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.

• Asif Ali Zardari, Senator vs S.H.O., Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh and others1999 MLD 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs S.S.P. LahoreK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 192 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Kiyani and others vs Mst. Hajira Bibi and others1999 MLD 2821 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-23Read full judgment →
• Ashraf and others vs The State1999 MLD 976 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Ali vs The State and 5 others7 , . Criminal Procedure Code (v_c10c50fa1999 YLR 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ashiq vs The State and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1868 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Shabbir vs Mst. Sharifan Bibi and 13 others1999 YLR 2159 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 613 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmad vs The State1999 YLR 2588 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Abdul Shakoor and 2 others1999 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-04Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali alias Bhola vs Special Judge, Antiterrorism (Punjab), Faisalabad1999 MLD 2644 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Asaf Mansoor vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 451 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-04Read full judgment →
• Arzam Gul vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs S.H.O., Qilla Gujjar Singh and 4 others1999 YLR 942 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs Additional District Judge, Jhelum and 2 others1999 MLD 2975 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Arif Latif Chaudhry vs M. Latif and 3 others1999 PLD Lahore 465 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-29Read full judgment →
• Arif and others vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. and others1999 PLC 16 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-09Read full judgment →
• Anwar-Ul-Haq vs Additional District Judge, Hafizabad Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 456 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Anwar Sultana Malik vs Rent Controller/Civil Judge First Class,1999 MLD 3360 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Anwar Shah vs Senior Superintendent of Police, Sheikhltpura and 171999 P Cr. L J 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-18Read full judgment →
• Anwar Bibi vs State1999 MLD 3094 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-22Read full judgment →
• Anwar Beg vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1932 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Anwaar Ali vs (Mst.)Riaz Anwar Etc.K.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 383 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-06Read full judgment →
• Anjum Sheraz vs The State1999 NLR Criminal 1 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Amjad alias Ajju vs The State1999 MLD 959 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali Khan Niazi vs The Deputy Commissioner, Mianwali and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 271 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad vs The Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahroe1999 YLR 2690 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs Siraj Din and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 51 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-14Read full judgment →
• Amir Aziz vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 560 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Amir and another vs The State1999 YLR 2719 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-14Read full judgment →
• Amin Fabrics Limited, Karachi vs Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd. (PASSCO), Lahore and anothers1999 PLD Lahore 313 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-14Read full judgment →
• American. Express vs M.N . Beg, Advocate1999 YLR 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
• Ameer vs Province of Punjab1999 CLC 603 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ameer Hamza vs Chairman, Railways Board and others1999 MLD 2346 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ameer Ali vs The State1999 MLD 758 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-02
  murder convictionocular evidencemedical evidence conflictinterested witnessmotiveappreciation of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant, Amir Ali, for the murder of the deceased, Talib, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased following a dispute over a loan repayment. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through ocular evidence, motive, and weapon recovery, and whether the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account. The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular testimony of the complainant and eye-witnesses to be consistent, forthright, and unimpeachable. The Court held that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not invalidate their testimony, and that relationship to the deceased does not render witnesses 'interested' or 'partisan' absent proof of malice. Furthermore, the Court ruled that where direct, credible ocular evidence exists, it prevails over medical opinion, especially when the latter is based on hypothetical assumptions or appears motivated to favor the accused. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the trial court's sentence of life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship of a witness to the deceased automatically render them an interested or partisan witness?
  • In the event of a conflict between credible ocular evidence and medical opinion, which prevails?
  • Is proof of motive a mandatory requirement for a successful prosecution in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are minor discrepancies in the statements of eye-witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and others vs Mst. Tajan and others1999 MLD 2151 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Amanuel Latif and 2 others vs The State1999 YLR 642 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-20Read full judgment →
• Amanat Khan vs Motor Registration Authority, Chakwal And 2 Other1999 CLC 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-28Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 599 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-24Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali vs Abdul Haque and 27 others1999 MLD 1148 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs Mst. Jatti and 5 others1999 MLD 899 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1886 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-22Read full judgment →
• Almutwakkal Flour Mills through Abdul Majeed Cheema, Partner vs Province of the Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore and another1999 YLR 42 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-13
  wheat quotaflour millsadministrative discretionfundamental rightsequality clausenotified orderrestraint of tradeFoodstuffs (Control) Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns numerous writ petitions filed by flour mills in Punjab challenging the provincial government's refusal to allocate or enhance wheat quotas. The government conditioned these quotas on the 'enlistment' of mills, a requirement purportedly based on departmental policy letters. The core legal question was whether the government could restrict trade and deny quotas based on un-gazetted administrative instructions rather than statutory law. The Court held that the government’s policy letters, including the directive dated 12-12-1996, were not 'notified orders' under the Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, and thus lacked the force of law. Consequently, the refusal to grant quotas based on non-enlistment, and the reduction of existing quotas without notice or hearing, were declared illegal and arbitrary. The Court emphasized that discretionary powers must be structured and that any restriction on the fundamental right to trade under Article 18 of the Constitution must be prescribed by law. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that treating similarly situated mills differently violates the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government restrict the allocation of wheat quotas to flour mills based on an un-gazetted departmental policy letter?
  • Does the requirement of 'enlistment' for flour mills constitute a valid legal restriction on the right to trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the government reduce the wheat quota of existing flour mills without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the refusal to grant wheat quotas to non-enlisted mills while granting them to others violate the equality clause of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs Superintendent, New Central Jail, Bahawalpur and 31999 YLR 1728 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar vs Shah Muhammad and 4 others1999 YLR 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Yar And Another vs Faiz Ahmad And 5 Other1999 CLC 713 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-30
  revision petitionlimitation periodlachesfraudulent decreecondonation of delayspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a judgment of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petitioners' application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that they were neither judgment-debtors nor successors-in-interest. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an application under section 12(2) by a person who is not a party or judgment-debtor, and whether a revision petition filed after an inordinate delay without an explanation or an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is maintainable. The court held that an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be maintained by any 'person' whose rights are affected by fraud or misrepresentation, regardless of whether they are a party or judgment-debtor. However, the court dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it was barred by laches and filed after about two years without satisfactory explanation or an application for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that while revision petitions are governed by a 90-day rule of practice and lack a strict statutory limitation period, any delay beyond 90 days requires a satisfactory explanation and an application for condonation failing which the petition is liable to be dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who is not a party to the suit or a judgment-debtor maintain an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a revision petition filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after a delay of two years maintainable without an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • What is the applicable period of limitation as a rule of practice for filing a revision petition before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya vs The State1999 MLD 3351 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 705 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha And Another vs Said Ali And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 339 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Nawaz Khan and 2 others vs Farida Fatima Khanum and 11 others1999 MLD 2738 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-26
  succession certificatesummary proceedingsclosing of evidenceOrder 17 Rule 3 CPCprima facie titlecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which granted a succession certificate to the widows of the deceased, Manzoor Ahmad Khan Wattoo. The petitioners contested the status of the widows, claiming they were not legally married to the deceased. The trial court, after providing numerous opportunities for the petitioners to produce evidence in rebuttal, closed their evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and granted the certificate based on the evidence presented by the widows. The High Court observed that proceedings under the Succession Act 1925 are intended to be summary in nature. The Court held that the trial court acted correctly in closing the evidence after the petitioners failed to utilize multiple opportunities over a three-year period. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the widows had established a prima facie case of entitlement through unimpeachable evidence. The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the principle that while succession proceedings are summary, the court retains the authority to manage its proceedings and grant certificates to those with the best prima facie title.

  Questions settled

  • Is a proceeding for the grant of a succession certificate under the Succession Act 1925 intended to be a summary proceeding?
  • Can a court grant a succession certificate to an applicant who appears to have the best prima facie title when intricate questions of law or fact arise?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to close evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, after granting multiple opportunities to a party to produce evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 417 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Imam Din1999 YLR 1981 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs District Magistrate, Multan1999 PLD Lahore 388 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 418 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 685 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Dewaya through Legal Heirs and others vs Ghulam Mustafa and others1999 YLR 204 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-27Read full judgment →
• Allah Baksh vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 534 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-16Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs Abdul Rashid and another1999 YLR 2410 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-31Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Sardaran through his Legal1999 YLR 2110 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-11Read full judgment →
• Aljlah Bakhsh And Other vs Ghulam Sarwar And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 299 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 682 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State1999 YLR 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs Pakistan Railways and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 112 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Nazir Ahmad And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 165 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan Qazilbash Trust vs The State1999 P.C.T.L.R. 782 · Lahore High Court · 1998-12-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Faraz vs Admission Board of the Medical Colleges in Punjab1999 CLC 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Bahadur vs Municipal Committee, Arifwala and 7 others1999 MLD 142 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-05
  public auctionlease cancellationsuppression of factssupervisory jurisdictionstatutory compliancelocal governmentwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated constitutional petitions regarding the validity of a lease for a cattle market auction conducted by the Municipal Committee, Arifwala. The core legal questions were whether the lease, granted without the mandatory seven-day notice period required by the Punjab Local Council Lease Rules, 1990, was valid, and whether the petitioner in the connected petition was entitled to relief despite suppressing material facts regarding prior litigation. The Court held that the lease was void ab initio because the auction failed to comply with the statutory notice period, rendering the subsequent agreement invalid. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petition of the leaseholder for suppressing the filing of previous writ petitions and a civil suit regarding the same subject matter. The Court upheld the government's order for a re-auction, emphasizing that the government has supervisory powers under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, to intervene when local council actions violate the law or public interest. The key principle established is that if a statute prescribes a specific method for performing an act, it must be performed in that manner or not at all, and any action based on an illegal foundation is void.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to provide the mandatory seven-day notice for an auction under the Punjab Local Council Lease Rules, 1990, render the resulting lease contract void?
  • Can a petitioner be denied discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for suppressing the filing of prior litigation regarding the same subject matter?
  • Does the government have the authority to cancel a local council lease and order a re-auction if the original auction was conducted in violation of statutory rules?
  • Is a contract valid if its foundational process was executed in contravention of mandatory statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi And Another1999 CLC 29 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-11
  land acquisitioncompulsory acquisition chargesmarket value determinationTown Improvement Actpotential valuecompensation enhancementjudicial notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns six consolidated regular first appeals challenging the compensation awarded for land acquired under the Town Improvement Act, 1922. The core legal questions were whether the appellants were entitled to 15% compulsory acquisition charges under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the market value of the acquired land was correctly assessed by the Collector and the Referee Court. The Court held that the 15% compulsory acquisition charges are not admissible for land acquired under the Town Improvement Act, 1922, due to the valid modification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Schedule to the Town Improvement Act, 1922. Regarding valuation, the Court rejected the arbitrary division of land into blocks and, relying on a previous unchallenged award for similar land in the same area, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000 per Kanal for all appellants. The principle laid down is that where land is acquired under the Town Improvement Act, 1922, compensation must be based on the actual use of the land at the time of notification, and potential future value is not a relevant consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Are compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, applicable to land acquired under the Town Improvement Act, 1922?
  • Should the potential future value of land be considered when determining compensation under the Town Improvement Act, 1922?
  • Can a court take judicial notice of a previous award for similar land to determine the market value of land under acquisition?
  • Is the division of acquired land into blocks for valuation purposes permissible if it does not reflect the actual character and nature of the land?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs Principal, Government Degree College, Sahiwal and others1999 MLD 3397 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
• Alam Din and 14 others vs Muhammad Ali and 35 others1999 MLD 2146 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-28
  rejection of plaintlimitationinheritancemixed question of law and factprocedural technicalitiesremandcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged concurrent judgments of the lower courts which rejected the petitioners' plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, on the ground of limitation. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly rejected the plaint without recording evidence, especially concerning claims of inheritance and alleged fraudulent transactions. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in dismissing the suit on technical grounds without allowing the parties to lead evidence. The Court emphasized that the question of limitation, particularly in matters involving inheritance, constitutes a mixed question of law and fact that cannot be summarily decided without trial. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the principle that procedural laws are designed to foster the cause of justice rather than defeat it through technicalities. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a decision on merits after framing appropriate issues.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation without recording evidence when the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact?
  • Does the law of limitation apply strictly to suits involving claims of inheritance?
  • Should procedural rules be interpreted to defeat the ends of justice on technical grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Alaf Din vs Mst. Soni Bibi1999 CLC 1808 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Akhtar vs Tufail1999 YLR 1809 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-26Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Siddiqui, Advocate vs The Province of Punjab Through1999 CLC 951 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-23
  settlement lawspast and closed transactionfunctus officioproperty auctionconstitutional petitionadministrative inquiryfinality of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the initiation of fresh inquiry proceedings by the provincial government regarding property rights that had been settled decades earlier. The petitioner, having purchased the property in a 1961 auction, obtained a Permanent Transfer Order (P.T.O.) and a Transfer Order (T.O.), and subsequently constructed a commercial building. The core legal question was whether, following the repeal of settlement laws and the finality of litigation up to the Supreme Court, administrative authorities could reopen a settled property dispute via executive order. The Court held that the matter constituted a past and closed transaction. It determined that once the transfer orders were issued and the litigation concluded, the Settlement Authorities became functus officio and lacked the competence to reopen the case. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that no authority vests in the department to initiate such inquiries after the repeal of the relevant settlement legislation. Consequently, the Court declared the pending proceedings without lawful authority and of no legal effect, quashing the administrative inquiry initiated against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Can settlement authorities reopen a property dispute after the issuance of a Transfer Order (T.O.) and the repeal of settlement laws?
  • Does an executive directive from a Chief Minister empower a department to reopen a matter that has already been adjudicated up to the Supreme Court?
  • Are proceedings initiated by administrative authorities without legal basis after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 valid?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hassan Awan vs District and Sessions Judge1999 CLC 1533 · Lahore High Court · 1999-06-08Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 694 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-11Read full judgment →
• Akbar and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 2172 · Lahore High Court · 1999-01-14Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs Haider And AnotherK.L.R. 1999'Revenue Cases 179 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ajm Al Kushad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 146 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-13Read full judgment →
• Aish Muhammad vs The State1999 YLR 2734 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Zaman Khan, Bar at Law vs Province of Punjab Through District1999 CLC 1268 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar vs Rajab Khan and 5 others1999 YLR 698 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Sher alias Sheri vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1440 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed Awan vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman Distt. HousingK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 223 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahmad Sher vs The State1999 YLR 1563 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan through AttorneyGeneral, Chanda vs Multan Development1999 MLD 2172 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and 6 others vs Sessions' Judge,Khushab at Jauharabad1999 MLD 3399 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and 4 others vs Sikandar1999 YLR 2692 · Lahore High Court · 1999-04-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hassan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1999-05-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Fabric vs Inspecting Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax1999 PTD 2899 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahmad Din vs Abdul HaqK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 298 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State1999 MLD 2021 · Lahore High Court · 1998-10-26Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 136 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad and another vs The State1999 YLR 128 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-18Read full judgment →
• Aftab (Private) Limited through Chairman and Chief Executive vs Central1999 MLD 122 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Adbul Ghani vs District Magistrate, Lahore and others1999 YLR 2038 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-11Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 329 · Lahore High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs S.H.O., Police Station Gulgasht, Multan and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 414 · Lahore High Court · 1998-08-27Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Master Abdul Latif1999 CLC 573 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 529 · Lahore High Court · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 426 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →