Loading... Account
Dark Mode
Step 1 of 8

Welcome!

Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7

Welcome!

Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.

Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)

MALIK HAMID RAZA VS SONIA SAEED

Citation: 2025 LHC 4664

Case No: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)-Declaration 719-25

Judgment Date: 12-06-2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi

Summary: When a minor's interests are at stake in litigation, the court may override parental consent for DNA test if it observes that such consent is not in the best interest of the minor.

MUSHTAQ AHMAD ETC VS SAIQA CHAUDHARY ETC

Citation: 2025 LHC 4649, PLD 2025 Lahore 704

Case No: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)-Declaration 1077-24

Judgment Date: 12-06-2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Raheel Kamran

Summary: The question raised in this appeal was whether an application of Rule 27 of Order XLI of C.P.C could be decided conjointly while hearing appeal against decree? It has been held that if the appellate court determines that the evidence sought to be produced is of such a nature that its inclusion on the record could fundamentally alter the decision of the main case, then it might indeed be prudent to decide the application separately through a distinct order. This would allow for proper consideration of its admissibility and relevance before proceeding to the merits of the appeal. However, if the appellate court, after initial assessment, forms the view that the proposed evidence, even if admitted, would likely have no material impact on the outcome of the main case, then there is no compelling need to decide the application for additional evidence separately. In such a scenario, a conjoint decision of the application and the main appeal becomes a matter of judicial economy and efficiency. Such approach significantly contributes to the sound administration of justice by streamlining proceedings, preventing unnecessary delays, and ensuring expeditious dispensation of justice.

Ms. Azgard Nine Limited & 2 others Vs Govt. of the Punjab etc.

Citation: 2025 LHC 4809

Case No: Labor 30280/25

Judgment Date: 12-06-2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Asim Hafeez

Summary: Determination of benchmark wage under the provisions of Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965, is essential for determining the quantum of contribution payable thereunder.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL ETC. VS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIR ETC.

Citation: 2025 LHC 8142, 2025 MLD 1962

Case No: Writ Petition-Settlement-Evacuee trust Property Board 738-R-17

Judgment Date: 12-06-2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Jawad Hassan

Summary: Summary pending

Nabila Hakim Ali Khan Vs Govt of the Punjab etc

Citation: 2025 LHC 3845, PLD 2025 Lahore High Court 759, 2025 PLC CS 1354

Case No: Service 51439/23

Judgment Date: 12/06/2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Raheel Kamran

Summary: The petitioner was appointed as Ombudsperson Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, Punjab vide notification dated 17.06.2021 for a term of two years. Subsequently, subsections (5) and (6) in Section 7 were added by way of the Amendment Act which was published in the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary) on 12.01.2022, whereby term of office of the Ombudsperson has been stipulated for four years. Such amendment has not only fixed tenure of the Ombudsperson to be four years but also curtailed her eligibility for extension of tenure or re-appointment. The commencement clause of the Amendment Act clearly stipulates that it "shall come into force at once." This legislative phrasing indicates an immediate application of the amended provisions upon their enactment. Since the Amendment Act, including the revised tenure stipulated in the amended Section 7, came into force while the petitioner was still serving as the Ombudsperson, the extended tenure of four years became applicable to her office. In the absence of any legislative expression within the Amendment Act explicitly suggesting that the new tenure provision would only apply to future appointments, it squarely applied to the petitioner and the notification dated 01.04.2022 was lawfully issued by the Government of the Punjab to give immediate effect to the Amendment Act whereby tenure of the petitioner as Ombudsperson was extended to four years with effect from her initial taking of charge on 18.06.2021. 392Crl. Revision 63117/24 Muhammad Afzal Vs The State etc. Mr. Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa 11- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4795 2025 PCr.LJ 1919 (Lahore)

Mian Sohaib ul Rehman Vs Muhammad Bashir etc

Citation: 2025 LHC 4075, 2025 PCrLJ 1931

Case No: Crl. Revision 10045/19

Judgment Date: 12/06/2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Abher Gul Khan

Summary: Summary pending

MALIK HAMID RAZA VS SONIA SAEED

Citation: 2025 LHC 4664

Case No: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)-Declaration 719-25

Judgment Date: 12/06/2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi

Summary: When a minor's interests are at stake in litigation, the court may override parental consent for DNA test if it observes that such consent is not in the best interest of the minor. 390Crl. Revision 10045/19 Mian Sohaib ul Rehman Vs Muhammad Bashir etc Justice Abher Gul Khan 12- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4075 2025 PCr.LJ 1931 (Lahore)

MUSHTAQ AHMAD ETC VS SAIQA CHAUDHARY ETC

Citation: 2025 LHC 4649, PLD 2025 Lahore High Court 704

Case No: Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)-Declaration 1077-24

Judgment Date: 12/06/2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Raheel Kamran

Summary: The question raised in this appeal was whether an application of Rule 27 of Order XLI of C.P.C could be decided conjointly while hearing appeal against decree? It has been held that if the appellate court determines that the evidence sought to be produced is of such a nature that its inclusion on the record could fundamentally alter the decision of the main case, then it might indeed be prudent to decide the application separately through a distinct order. This would allow for proper consideration of its admissibility and relevance before proceeding to the merits of the appeal. However, if the appellate court, after initial assessment, forms the view that the proposed evidence, even if admitted, would likely have no material impact on the outcome of the main case, then there is no compelling need to decide the application for additional evidence separately. In such a scenario, a conjoint decision of the application and the main appeal becomes a matter of judicial economy and efficiency. Such approach significantly contributes to the sound administration of justice by streamlining proceedings, preventing unnecessary delays, and ensuring expeditious dispensation of justice. 389Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)- Declaration 719-25 MALIK HAMID RAZA VS SONIA SAEED Mr. Justice Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi 12-06- 2025 2025 LHC 4664

Ms Azgard Nine Limited & 2 others Vs Govt of the Punjab etc

Citation: 2025 LHC 4809

Case No: Labor 30280/25

Judgment Date: 12/06/2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Asim Hafeez

Summary: Determination of benchmark wage under the provisions of Provincial Employee's Social Security Ordinance, 1965, is essential for determining the quantum of contribution payable thereunder. 388Civil Revision- Civil Revision (Against Interim Order)- Declaration 1077-24 MUSHTAQ AHMAD ETC VS SAIQA CHAUDHARY ETC Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran 12- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4649 PLD 2025 Lahore 704

MUHAMMAD IQBAL ETC VS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIR ETC

Citation: 2025 LHC 8142, 2025 MLD 1962

Case No: Writ Petition-Settlement-Evacuee trust Property Board 738-R-17

Judgment Date: 12/06/2025

Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court

Judge: Justice Jawad Hassan

Summary: 387Labor 30280/25 Ms. Azgard Nine Limited & 2 others Vs Govt. of the Punjab etc. Mr. Justice Asim Hafeez 12-06- 2025 2025 LHC 4809

Disclaimer: AI/GPT is not a substitute for legal advice. The content on this website is for research only. In case of breach of T.O.S, PLDB reserves the right to revoke or ban membership at any time without notice. Pak Legal Database ® 2023-2026. All Rights Reserved. Version 4.05.2a. Designed & developed by theblinklabs.com

error: Content Protection Enabled
Scroll to Top