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.

• (Malik) Khalil Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 471 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
• (Haji) Noor Hassan vs SHO, P.S. B-Division Rahimyar KhanK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 111 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
• (Haji) Noor Hassan vs S.H.O. P.S. B-Division, Rahim Yar KhanK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
• (Haji) Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar, Ex-Mna vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad And AnotherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 1 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Haji) Abdul Aziz And Other vs (Haji) Dost Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 164 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) Riaz Ahmad And Other vs Government of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 44 · Lahore High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• (Dr.) M. Afzal Beg vs University of the Punjab through Its Registrar, Lahore And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 186 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Dr.) Ghulam Murtaza And Other vs Government of Punjab And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1402 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-14Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Muhammad Zikria Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Muhammad Zikria and others1998 CLC 900 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ahmad and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1077 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
• Zubaida Khanum vs Deputy District Education Officer and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 318 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Zonal Chief, Habib Bank Limited, Bahawalpur vs National Industrial1998 PLC 65 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Zia Ullah Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1833 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
• Zia Shahid, Cheif Editor, Daily Khabrain vs Khalid Anwar and others1998 CLC 588 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Zarid Mansoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 456 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Zakaullah Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Buildings1998 PLD Lahore 132 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-24
  arbitration awarderror on the face of the awardscope of appealcoercionfinding of factsupervisory jurisdictionletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a long-standing contractual dispute concerning road and footpath construction rates, which had been referred to arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the contractor and the government. The arbitrator rendered an award in favour of the contractor, concluding that an undertaking signed by the contractor accepting lower rates was given under forced circumstances and coercion. After protracted litigation through the civil courts, the Single Judge of the High Court set aside the award, leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal on remand from the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court examined the scope of interference with arbitration awards under the Arbitration Act 1940. The court held that an arbitrator is the sole and final judge of both law and fact, and courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot act as appellate courts to re-examine findings of fact unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's finding regarding coercion was a pure question of fact within his domain. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the civil court's order making the award a rule of the court was restored.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act 1940 regarding the grounds embodied in Section 30 of the Act?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an arbitrator's finding of fact that an undertaking was given under forced circumstances?
  • What is the extent of a court's supervisory power when examining an arbitration award for errors of law or fact?
  • Whether an arbitrator's conclusion regarding coercion or undue influence under the Contract Act 1872 constitutes a question of fact beyond routine judicial interference?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Khan vs Rehmat Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Elahi alias Jhoora vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed Azhar vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur through ViceChancellor and 4 others1998 PLD Lahore 324 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05
  grace marksacademic regulationsfirst divisionequal treatmentadministrative discretionwrit petitionuniversity autonomy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, having secured 535 marks in his M.Ed. examination, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Islamia University, Bahawalpur, to grant him 5 grace marks to achieve a 60% aggregate, thereby upgrading his result to a first division. The petitioner relied on a government notification regarding degree equivalence and cited regulations from other faculties and universities allowing for grace marks to improve divisions. The University opposed this, citing its specific M.Ed. regulations which only permit grace marks for failing candidates in specific circumstances. The Court held that the University's M.Ed. regulations are special and exclusive, precluding reliance on regulations from other faculties or universities. Furthermore, the Court established that an illegal favour previously extended to others by public functionaries does not create a binding precedent or a right to equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that courts cannot perpetuate past administrative irregularities as a basis for granting relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can a student claim grace marks for division improvement based on regulations applicable to different faculties or universities?
  • Does the grant of an illegal favour to one candidate create a precedent that entitles others to similar treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are specific university regulations regarding examination results subject to modification by external notifications or general equivalence policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Sohail Sattar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1795 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-16
  criminal proceduresupply of documentsSection 161 statementpolice diaryfair trialprosecution witnessesrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Samundri, which denied the petitioner's request for copies of supplementary statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The trial court had relied on the premise that statements recorded in the police diary do not fall under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and thus, the accused were not entitled to copies under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C. The core legal question was whether supplementary statements recorded by an Investigating Officer, even if signed by witnesses or incorporated into a case diary, constitute statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C., thereby entitling the accused to copies under Section 265-C. The High Court held that such statements, when separately recorded by the Investigating Officer, fall within the purview of Section 161, Cr.P.C., regardless of whether they are signed or thumb-marked by witnesses. The Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that the accused are statutorily entitled to copies of these statements before the commencement of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Are statements of witnesses recorded by an Investigating Officer in a police diary considered statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the fact that a witness signed or thumb-marked a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disqualify the accused from receiving a copy of it?
  • Is an accused entitled to copies of supplementary statements recorded by the police under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Muhammad vs Tahir Hussain Malik1998 CLC 1249 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah vs Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited And TwoK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 75 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 336 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Zafar and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1391 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs Islamic Republic of PakistanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 262 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-02Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Javaid vs Province of Punjab through Addl. Chief Secretary, EtcK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 80 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• William Masih vs Michael Masih1998 MLD 621 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-04Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority vs Ghulam Shabbir1998 MLD 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-06
  civil revisiondeclaratory suitdetection billWAPDAproof of documentonus of proofscribe examinationexhibited documentstrength of own case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose out of a declaratory suit filed by a electricity consumer challenging a detection bill of Rs. 11,270 issued by WAPDA as illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether an unproved private document, marked as an exhibit without objection, could be relied upon to discharge the burden of proof, and whether a plaintiff could succeed based on the defendant's evidentiary omissions. The Lahore High Court held that a document not duly proved by its scribe or author cannot be read in evidence, even if exhibited without objection, as the opposing party is deprived of cross-examination. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the settled principle that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot gain advantage from the weakness or omissions in the defendant's evidence. Finding that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proof on the crucial issue, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a document be read into evidence if its scribe is not produced to prove it, even where it has been exhibited without objection?
  • Can a plaintiff succeed in a declaratory suit by relying on the evidentiary weaknesses or failure to produce witnesses by the defendant?
  • Who bears the burden of proof when a consumer challenges a detection bill issued by a utility authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Akbar And Other vs University of Arif Agriculture RawalpindiK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 146 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
• Waseem Akbar and 6 others vs University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi through ViceChancellor and 41998 PLD Lahore 424 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
• Walli Ullah Khan vs The State1998 MLD 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhmmad vs Sardar MuhammadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 208 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
• Zafar vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Sardar MuhammadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 658 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
• Walayat vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 111 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh and another vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1907 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-16Read full judgment →
• Wah Industries Limited, Wah Cantt vs Punjab Labour AppellateK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 22 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
• Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan vs Haji Sultan Mahmood And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
• United Bank, Limited vs CH. Ghulam Hussain1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1050 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-21Read full judgment →
• Union Bank Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan1998 P.C.T.L.R. 925 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Union Bank Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan1998 PTD (Trib.) 2114 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
• Umer Hayat vs District and Sessions Judge, Multan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1208 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ume Kalsoom vs Secretary, Education Province of Punjab, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 40 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Ume Kalsoom vs Secretary Education, Province of Punjab, Lahore and 3 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 46 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
• Toyota Hiace City Wagon Owners Association, Multan vs Farrukh1998 PLD Lahore 376 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zakir Ali and others1998 P Cr. L J 1860 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Aslam and 5 others1998 MLD 398 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Maqsood Ahmad and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-15Read full judgment →
• The State Bank of Pakistan vs Javed Mahmood And Others1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1220 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• The State Bank of Pakistan Securities Department through Chief1998 PLD Lahore 511 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• The Administrator, Zila Council, Lahore and another vs Muhammad1998 MLD 759 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-07Read full judgment →
• Tayyab Hussain Shah and others vs The State1998 MLD 883 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Hussain vs The Senior Superintendent of Police, Rawalpindi1998 P Cr. L J 1148 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-11Read full judgment →
• Tariq, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 470 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Alias Jawa And Other vs The State Etc.(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 181) · Lahore High Court · 1998-09-07Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mehmood Alias Jawa And Other vs Muhammad HayatK.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 181 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-21Read full judgment →
• Tariq MASIHAppellapt vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1584 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-28Read full judgment →
• Tariq Maqsood vs Government of Punjab through Home Secretary, Home Department, Lahore And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Services Cases 129 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tariq Ali Sheikh vs Rent Controller (Khalid Nawaz), Lahore and another1998 CLC 460 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-11
  relationship of landlord and tenanttentative rent orderinterim orderconstitutional petitiondefault in payment of renteviction petitionjurisdiction of rent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions involved whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame an issue and tentatively determine the relationship of landlord and tenant before passing an interim rent deposit order, and whether such an interlocutory, non-appealable order can be assailed under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Lahore High Court held that when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, the Rent Controller must tentatively determine the question in the light of the material produced by the parties before passing an order under section 13(6). However, the Court also held that an interim order passed under section 13(6) is provisional and fragmentary in nature, and since no appeal lies against it directly, a constitutional petition cannot be maintained to bypass the statutory framework; the aggrieved party must wait for the final order. The petition was dismissed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame an issue and tentatively determine the relationship of landlord and tenant before passing an order under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Is an interim order passed under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether an aggrieved party can challenge a fragmentary and non-appealable interim order before it matures into a final order?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Akbar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 221 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
• Tariq Akbar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 244 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Province of Punjab1998 CLC 1433 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-10Read full judgment →
• Takhleeq vs The State(K.L.R 1998 Shariat Cases 36) · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Muhammad Azam Sattar and another1998 CLC 787 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-16
  ejectment petitionprocedural irregularitysigning of pleadingsrectification of defectrent restrictiontechnical objectionsubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the orders of a Rent Controller who allowed the landlord to sign an ejectment petition after an objection was raised regarding its initial signing by an unauthorized person, and subsequently refused to frame an additional issue on the matter. The core legal question was whether the signing of an ejectment petition by an unauthorized person constitutes a fatal defect or a mere procedural irregularity that can be rectified. The Court held that the failure to sign a pleading by an authorized person is a mere procedural irregularity that does not affect the court's jurisdiction or vitiate the pleadings. Such defects can be rectified at any stage of the proceedings to ensure substantial justice. The Court affirmed that technical objections should not be allowed to defeat the merits of a case, especially when the landlord appears in court and signs the petition, thereby curing the irregularity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no legal infirmity in the Rent Controller's decision to allow rectification rather than framing an additional issue.

  Questions settled

  • Is the signing of an ejectment petition by an unauthorized person a fatal defect or a mere procedural irregularity?
  • Can a court allow the rectification of an unsigned or improperly signed pleading at any stage of the proceedings?
  • Does the failure to properly sign an ejectment petition affect the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller?
  • Are the technical provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 strictly applicable to proceedings under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Taimur Abbasi and another vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Taimur Abbasi & Another vs The State(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 40) · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Tahmoor Sultan vs The State and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 835 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Tahmoor Sultan vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 19 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Tahira Fazeelat and others vs Province of Punjab and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 268 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahbaz Shah vs State1998 MLD 1612 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah vs Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Sabiha Nighat vs CH. Saadat Ali KhanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Ali Shah and another vs Mst. Bashiran Bibi and 2 others1998 CLC 298 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-21
  ejectment petitionrent restrictionstriking off defenceclerical erroract of courtlimitationfinal order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second appeal against an appellate order regarding the restoration of an ejectment petition. The core legal questions were whether the dismissal of an ejectment petition as 'infructuous' due to a clerical error by the Rent Controller was legally sustainable, and whether an appeal is maintainable against an order dismissing an application for restoration of such a petition. The Court held that the dismissal of the ejectment petition was void as it was based on an erroneous premise and a clerical mistake in placing orders on the wrong case files. The Court affirmed the principle that no party should suffer due to the acts or negligence of the Court or its officials. Furthermore, the Court held that an order dismissing a petition for restoration, which effectively results in the final dismissal of the main ejectment petition, is a final order appealable under the relevant rent statute. The appeal was dismissed both on merits and on the grounds of being time-barred, emphasizing that procedural errors by the Court cannot be used to non-suit a litigant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order dismissing an application for restoration of an ejectment petition is appealable as a final order?
  • Can a party be non-suited due to a clerical error or negligence committed by the Court or its officials?
  • Is an order dismissing an ejectment petition as 'infructuous' based on a misapprehension of facts legally valid?
  • Does the limitation period for filing an appeal include time wasted by a party in collecting copies after they have been prepared?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mushtaq Ali Shah vs Election Authority and 2 others1998 MLD 1895 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Mobin Iqbal vs Director-General, Pakistan Post Office, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 837 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Mir Hasan and others vs Additional District Judge and others1998 MLD 135 · Lahore High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Ali Shah, Advocate vs Punjab Highway Authority, Lahore, through Its Director-General, EtcK.L.R 1998 Civil Cases 160 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Manzoor Ali Shah vs The Punjab Highways Authority, Lahore1998 PLD Lahore 169 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Ather Ali Zaidi vs Auditor-General of Pakistan, Islamabad and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 106 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Ather Ali Zaidi vs Auditor General of Pakistan ConstitutionK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 105 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Aslam Ali Sabzwari vs Government of the Punjab Local1998 PLC (C.S.) 252 · Lahore High Court · 1997-01-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Amer Ali Shah vs Islamia University through Vice-Chancellor, Islamia University, Bahawalpur and 2 others1998 CLC 1950 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Amer Ali Shah and 2 otherss vs Islamia University, Bahawalpur1998 CLC 1941 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Mehdi vs Baqar Ali Rana Additional District Judge, Islamabad1998 MLD 1003 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Afaq Hussain Shah vs Chaudhry Sadaqat Ali1998 PLD Lahore 431 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• Sughra Begum vs Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 63 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Sufi Noor Ahmad vs Sabir Ali And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 678 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• State Cement Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax1998 P.C.T.L.R. 520 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sohail Azam vs Commissioner, Multan and 3 others1998 MLD 1599 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
• Slkandar Mahmood Etc. vs Saeed Hassan Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 194 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-27Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din, Etc. vs D.G. LDA, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 6 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-01Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din and another vs Muhammad Akbar and 4 others1998 MLD 696 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Siraj Din And Another vs Muhammad Akbar And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 361 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-08Read full judgment →
• Shina Ahmed vs Police Station Gulberg, Lahore and others1998 MLD 502 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Hassan Shaharyar vs Federation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 570 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ahmad Ali vs President of Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi and others1998 PLD Lahore 530 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-23Read full judgment →
• Shehbaz Aslam vs Zaman Khan, Efc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 343 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-02Read full judgment →
• Shazad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 264 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →