
  • When does limitation begin under Article 91 of the Limitation Act 1908 for an heir to challenge a gift deed executed by their father?
  • Can a suit be maintained by an heir during the lifetime of their father to challenge a gift deed on the ground of undue influence?
  • Whether the question of whether a document was procured by undue influence is a question of fact not subject to interference in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameedan Bibi vs Muhammad Younus1981 CLC 996 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Others vs Sufi Ahmad Khan and Others1981 CLC 76 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 5 Others vs Mst. Anwar alias Anwari Begum1981 CLC 1651 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima and Another vs Assistant Commissioner_Collector, Shujabad Sue Division and Another1981 CLC 1755 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Bhaghan and 2 Other vs Sh. Muhammad Latif and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 146 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-09
  specific performanceold grant rightscantonment landunlawful agreementundue influencetransfer of propertysecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated October 3, 1968, regarding land situated within the Cantonment area in Sialkot, executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, and the lower appellate court dismissed the subsequent appeal. The appellants raised contentions regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, lack of prior government sanction rendering the agreement void under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, absence of clear title under section 25(b) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and undue influence due to mental infirmity. The Lahore High Court held that the agreement was not void for lack of prior permission since such transfer permissions or regularizations could be obtained post-sale under administrative rules, that old grant rights constituted substantial transferable rights, and that the allegations of mental incapacity and undue influence were not substantiated by evidence. Consequently, the concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement for the sale of land situated within a cantonment area is void under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872 for want of prior government sanction?
  • Does an old grant right in cantonment property constitute a valid title capable of being enforced through specific performance?
  • Whether a contract can be specifically enforced when administrative permission for transfer can be obtained subsequent to the sale?
  • What constitutes undue influence based on mental infirmity or old age under section 16 of the Contract Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeed Fatima vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina Begum and Other vs Mehar Ghulam Dastgir1981 PLD Lahore 694 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Bashir vs Muhammad Bashir and Another1981 CLC 423 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-15
  arbitration in pending suitsorder of referenceapplication in writingestoppelvalidity of awardconsolidation of suitsrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a dispute regarding a shop, involving multiple suits filed by the parties which were consolidated and referred to an arbitrator by a joint statement signed in court. The arbitrator rendered an award, and objections filed by the petitioner and respondent were rejected by the trial court, a decision subsequently affirmed in appeal by the District Judge. The core legal questions centered on whether a reference to arbitration in a pending suit could be made without a formal written application under section 21 of the Arbitration Act, whether the entire subject-matter could be referred without specific formulation of differences, and whether the courts were justified in rejecting objections to the award. The Lahore High Court held that where parties consent to arbitration, sign the proceedings, and participate, they are estopped from questioning the validity of the award on the ground of the absence of a written application under section 21. Furthermore, the reference was not vague as the parties were aware of the issues, and an arbitrator is the judge of law and fact, not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the order of reference in a pending suit could be made without any application as provided under section 21 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Whether the entire subject matter of the suit could be referred to arbitration without formulating the matter of difference between the parties?
  • Whether parties who participate in arbitration proceedings are estopped from challenging the award on the ground that the reference lacked a written application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akbar Bibi vs Shaukat Ali1981 CLC 78 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
• MRS. Yasmeen Lari vs Mums Lahore Investment Ltd. and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-06Read full judgment →
• MRS. Farhat Jabeen vs Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 588 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
• Molvi Niaz Ahmad vs Molvi Noorullah and Others1981 CLC 843 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-30Read full judgment →
• Miss Tauseef Gilani vs Disciplinary Committee and 3 Others1981 CLC 1314 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mirza Ghulam Hussain vs Muhammad Bashir1981 CLC 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mirza Abdul Hameed vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and 2 Others s1981 CLC 822 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-27Read full judgment →
• Miraj Din vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
• Miraj Din vs Shujauddin and Another1981 CLC 1063 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mian Safdar Khan and 3 Omitss vs THS State-1981 P Cr. L J 113 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mian Muzaffaruddin vs The Commerce Bank Ltd. and Another1981 CLC 665 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-01Read full judgment →
• Mian Ghulam Ali vs Ali Nawaz Khan1981 CLC 1147 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Simma Fabrics Ltd., Gujranwala vs Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and 3 Others1981 PLC 498 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-09
  Payment of Wages Actlegal adviserretainershipworker definitionjurisdiction of Authoritylabour lawemployer-employee relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to entertain a claim filed by a legal adviser against his former employer. The petitioner, a company, had appointed the respondent as a legal adviser on a retainership basis, tasked with handling labour cases and providing legal counsel. Following the termination of this arrangement, the respondent sought recovery of unpaid fees and salary before the Authority. The core legal question was whether a legal adviser engaged on a retainership basis qualifies as a 'worker' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby bringing the dispute within the Authority's jurisdiction. The Court examined the nature of the relationship and the definition of 'worker' under the relevant statute. The Court held that the respondent, being a legal adviser retained for professional services rather than an employee performing manual or clerical labour, did not fall within the statutory definition of a worker. Consequently, the Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. The petition was allowed, establishing that professional retainers do not constitute workers under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does a legal adviser engaged on a retainership basis qualify as a 'worker' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for professional fees by a legal adviser?
  • Is a person hired for professional legal services considered an employee for the purposes of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gulistan Cinema Ltd. Petitioner vs District Magistrate, Lahore1981 PLD Lahore 472 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dawood Hercules Chemicals Ltd. vs Commissioner, Social1981 PLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bahoo Films Corporation (Regd.) vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Baho Film Corporation vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another1981 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
• Messer Muhammad Sharif Chiragh Din and 2 Others vs Pakistan1981 CLC 343 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehraj Din . vs Mst. Sarwar Jahan Etc.1981 PLD Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mehr Zaman Khan and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 487 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mehar Jalal Din and 9 Others vs Abdul Majid1981 CLC 288 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
• Master Ghulam Rasul vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and Another1981 PLD Lahore 286 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
• Master Faqir Muhammad vs Tariq Saleem1981 CLC 759 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mashuq Ali Khan vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 224 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mashkoor Sabri vs Zafar Mahmood and 12 OTHERSs1981 P Cr. L J 546 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad Khan and Other vs Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab1981 PLD Lahore 665 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and Another vs The StatePLD 1981 Lahore 196 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-25Read full judgment →
• Manzoor and Another vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1980-08-26Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
• Manzoor & Co. Transport and 3 Other vs National Bank of Pakistan, Sharakpur Branch, Sheikhupura1981 PLD Lahore 128 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mansha and Another vs The State- Respondent1981 P Cr. L J 508 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
• Manazar Hussain Kazmi and Another vs The Chief Settlement1981 PLD Lahore 594 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Pakisan Agricultural Storage and Service1981 CLC 284 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mamma and Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
• Malla vs Mst. Jawai Etc.1981 CLC 1097 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Noor Muhammad vs WAPDA1981 PLD Lahore 340 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sharif vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Etc.S1981 P Cr. L J 1258 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Hanif vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Erc,1981 PLC 892 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Aslam vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Saddar, Sargodha and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 138 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07
  counter F.I.R.registration of F.I.R.writ of mandamusalternative remedypolice rulesprivate complaintdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the Station House Officer to register a first information report (F.I.R.) based on the petitioner's counter-allegations against the police regarding an occurrence where an F.I.R. had already been registered against the petitioner's driver under the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a second F.I.R. containing a counter-version of the same occurrence must be registered, and whether the High Court should issue a constitutional writ of mandamus to compel police registration when alternative remedies exist. The Lahore High Court held that while the law does not absolutely bar a counter F.I.R. for distinct grievances arising from the same occurrence, relief under constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary. The Court ruled that where allegations are directed against the police officers themselves and alternative, more efficacious remedies such as filing a direct private complaint before a Magistrate are available, a writ of mandamus to compel registration of an F.I.R. need not issue. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second F.I.R. containing a counter-version of the same occurrence can be registered under the law?
  • Is the registration of a counter F.I.R. an absolute right of an accused party?
  • Whether the High Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the police to register an F.I.R. when the allegations are directed against the police officers themselves?
  • Does filing a direct complaint before a Magistrate provide a more efficacious remedy than seeking police registration of a case?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Khuda Bakhsh Etc. vs Syed Hamid Ali Shah1981 CLC 901 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Jilani vs Province of Punjab and 6 Others1981 CLC 716 · Lahore High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Haider vs Province of Punjab1981 PLD Lahore 433 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-13
  service record correctiondate of birthdoctrine of estoppelrevisional jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionlimitation periodcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an appellate court's decision that reversed a trial court decree allowing the petitioner to correct his date of birth in his service record. The core legal questions were whether the doctrine of estoppel precluded the petitioner from relying on his birth certificate to correct his service record, and whether the High Court could exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct the appellate court's misinterpretation of the law. The Court held that the doctrine of estoppel was inapplicable because the petitioner’s initial recruitment was based on a medical examination, not on any representation made by the petitioner. Consequently, the appellate court acted illegally by misapplying the principle of estoppel, warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction. The Court further affirmed that civil courts possess the jurisdiction to determine a person's date of birth, as this is not a term or condition of service exclusively reserved for the Service Tribunal until the retirement date is at issue. The petition was allowed, restoring the trial court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of estoppel apply to a civil servant seeking to correct their date of birth when their initial recruitment was based on a medical examination?
  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to determine the correct date of birth of a civil servant?
  • Can the High Court interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an appellate court misinterprets the doctrine of estoppel?
  • Does the limitation period for a suit to correct a date of birth in service records commence from the date of recruitment or from the date the government refuses to correct the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Qadoos vs Mst. Maryam Bibi and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 456 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
• Major-General (R) Tajiamal Hussain Malik vs Federal Government of Pakistan Throughdefence Secretary and 2 Other1981 PLD Lahore 462 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-01Read full judgment →
• Mahmud Ahmad Butt and Another vs Lahore Development Authority1981 PLD Lahore 153 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
• M. Younis Malik vs The State Bank of Pakistan through Its Deputy1981 PLD Lahore 181 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-28
  passport impoundingright to traveljudicial reviewpersonal libertyspeaking orderexecutive discretionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the executive order impounding the petitioner’s passport without prior notice. The core legal question concerned the extent of executive discretion in restricting a citizen's right to travel abroad and whether such administrative actions are subject to judicial review. The Court held that the impounding order was invalid and unsustainable. It established that while the State may regulate travel, the right to travel is a facet of personal liberty protected under the Constitution. Consequently, executive authority cannot exercise unbridled discretion; any action curtailing this liberty must strictly adhere to the statutory requirements of the Passports Act, 1974. Specifically, the power to impound a passport without notice is limited to cases involving subversion or prejudice to national interests, neither of which existed here. The Court further affirmed that all administrative tribunals and functionaries exercising powers affecting a citizen's liberty, property, or reputation must pass "speaking orders" providing valid, justifiable reasons for their decisions. Such executive actions are justiciable under the Court's constitutional jurisdiction, ensuring that no citizen is hindered in lawful activities without due process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to travel abroad a protected facet of personal liberty under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the executive impound a citizen's passport without providing a show-cause notice?
  • Are administrative orders affecting a citizen's liberty or reputation subject to judicial review?
  • Must executive authorities provide valid reasons for their decisions in a speaking order?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Shafique Shah and Another vs Irshad Begum and 8 Others1981 CLC 369 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-16
  civil revisionexecution of decreeauction saleobjection petitionmaterial irregularitylimitation perioddeposit of sale price
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from execution proceedings where a house was put to auction and purchased by respondent No. 9. The petitioners' objection petition against the sale was rejected by the executing Court and the appellate court for failure to deposit twenty percent of the sale price prior to filing objections, as required by the second proviso to rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question is whether the executing Court must first specify the amount of deposit under the proviso before an objector can be penalized for non-deposit, and whether the objection petition was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908. The Lahore High Court held that the phrase "as the Court may direct" applies to both the deposit amount and the furnishing of security, meaning the executing Court must direct the specific amount not exceeding twenty percent before dismissing a petition. However, the Court ultimately upheld the dismissal because the objection petition was time-barred under Article 166 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act 1908. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement to deposit an amount under the second proviso to rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires a prior direction specifying the amount by the executing Court?
  • Does the phrase "as the Court may direct" in the second proviso to rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the deposit of up to twenty percent of the sale price?
  • Can a plea of limitation involving a pure question of law be raised for the first time during revision proceedings?
  • What is the limitation period for filing an application to set aside an execution sale under the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• M. K. Khakwani vs Mst. Shaheen1981 CLC 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
• M. Enver Shaukat vs Federation of Pakistan and another1981 PLC (C. S.) 15 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-15Read full judgment →
• M. A. Khan vs Mst. Masooda Shaheen1981 CLC 1358 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
• M a Qbool Ahmad vs Commissioner, Saroodha, ,1981 PLC (C. S.) 844 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
• Lthe Province of Punjab through Secretary To the Government of Punjab, Housing & Physical Planning Department and 2 Other vs Ch. Zahoor Elahi and 3 Other1981 PLD Lahore 696 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The StatePLD 1981 Lahore 196 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-25Read full judgment →
• Lal vs Muhammad Arshad and 3 Others S1981 P Cr. L J 984 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
• Lal and 3 Others vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1124 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Lahore Municipal Corporation, Lahore vs Shaukat-1981 P Cr. L J 1010 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Assistant Collector Cenral Excises1981 CLC 782 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khushnudur Rehman vs Mst. Zubeda Begum and 2 Others1981 CLC 406 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Mst. Bashiran1981 CLC 84 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Government of Punjab and Others1981 CLC 1677 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-14Read full judgment →
• Khushab Gul and Another vs Nawab Khan and Another1981 CLC 404 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-28Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad Shah and 4 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 67 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad Kahloon vs Fateh Muhammad and Another1981 PLD Lahore 459 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat Ann 3 Other vs The State1981 PLD Lahore 669 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat and 2 Others vs Shah Nawaz1981 CLC 139 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
• Khawar Ijaz and Another vs Government of the Punjab1981 CLC 321 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
• Khalid Farooq vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 144 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-12Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Lahore and Another, .1981 PLC (C. S.) 826 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
• Khadija Bibi vs Zulfiqar Ahmad1981 CLC 1212 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
• Kh. Manzoor Hussain vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner1981 CLC 1759 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kh. Bashir Ahmad vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1170 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-21Read full judgment →
• Kh. Abdul Qayyum vs Muhammad Afzal Khan and 2 Others1981 CLC 1163 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →