Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Ahmed And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1171 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-14Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Ali Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 57 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Saeed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1690 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Saeed and others vs Member Board of Revenue and 5 others1992 CLC 942 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 217 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 504 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Hassan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2585 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-29Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Din vs Abdus SattarK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 485 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
- Agha Muhammad Afzal And 2 Other vs Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi And 10 Other1992 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, tenants of a property in Rawalpindi, filed a revision petition challenging the lower courts' refusal to grant an interim injunction against their landlords. The petitioners sought to restrain the landlords from executing a sanctioned building plan for reconstruction, alleging it violated the city's Master Plan, and to stay pending ejectment proceedings. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established the necessary grounds for an interim injunction. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a prima facie case or that the balance of convenience favored them. The Court reasoned that the landlords were exercising a statutory right to reconstruct and evict under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and that the petitioners, who themselves used the property for commercial purposes, could not equitably challenge the commercial nature of the landlords' proposed construction. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' refusal to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioners, noting that granting the injunction would unfairly frustrate lawful eviction proceedings and cause irreparable loss to the landlords.
Questions settled- Can a tenant obtain an injunction to restrain a landlord from executing a sanctioned building plan based on alleged violations of a Master Plan?
- What are the three essential ingredients a plaintiff must establish to obtain an interim injunction?
- Does a tenant have the standing to challenge a landlord's building plan as violative of a Master Plan while simultaneously using the same property for commercial purposes?
- Should a civil court grant an interim injunction that would frustrate lawful eviction proceedings pending under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Aftab Ahmad vs Mst. Tahira Yasmeen and 2 others1992 CLC 2345 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Adam Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2587 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-23Read full judgment →
- Abrar Hussain Naqvi vs The Federal Government Through SecretaryK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 72 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abid Shah vs The State1992 PLD Lahore 412 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought the quashment of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which had set aside the petitioner's discharge from a criminal case. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate retains the authority to discharge an accused person based on a police report for cancellation of the case after the trial court has already taken cognizance of the offence and framed a charge. The High Court held that once a trial court has taken cognizance of an offence and framed a charge, the proceedings must continue until their legal termination through acquittal or conviction. The Court affirmed that the cancellation of a case under the police report mechanism is impermissible after the stage of cognizance has been reached. The key principle laid down is that while a Magistrate possesses the power to acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the charge is groundless, they cannot bypass the trial process by discharging an accused based on a post-cognizance police report for case cancellation.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate cancel a criminal case and discharge an accused after the trial court has already taken cognizance of the offence?
- Is it permissible for a trial court to discharge an accused based on a police report for cancellation of the case after the charge has been framed?
- Does the power of a Magistrate to acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the arbitrary cancellation of a case?
- Can a second revision petition be filed against an order passed under Section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Abid Latif And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 463 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-19Read full judgment →
- Abid Ali and anothers vs The State1992 MLD 743 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rauf vs S.H.O. and others-1992 P Cr. L J 2595 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-20Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid vs The State.1992 P Cr. L J 2216 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid vs S.H.O. and others-1992 P Cr. L J 879 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rashid Malik vs Pakistan Railway and 3 others1992 CLC 2209 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the decision of a committee constituted by the Railway Minister which refused to renew the petitioners' dining and buffet car catering licences and awarded them to new parties. The core legal questions examined by the Lahore High Court were whether the petitioners, as holders of catering licences, possessed a vested right to claim renewal under policy circulars, and whether they could invoke constitutional jurisdiction to enforce rights flowing from agreements that constituted mere licences simpliciter. Relying on Section 52 of the Easements Act 1882 and established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the agreements merely conferred a personal privilege to conduct a catering business without granting any interest in immovable property, making them revocable licences simpliciter rather than irrevocable licences coupled with a grant. The Court concluded that such licensees have no enforceable vested right to claim renewal or prevent revocation through constitutional jurisdiction, and their remedy for any wrongful revocation lies in damages rather than a writ or injunction. Consequently, the constitutional petitions were dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a railway dining car catering agreement constitutes a licence simpliciter under Section 52 of the Easements Act 1882?
- Does a licensee holding a dining car contract possess a vested legal right to claim the renewal of their licence upon its expiry?
- Can a licensee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce rights flowing from a mere licence agreement?
- Whether a revocable licence coupled with no interest in immovable property can be protected or enforced by way of an injunction or constitutional writ?
- Abdur Ghafoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 452 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1083 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Satay vs P.R.T.C. and others1992 PLC 914 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman Shahid vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1377 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq And 2 Others vs Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation Ltd., Lahore And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1884 · Lahore High Court · 1992-10-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak vs Ijaz Mahmood and another1992 CLC 5 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These two writ petitions arose out of concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the Additional District Judge, which upheld a claim for maintenance for a minor son and dismissed the father's petition for his custody/guardianship under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The core legal questions involved whether concurrent findings on the welfare of a minor and custody can be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction, and whether a father's alleged poverty or lack of immediate capacity relieves him of the legal duty to maintain his child. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the scope of constitutional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional defects and cannot be invoked merely to reassess questions of fact or substitute a different view on the welfare of a minor where two lower courts have exercised their jurisdiction lawfully. Furthermore, the Court held that an able-bodied father cannot evade his primary legal and moral obligation to provide maintenance to his minor child on the ground of poverty or lack of capacity, distinguishing between capability and capacity.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the custody and guardianship of a minor in its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Does the mere fact that a father has married a second woman per se disqualify him from obtaining the custody of his minor child?
- Can an able-bodied father avoid his legal and moral obligation to maintain his minor child on the plea of poverty or lack of capacity to pay?
- What is the distinction between the scope of appellate/revisional power and the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction regarding erroneous decisions of fact?
- Abdul Rauf and anothers vs Ghulam Muhammad1992 CLC 2479 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Incharge, Police Station, Directorate of Anticorruption1992 P Cr. L J 2234 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Malik and others vs General Manager, Pakistan Railways1992 PLC 1116 · Lahore High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arose from a dispute regarding the promotion of Booking Clerks, Parcel Clerks, and Goods Clerks to Sub-Ticket Examiners against a reserved quota. The Punjab Labour Court dismissed the petitioners' grievance petition on the ground that they did not qualify as 'workmen'. On appeal, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal failed to record a specific finding on whether the petitioners were 'workmen' due to insufficient evidence, yet proceeded to dismiss the appeal on its merits. The High Court considered whether a Labour Tribunal can adjudicate the merits of a grievance petition without first establishing the jurisdictional fact of the petitioner's status as a workman. The High Court held that the existence of an employer-workman relationship is a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal's decision on the merits without determining this status was declared to be without lawful authority. The case was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional issue afresh.
Questions settled- Is the existence of an employer-workman relationship a condition precedent for a Labour Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Can a Labour Appellate Tribunal decide a grievance appeal on its merits without first determining whether the appellant qualifies as a workman?
- Can a tribunal of limited jurisdiction adjudicate a dispute on the merits when the jurisdictional facts remain undetermined?
- Abdul Nasir vs Safdar Javed and others1992 CLC 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Manna N and others vs Sikandar Khan1992 CLC 505 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts decreeing a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners-vendees. The petitioners challenged the findings on two main grounds: first, the deficiency in court-fees and the plaintiff's contumacious conduct; and second, the misreading and non-reading of evidence regarding the issue of waiver (participation in the bargain). The Lahore High Court upheld the concurrent findings on the question of court-fees, finding no record to support the petitioners' contentions. However, upon evaluating the evidence regarding waiver, the High Court held that the lower courts failed to properly analyze the testimonies of the defense witnesses, which went largely un-cross-examined and un-rebutted except for the respondent's bald denial. The Court laid down that where a pre-emptor initially agreed to purchase the land but introduced the vendees in his stead upon failing to arrange funds, such conduct constitutes waiver. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the pre-emption suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the concurrent findings of lower courts on the question of court-fees can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction without supporting record?
- Does the failure to cross-examine defense witnesses on material aspects of a transaction amount to an admission of those facts?
- Whether the participation of a pre-emptor in arranging the sale or introducing the vendees due to lack of funds constitutes waiver of the right of pre-emption?
- Can a judgment that fails to discuss, analyze, or refer to the material evidence on record be sustained in the eye of law?
- Abdul Majid vs Muhammad Afzal Khokhar1992 CLC 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs Mohammad Afzal KhokharK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 566 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2597 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Mst. Zainab Bibi and others1992 CLC 515 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif and others vs Muhammad Rafique and others1992 CLC 523 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Dar vs N.I.R.C.(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 137) · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Dar vs N.I.R.C.1992 PLC 911 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1669 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2566 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Notified Officer/Addl. CommissionerK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 1 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani and 2 others vs Abdul Aziz Khan and 2 others1992 CLC 212 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly applied the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to close the appellants' evidence and whether such discretion was exercised judiciously. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court's decision to close the evidence and the subsequent judgments based upon it were unsustainable, as the adjournment was not occasioned at the request of the appellants and the trial court misread the record regarding the service of witnesses. The court laid down the principle that penal provisions such as Order 17, Rule 3 must be strictly construed and applied, and courts must not exercise discretion arbitrarily or whimsically to the detriment of a party's right to a fair opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the lower courts' judgments were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to close evidence when an adjournment was not occasioned at the request of the party?
- Does a court act arbitrarily in closing evidence under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a misreading of the record regarding the service of witnesses?
- What is the effect on the final judgment when an order closing a party's evidence is found to be illegal and unsustainable?
- Abdul Ghani And 2 Other vs Abdul Aziz Khan And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 483 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Judge Family Court And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 590 · Lahore High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Deputy Director, F.I.A. And Others1992 P Cr. L J 546 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar And Another vs The State1992 P Cr.L J 545 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 724 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Member, Board of Revenue And 5 Others1992 P Cr. L J 1722 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Abbas vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1748 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Abbas Raza vs The State1992 P Cr. LJ 2583 · Lahore High Court · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
- A.D. Nisar Chaudhry vs Province of the Punjab and another1992 CLC 1476 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
- A. Hameed vs Ghulam Muiiammad and others1992 CLC 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
- (M/s) Almehboob Industrial Multiple Purpose Co-Operative SocietyK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 88 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zunaira Shamim vs Farrukh Wasim BokhariK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 532 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shamim Bibi vs Allah Ditta And Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 530 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nasira Khan vs Divisional Benevolent Fund Board(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 219) · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-21Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Naseem Siddique vs D.E.O(K.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 201) · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Munawwar Sultana Etc. vs Javed Ahmed MalikK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 61 · Lahore High Court · 1990-01-27Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Janat Bibi vs (Mst.) Bhagan Etc.K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 11 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
- (Mst).Muhammadjan vs Muhammad Yasin EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 13 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
- (Mst). Saleema Bibi vs (Mst). Fatima BibiK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 42 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-26Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Azra Parveen vs Rana Saeed AhmadK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 570 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- (DR.) Muhammad Nawaz Anjum vs Govt. of the Punjab through the Secretary Health, Lahore(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 242) · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1145 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1734 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1897 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Government of Punjab and others1991 CLC 1705 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 137 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs D.I.G. Police EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 236 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali Alias Dittu vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1141 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali Alias Dittu And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1125 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for robbery under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether the police's initial refusal to register an FIR based on a preliminary assessment of the complaint's veracity invalidated the subsequent prosecution, and whether the complainant's identification of the accused was reliable in the absence of independent corroboration. The Court held that the police officer's initial refusal to register the case was procedurally improper, as the law requires the registration of an FIR before forming an opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations. Regarding identification, the Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the proximity of the accused to the victim during the commission of the crime provided sufficient opportunity for identification. The Court emphasized that the quality, rather than the quantity, of evidence is paramount, and that the complainant's straightforward testimony, corroborated by the recovery of incriminating weapons, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Questions settled- Does a police officer have the authority to refuse the registration of an FIR based on a preliminary assessment of the complaint's veracity?
- What are the factors that determine the reliability of a witness's identification of an accused during a crime?
- Is the testimony of a single eye-witness sufficient to sustain a conviction in a robbery case if it is confidence-inspiring and corroborated by the recovery of incriminating evidence?
- Zawar Hussain vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1149 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Zawar Hussain And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 937 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
- Zamir Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 435 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Zameer Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
- Zaman vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 41 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
- Zakir Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1642 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
- Zahoor vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1152 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad vs Muhammad Sarwar Khan and 2 others1991 MLD 1289 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmad Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1962 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Zahid Hussain Shah vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1874 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Zafrullah Khan Bajwa vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1991 PLC 490 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Zafarullah Khan Bajwa vs Punjab Labour Appellaet Tribunal Etc.K.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Zafar Masih vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1129 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1718 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-23Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State1991 MLD 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs Mst. Nazir Zafar and 2 others1991 CLC 1186 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi and another1991 CLC 1360 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Zafar Hussain through Legal Heirs and others vs Manzoor Hussain and others1991 MLD 1983 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ahmed and others vs District Judge and others1991 CLC 797 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Younas Lal Din Advocate and 4 others vs Government of the Punjab1991 MLD 2061 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-08Read full judgment →
- Yara And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1331 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
- Workers' Union P.N.P. Rice Mills, Dhaunkal vs The Pakistan Produce1991 PLC 6 · Lahore High Court · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
- Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and anothers vs Muhammad Hussain1991 MLD 538 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-01Read full judgment →
- Waris Iqbal And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1978 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-15Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Mumtaz Hussain and others1991 CLC 1199 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
- WAPDA vs Muhammad Suleman1991 CLC 1305 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- WAPDA through SubDivisional Officer, Mananwala vs Order accordingly1991 CLC 479 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-11Read full judgment →