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.

• Rahmat Ali vs Ismail and Anothers1978 P Cr. L J 504 · Lahore High Court · 1974-08-25Read full judgment →
• Rahat Masood vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 841 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-13Read full judgment →
• Rafique Muhammad vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 214 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-19Read full judgment →
• Rafique Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate vs The District Magistrate, Lahore1978 P Cr. L J 770 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rafi Masih vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 849 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
• Rabia Bibi Etc. vs Ghulam Rasool1978 PLD Lahore 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• Rabia Bibi Etc vs Ghulam Rasool1978 PLD Lahore 1134 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ra13 Nawaz vs Muhammad aliaMAMMAN Etc.1978 P Cr. L J 803(1) · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-29Read full judgment →
• Qurban Shah Etc. vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 739 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
• Quaim Din vs Muhammad Yaqub1978 PLD Lahore 842 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• Qamaruzzaman vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 10 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-26Read full judgment →
• Qamarul Islam Convict vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
• Punjab Vegetable Ghee & General Mills Ltd., Lahore vs Not1978 PLD Lahore 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-22Read full judgment →
• Punjab Vegetable Ghee & General Mills Ltd., Lahore vs Chairman, Punjab Labour Court No, 1 and 2 Others1978 PLD Lahore 1065 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Its Home Secretary, and 3 Others vs Gulzar Hassan, Advocate and 8 OthersPLD 1978 Lahore l298 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Its Home Secretary, and 3 Other vs Gulzar Hassan, Advocate and 8 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1298 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-10
  fundamental rightsdoctrine of eclipsevoid lawproclamation of emergencyjudicial reviewexecutive actionrule of lawcriminal law amendment act
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge's order declaring two government notifications, which banned the Freemasons Society and seized its property, as being without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, previously declared void for inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, remained void or was revived by the Proclamation of Emergency. The Court held that the notifications were void and of no legal effect. It affirmed that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not obliterated from the statute book but remain in a state of 'hibernation' or 'inoperability' while those rights are enforceable. Crucially, the Court established that the Proclamation of Emergency does not automatically revive such void laws; rather, they remain unenforceable unless specifically re-enacted. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that executive actions must be supported by valid, existing law, and that Article 4 of the Constitution provides an independent guarantee against arbitrary executive action that cannot be bypassed during an emergency, regardless of the suspension of the right to move courts for Fundamental Rights enforcement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a law declared void for inconsistency with Fundamental Rights become automatically operative upon the issuance of a Proclamation of Emergency?
  • Can executive authorities take action in the absence of a valid, operative law during a state of emergency?
  • Does the suspension of the right to move a court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Article 233(2) of the Constitution also suspend the operation of the Fundamental Rights themselves?
  • Is the guarantee provided by Article 4 of the Constitution distinct from the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1, Part II of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and Another vs Messrs Industrial Machine Pool, Lahore1978 PLD Lahore 829 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-10
  arbitrationrevocation of authorityimplied authority of counselestoppel by conductacquiescencegovernment pleadersubstitution of agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed by the Province of Punjab challenging the rejection of its application under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to revoke the authority of a sole arbitrator. The dispute arose from a tube-well installation contract. Although the original agreement stipulated a reference to two departmental Superintending Engineers, the parties' counsel subsequently made a joint statement in court agreeing to refer the matter to a sole arbitrator (an advocate). The petitioner later sought revocation, alleging that the appointment was procured through fraud and misrepresentation by a departmental employee, and that the counsel lacked authority to deviate from the original agreement. The Lahore High Court held that an arbitration agreement can be modified or substituted by mutual consent, including through statements of counsel. Under Order XXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a Government Pleader has implied authority to compromise or refer a matter to arbitration. Furthermore, because the petitioner actively participated in the arbitration proceedings without objection, it was estopped by conduct from challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction. Finding no evidence of misconduct or miscarriage of justice, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arbitration agreement requiring a specific class of arbitrators be modified or substituted by a subsequent mutual agreement or statement of counsel in court?
  • Does a Government Pleader or Advocate have the implied authority to compromise a suit or enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of the Government without a formal written power of attorney?
  • Is a party who actively participates in arbitration proceedings without objection estopped from subsequently challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction or the validity of their appointment?
  • Can the authority of an arbitrator be revoked under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act 1940 on the ground of a mere apprehension of bias or because the arbitrator gave high awards in other unrelated cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Progressive Papers Ltd. Lahore vs Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore1978 PLC 193 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmad Butt vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ahmad But vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs Punjab Employees' Social Security1978 PLD Lahore 704 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs Punjab Employees Social Security1978 PLD Lahore 704 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
• Ohulam Haider (Wrongly Described as Ghulam Said) and 5 Others vs Baramat (Minos) and Another1978 PLD Lahore 673 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Elahi vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate & Secondary1978 PLD Lahore 987 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 204 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Ch. Ghulam Muhammad and Others1978 PLD Lahore 819 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Ch. Ghulam Muhammad and Other1978 PLD Lahore 819 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-07Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and Others vs Additional Secretary, Food & Agriculture1978 PLD Lahore 949 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and Other vs Additional Secretary, Food & Agriculture1978 PLD Lahore 949 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and 2 Others vs Additional Secretary, Food &1978 PLD Lahore 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad and 2 Other vs Additional Secretary, Food & Agriculture, Governmemt of Pakistan and 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs Bashir Ahmad and 4 Others1978 PLD Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-09Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs Bashir Ahmad Ahd 4 Othus1978 PLD Lahore 221 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-09Read full judgment →
• Nazir and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 908 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-31Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad Etc. vs Muhammad Murad Ali1978 PLD Lahore 930 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-14Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad Etc vs Muhammad Murad Ali1978 PLD Lahore 930 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-14Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 239 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Allah Nawaz Khan and 8 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue (Judicial and Land Reforms), West Pakistan, Lahore and Another1978 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Allah Nawaz Khan and 8 Other vs Member, Board of Revenue (Judicial and Land Reforms), West Pakistan, Lahoreand Another1978 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs Muhammad Yousaf and 16 Others1978 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-11Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs Muhammad Yousaf and 16 Other1978 PLD Lahore 62 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-12Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin vs Settlement Commissioner, Multan, Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1360 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• Nasar Javed vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 99 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
• Naib Subedar Ahmed Khan vs District Magistrate. Jhelum1978 PLD Lahore 794 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Etc. vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 507 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Etc vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 507 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mureeda vs Abdul Karim1978 P Cr. L J 785 · Lahore High Court · 1974-11-26Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Jhang vs Muhammad Ramzan1978 PLD Lahore 498 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Hassan vs Major Khawar Hussain Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1353 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-16Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs Muzaffar Qadir and Others1978 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs Muzaffar Qadir and Other1978 PLD Lahore 232 · Lahore High Court · 1973-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhmmad Saleem Rana and Another vs Sh. Saleem Hassan and Another1978 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Sultan Khan and 3 Others1978 PLD Lahore 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs Sultan Khan and 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman Khan vs Government of Punjab Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 981 · Lahore High Court · 1973-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 412 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Muhammad Ramzan and Another1978 PLD Lahore 1095 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf vs Hakim Muhammad Ahmad and Another1977 PLD Lahore 815 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad YOUNUSConvict vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 82 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 82 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus and Anothers vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 3 Others1978 PLD Lahore 723 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus and Another vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 723 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Maqsood Ahmad1978 PLD Lahore 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Khan and Another vs Miraj Din and Another1978 PLD Lahore 790 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-09
  temporary injunctioninherent powersrestoration of suitdismissal in defaultstatus quocivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed in default, leading the plaintiffs to file an application for its restoration alongside an application for a temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed the injunction application as incompetent due to the absence of a pending suit, a view upheld by the lower appellate court which also rejected the applicability of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question addressed is whether a court can grant a temporary injunction under its inherent powers when a suit is not formally pending but an application for its restoration is under consideration. The Lahore High Court held that while Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 apply strictly to pending suits, the court retains inherent powers under section 151 to grant interim relief to prevent the frustration of potential restoration and to maintain the status quo in the interest of justice. The key principle laid down is that inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to issue a temporary injunction during restoration proceedings when Order XXXIX does not apply.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary injunction be granted under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a suit has been dismissed and is only subject to a restoration application?
  • Whether the inherent powers of a court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to issue a temporary injunction during the pendency of an application for the restoration of a dismissed suit?
  • Does an appellate court deal with a matter in its revisional jurisdiction when no such objection was raised or noticed in the proceedings before it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 797 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Province of Punjab and 5 Others1978 PLD Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Province of Punjab and 5 Other1978 PLD Lahore 87 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Settlement Commissioner Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Amin Dar1978 PLD Lahore 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 929 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Jauharabad1978 PLD Lahore 774 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Atlas Maulvi vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 699 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif alia Maulvi vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 414 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Zahir Hussain and Anotrer1978 PLD Lahore 862 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Zah1r Hussain and Another1978 PLD Lahore 862 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 635 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State and Another1978 P Cr. L J 831 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Ghulam Qadir Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 71 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-29
  evacuee propertymortgage redemptionlimitation periodcustodianconstitutional petitionrehabilitation authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises out of proceedings under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, concerning the redemption of land mortgaged by a local owner to a non-Muslim mortgagee who subsequently migrated to India at Independence. The core legal question was whether the right to redeem the mortgage had become time-barred under Article 148 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, after the expiry of sixty years, and whether the Custodian had the jurisdiction to order redemption. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act regarding limitation periods do not run in favour of the Custodian who merely steps into the shoes of the evacuee mortgagee, and that section 13 of the Limitation Act excludes the time during which the mortgagee was absent from Pakistan. The Court affirmed that the Custodian possesses the power under section 25 read with section 41 of the 1957 Act to allow redemption of such properties. The key principle laid down is that limitation does not extinguish a local mortgagor's right to redeem property from the Custodian upon the mortgagee's migration to India, as the Custodian is not a successor-in-interest for the purpose of claiming limitation benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period of limitation under Article 148 of the Limitation Act continues to run against a local mortgagor after the evacuee mortgagee has migrated to India?
  • Does the Custodian of Evacuee Property qualify as a successor-in-interest entitled to claim the benefit of limitation laws?
  • Whether the Custodian has jurisdiction under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 to order the redemption of a mortgage after sixty years from its execution?
  • Do Articles 148 and 120 of the Limitation Act apply to applications filed before the Custodian under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Tahir vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 177 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 14 Others vs Hayat Khan and 5 Others1978 PLD Lahore 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 14 Other vs Hayat Khan and 5 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1228 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and 2 Other vs Abdul Lateef and Another1978 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and 2 Other vs Abdul Latbef and Another1978 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 62 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Saratul Fatima and Another1978 PLD Lahore 1459 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-14
  Intra-Court appealinterlocutory orderrent restrictionconstitutional jurisdictionalternative adequate remedyrelationship of landlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing in limine a constitutional petition. The petition challenged an interlocutory order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant to deposit arrears and future rent during ejectment proceedings, without first deciding the preliminary issue regarding the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The core legal question is whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be invoked against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller when an adequate statutory remedy by way of appeal against the final order is available. The court held that the appeal lacks merit and dismissed it in limine, affirming that interlocutory orders of the Rent Controller that are non-appealable under the legislative scheme cannot be challenged through constitutional petitions to bypass legislative intent. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised against interlocutory orders that cause no immediate tangible damage and where an adequate, effective remedy is available through the statutory appellate hierarchy upon the conclusion of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller directing the deposit of rent?
  • Does an order directing the deposit of rent during ejectment proceedings cause imminent and tangible damage justifying constitutional interference?
  • Whether the legislative intent regarding non-appealable interlocutory orders under the rent restriction law can be circumvented through constitutional petitions?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs "Divisional Forest Office, Lahore1978 PLD Lahore 972 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Jahangir Badar1978 PLD Lahore 1132 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Divisional Forest Office, Lahore1978 PLD Lahore 972 · Lahore High Court · 1973-01-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Amir Alam and Another1978 P Cr. L J 539 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Collector Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1370 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 863 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1978 PCrLJ 649(2) · Lahore High Court · 1976-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 730 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir Chaudhary vs Punjab Province Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1350 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Mst. Faiz Elahi and 2 Others1978 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Mst. Faiz Elahi and 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 328 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and Others vs Sultan Khan1978 PLD Lahore 923 · Lahore High Court · 1977-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Etc. vs Muhammad Arshad Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Etc vs Muhammad Arshad Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1035 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →