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. Jamila Begum vs Awam UN Nass and 15 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1376 · Lahore High Court · 1978-08-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Bashir Ahmad1978 PLD Lahore 518 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs Sh. Ashraf Pervaiz and 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Inayat Bibi vs Abdul Aziz and 4 Other1978 PLD Lahore 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ijaz Fatima vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner II and Another1978 PLD Lahore 769 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima and Another vs S. H. O., Police Station, Golra Sharif and 21978 PLD Lahore 1436 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bashiran Bibi vs Station House Officer Police Station, Shorkot1978 PLD Lahore 1323 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs DR. Abdur Rauf Nagi1978 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-25Read full judgment →
• MRS. Feroze Aslam vs Muhammad Akhtar1978 PLD Lahore 488 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-22
  writ petitioninterlocutory orderex parte orderejectmentrent restrictionalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a writ petition filed by a landlord challenging an order passed by a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte ejectment order against the tenant and reopening eviction proceedings. The core legal question is whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order setting aside an ex parte ejectment order when the final eviction proceedings are still pending. The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that since a final order had not yet been passed, the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy by way of an appeal under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, wherein any interlocutory order could be challenged. The Court laid down the principle that fragmentary decisions and writ petitions against interlocutory orders in rent matters are strongly discouraged to prevent protracted litigation and delay in the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller setting aside an ex parte ejectment order?
  • Can interlocutory orders that are not independently appealable be challenged in an appeal filed against the final order under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does a party suffer remediable harm requiring writ jurisdiction when challenging preliminary orders in ongoing rent proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• MR. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 331 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-12Read full judgment →
• MR. Yusuf Ali Khan, BARATLaw vs Muhammad Javid Iqbal Cheema, Addl.1978 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar-at-Law vs Muhammad David Iqbal Ceeema, Addl.1978 PLD Lahore 291 · Lahore High Court · 1975-03-30Read full judgment →
• Moms Nawaz Agencies, Lahore vs Incometax Officer, Mcircle, Lahore1978 PLD Lahore 198 · Lahore High Court · 1975-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Abdul Rauf vs Chief Settlement Commissioner1978 PLD Lahore 917 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-12Read full judgment →
• Modern Tentage & Textile Industries Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Court No, 11978 PLD Lahore 965 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-25Read full judgment →
• Modern Tentage & Textile Industries Lm. vs Punjab Labour Court No. 11978 PLD Lahore 965 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-25Read full judgment →
• Miss Alka Hussain vs University of Panjab Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Ahmad Beg vs Mirza Amjad Beg1978 PLD Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Ahmad Baig vs Mirza Amjad Baig1978 PLD Lahore 421 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-04Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Siddiq Shafi vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 66 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mian Khan and Another. vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 655 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mi Alka Hussain vs University of Panjab Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1357 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tasneem Mechanical Works vs Punjab Employees' Social1978 PLD Lahore 805 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tasneem Mechanical Works vs Punjab Employees' Social1978 PLD Lahore 805 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ravi Rayon Ltd. vs Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 21978 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pan Asian Trading Corporation, Lahore vs Government of the Punjab through Its Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Lahore and 2 Others1978 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Embroidery Mills Ltd. vs Punjab Employees' Social1978 PLD Lahore 955 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-10
  attendance allowancewagessocial security contributionsettlementCollective Bargaining Agentex gratia paymentindustrial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenged an order of the Punjab Social Security Court holding that an 'attendance allowance' paid by the appellant-company to its employees constituted 'wages' under Section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965, thereby attracting statutory contributions under Section 23 of the Ordinance. The appellant argued that the allowance was an ex gratia incentive paid to workers with regular monthly attendance and not part of the contract of service. The High Court analyzed the definition of wages, statutory incentive schemes under Section 10-A of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, and the binding nature of settlements under Sections 39 and 40 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an attendance allowance paid pursuant to a settlement—or continued by implied agreement after its term—relates to services rendered and serves as additional wages for regular work, rendering it subject to social security contributions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an attendance allowance paid to workers pursuant to a settlement constitutes wages under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Does a settlement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 continue to bind the parties after the expiry of one year if no notice of termination is given in writing?
  • Can payments made under an implied contractual extension of a settlement be considered voluntary or ex gratia payments for the purpose of social security contribution?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs M. Afzal & Sons and 2 Others vs Federal Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary, Finance and Another1978 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs M. Afzal & Sons and 2 Other vs Federal Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary, Finance and Another1978 PLD Lahore 468 · Lahore High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Islam Jewellerss vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi1978 PLD Lahore 890 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Harmann Pharmaceutical Laboratories (Regd.), Lahore vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry Op Health & Population Planning (Health Division), Islamabad and 2 Other1978 PLD Lahore 445 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Lyallpur vs Commissioner1978 PLD Lahore 374 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Crescent Films. Lahore vs Mhisri Shah Noor Films Ltd., Lahore1978 PLD Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
• Messers Pan Asian Trading Corporation, Lahore vs Government of the Pejnjab through Its Secbbtary,1978 PLD Lahore 382 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Meraj Din vs Maulvi Sultan Ere.1978 P Cr. L J 714 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mer Islam Jewellers vs Commissioner of Incometax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi1978 PLD Lahore 890 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mer Crescent Films, Lahore vs Messrs Shah Noor Films Ltd., Lahore and 8 Others1978 PLD Lahore 721 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ahmad and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 731 · Lahore High Court · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
• Mauji vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 273 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-09Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 175 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mapal Khan vs Martial Law Administrator. Zone "a", Lahore and 31978 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mapal Khan vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone "a", Lahore and 31978 PLD Lahore 766 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 354 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-28Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain Shah vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 885 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-23Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and 6 Others vs The State and 4 Others1978 P Cr. L J 601 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Etc. vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 858 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Khan vs Muhammad Bashir1978 PLD Lahore 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
• Mansha vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 867(2) · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Ziauddin vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima Etc.1978 P Cr. L J 496 · Lahore High Court · 1974-10-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Umar Raayat Tiwana Etc vs Malkani Sahibzadi . Tiwana Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Umar Hayat Tiwana Etc. vs Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1253 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Samad Ishaq vs Land Acquisition Collector Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Samad Ishaq vs Land Acquisition Collector Ear.1978 PLD Lahore 1139 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ishaq vs Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore and 71978 PLD Lahore 458 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
• Major-General Fazal-I-Raziq. Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore vs Ch. Riaz1978 PLD Lahore 1082 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-19
  quashment of proceedingscognizance of offenceprivate complaintreligious sentimentsmandatory sanctionjurisdiction of magistratepreliminary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated via a private complaint under Section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging injury to religious sentiments. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate possesses the jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and record preliminary evidence absent the government authorization mandated by Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the provisions of Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a mandatory condition precedent for the institution of proceedings for the specified offences. Consequently, the Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or record preliminary evidence without the requisite authorization from the Central or Provincial Government. The Court further clarified that the act of recording preliminary evidence constitutes taking cognizance of the offence. The key principle established is that where a statute requires government sanction for prosecution, the absence of such sanction renders the entire proceedings, including preliminary inquiries, void for lack of jurisdiction, regardless of whether formal process has been issued against the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have jurisdiction to record preliminary evidence in a private complaint under Section 295-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without government authorization?
  • Is the requirement of government sanction under Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a condition precedent for taking cognizance of an offence?
  • Does the act of recording a complainant's statement and preliminary evidence constitute taking cognizance of an offence?
  • Can a trial court proceed with a private complaint if the offence alleged requires government sanction under Section 196, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Maj. (Retd.) Muhammad Nawaz vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission1978 PLD Lahore 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
• Maj. (R) Muhammad Nawaz vs Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission1978 PLD Lahore 1367 · Lahore High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mahmudul Hassan vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 116 · Lahore High Court · 1977-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mahmmad Saleem Rana and Another vs Sh. Saleem Hassan and Another1978 PLD Lahore 521 · Lahore High Court · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Beg vs Sharif Beg and Another1978 PLD Lahore 1318 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
• Mae Ravi Rayon Ltd. vs Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and 21978 PLD Lahore 387 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
• M Uham Mad Saleem vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 844 · Lahore High Court · 1977-11-29Read full judgment →
• Latif vs THF State1978 PLD Lahore 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-23Read full judgment →
• Latif vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-23Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector vs Ch. Muhammad Ali1978 PLD Lahore 1372 · Lahore High Court · 1974-12-21Read full judgment →
• Lady DR. S. B. Zaman vs Khalid Farooq and 3 Others1978 PLD Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-15Read full judgment →
• Lady DR. S. B. Zaman vs Khalid Farooq and 3 Other1978 PLD Lahore 803 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-15Read full judgment →
• Khyber Spinning Company, Lahore vs Chairman, Punjab Labour1978 PLD Lahore 909 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-30Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 198 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Yahya and Others1978 PLD Lahore 924 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Yahya and Other1978 PLD Lahore 924 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-27Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Etc. vs Boota Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad Etc vs Boota Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-23Read full judgment →
• Khuda Dad vs Major Maqbool Hussain Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh and Other vs Muhammad Ismail1978 PLD Lahore 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh and an vs Muhammad Ismail1978 PLD Lahore 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
• Khana Etc./ vs Additional Commissioner Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
• Khana Etc vs Additional Commissioner Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 799 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-24Read full judgment →
• Khan Zaman vs Shameer Etc.1978 P Cr. L J 842 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-04Read full judgment →
• Khan Mir Khan Etc. vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 779 · Lahore High Court · 1974-09-30Read full judgment →
• Khan Asadullah Khan and Others vs Sheikh Islamud Din1978 PLD Lahore 711 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-14Read full judgment →
• Khan Asadullab Khan and Other vs Sheikh Islamud Din1978 PLD Lahore 711 · Lahore High Court · 1973-03-14Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad Khan vs Sultan Ahmad Shami and Another1978 PLD Lahore 779 · Lahore High Court · 1978-03-07Read full judgment →
• Khalid Etc. vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 800 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-15Read full judgment →
• Kh. Abdul Waheed and Another vs Government Of' the Punjab and Another1978 PLD Lahore 811 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
• Kh. Abdul Waheed and Another vs Government of the Punjab and Another1978 PLD Lahore 811 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad vs Arif Ali and Another1978 PLD Lahore 679 · Lahore High Court · 1977-12-23
  civil revisionsuo motu amendment of plaintGrow More Food Schemebar of jurisdictionultra vires executive orderlimitation periodvoid administrative ordersproprietary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a suit filed by a lessee under the Grow More Food Scheme seeking a declaration of entitlement to acquire proprietary rights by private treaty and challenging executive orders cancelling allotment. The trial court held the simple declaratory suit non-maintainable due to lack of possession, but suo motu directed the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include the relief of possession. The main legal questions involved whether a court could suo motu compel a party to amend a plaint, whether civil court jurisdiction was barred under Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912, and whether Article 14 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 governed the limitation period. The High Court held that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to compel a plaintiff to amend a plaint suo motu. It further ruled that Section 36 does not oust civil court jurisdiction where executive orders are ultra vires or void, and Article 14 does not apply to void administrative actions, making the residuary Article 120 applicable. The court set aside the order directing amendment and remanded the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 17 or Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to compel a plaintiff suo motu to amend the plaint?
  • Does Section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to examine administrative orders that are ultra vires or void?
  • Is Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to a suit challenging an executive order that is void and passed without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Kali and 2 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 766 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
• Jaisal vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 856 · Lahore High Court · 1977-09-01Read full judgment →
• Jahana vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 157 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
• JAFARConvict vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-03Read full judgment →
• Jafar vs The State1978 PLD Lahore 1209 · Lahore High Court · 1978-07-04Read full judgment →
• J Naib Subedar Ahmed Khan vs District Magistrate. Jhelum1978 PLD Lahore 794 · Lahore High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
• Islam vs Mukhtar Ahmad Etc.1978 PLD Lahore 994 · Lahore High Court · 1976-09-07
  customary lawancestral propertylegal necessitymisreading of evidencesecond appealreversionary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower appellate and trial courts, whereby a suit challenging land alienations under Customary Law was partly decreed. The core legal questions involved whether the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the ancestral nature of the property and whether the sales were supported by legal necessity. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact based on a proper evaluation of jamabandis, mutations, and oral evidence do not constitute misreading of evidence, and that findings on legal necessity and ancestral character of land are pure questions of fact binding in second appeal. The key principle laid down is that a finding of fact arrived at by courts below after considering each piece of evidence does not amount to an error of law or misreading simply because a different conclusion could be drawn, and concurrent findings on such facts cannot be disturbed unless vitiated by misrepresentation or complete disregard of material evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the misreading of evidence by lower courts vitiate a finding of fact so as to warrant interference by the High Court in second appeal?
  • Whether the determination of the ancestral character of land based on revenue records and jamabandis constitutes a question of fact?
  • Is a finding regarding the existence of legal necessity in property alienations under custom a pure question of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 69 · Lahore High Court · 1977-01-19Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmad and 2 Other vs Ghulam Muhammad and Another1978 PLD Lahore 438 · Lahore High Court · 1977-07-09Read full judgment →
• Iqtidar Hussain Zaidi vs University of the Punjab1978 PLD Lahore 298 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-15Read full judgment →
• Iqbalur Reeiman and 6 Others vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 35 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-05Read full judgment →
• Iqbalur Reeiman and 6 Others Convict vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 35 · Lahore High Court · 1977-06-05Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Masih vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 860 · Lahore High Court · 1976-02-05Read full judgment →