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.

• Muhammad Yar vs Muhammad Sharif Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 93) · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar vs Muhammad Sharif and another1991 PLD Lahore 256 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar Alias Shaoon vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1991 MLD 2408 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1991 MLD 2203 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1891 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ya000b vs Fazal Dad and others1991 PLD Lahore 197 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19
  pre-emption suitimprovement of statusvendee's rightssuperiority of qualificationssecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the appellant-vendee had purchased land, subsequently improved his status prior to the institution of the pre-emption suit by acquiring co-ownership, and later parted with that newly acquired land. The core legal question was whether a vendee, who has improved his status to equal that of the pre-emptor before the institution of the pre-emption suit, loses that equality by subsequently selling the property that brought about the improvement. The Lahore High Court held that a vendee is not required to maintain his improved status or qualifications after the institution of the suit, and the subsequent alienation of the property used for improvement does not defeat his defense. The Court laid down the principle that while a pre-emptor must maintain an unbroken chain of superior qualification up to the date of the trial court's decree, a vendee's defensive position is judged with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the sale or up to the institution of the suit, and subsequent loss of qualifications does not forfeit his rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a vendee who improves his status to equal that of a pre-emptor before the institution of a pre-emption suit loses that equality by subsequently selling the property that brought about the improvement?
  • Must a vendee maintain his qualifications or improved status after the initial sale or the institution of a pre-emption suit?
  • At what crucial stages must a pre-emptor maintain his preference to successfully claim pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1746 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman alias Khoja and 5 others vs The State1991 MLD 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Muhammad Boota and 4 others1991 MLD 53 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and anothers vs Ahmad Ali and others1991 MLD 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail and 2 others vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf and 21991 MLD 303 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tayyab vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 174 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-24
  murderocular evidencemedical evidencereasonable doubtacquittaldeath sentencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, convicting the appellant, Muhammad Tayyab, for the murder of his wife, Mst. Akbari Bibi, under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the eye-witness account. The Lahore High Court examined the medical evidence, which revealed that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by both sharp and blunt weapons. Crucially, the medical expert testified that the alleged weapon of offence, a sickle, could not have caused the specific injuries found on the victim. Consequently, the court held that the medical evidence fundamentally contradicted the ocular account provided by the prosecution witnesses. Finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering the appellant's acquittal. The key principle laid down is that where ocular evidence is irreconcilable with medical evidence, the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful, necessitating acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon of offence create reasonable doubt in a murder case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the medical report contradicts the prosecution's version of the incident?
  • What is the effect of medical evidence proving that the alleged weapon of offence could not have caused the injuries sustained by the deceased?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq vs Mirza Rashid Akhtar and others1991 CLC 1697 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11
  landlord and tenantejectment petitionmode of proofexhibited documentsappellate courtconstitutional petitionrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an ejectment application filed by the petitioner against respondents under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, alleging default in rent payment. The Rent Controller initially found a landlord-tenant relationship existed and ordered eviction. However, the Additional District Judge, in appeal, reversed this finding, excluding certain exhibited documents on the ground that they were not proved in accordance with law. The core legal question was whether an appellate court can exclude documents from consideration that were previously exhibited without objection regarding the mode of proof. The High Court held that the appellate court's order was unsustainable. The ratio of the decision is that once documents are exhibited without objection to their mode of proof, they cannot subsequently be excluded by the appellate court. Furthermore, the court noted that no objection regarding these documents was raised in the memorandum of appeal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order, declaring it without lawful authority, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the appeal in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court exclude documents from consideration that were exhibited in the trial court without objection to their mode of proof?
  • Is an appellate order sustainable if it ignores evidence that was admitted into the record without objection?
  • Does the failure to raise an objection regarding the mode of proof of documents at the trial stage preclude such an objection at the appellate stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Chaudhry, Member Senate of Pakistan Islamabad vs Syed Masroor Ahsan and 3 others1991 PLD Lahore 200 · Lahore High Court
  quo warrantoelection petitiondisqualificationterritorial jurisdictionnomination papersadmissibility of evidenceSenate electionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed constitutional petitions in the nature of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the election and title of the first respondent to hold office as a Senator. The petitioners alleged that the respondent was disqualified under Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution due to his involvement in numerous criminal cases, anti-state activities, and for providing false information in his nomination papers. The High Court held that while it possessed territorial jurisdiction over the respondent as his public office was located in Islamabad, the petitions were not maintainable. The court ruled that disputes concerning the election process, including the filing of nomination papers, must be resolved exclusively via election petitions before an Election Tribunal under Article 225 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the court held that newspaper reports, uncertified charts, and First Information Reports (FIRs) do not constitute legal proof of disqualification, as the presumption of innocence remains until a formal conviction is proved in accordance with the strict rules of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a High Court can entertain a writ of quo warranto under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge an election dispute that falls within the scope of Article 225?
  • Can newspaper reports, press statements, and First Information Reports (FIRs) be accepted as legal proof to establish the disqualification of an elected member of Parliament?
  • Does the High Court have territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto against a Senator whose seat represents one province but whose public office is located in Islamabad?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq CH vs Syed Masroor Ahsan EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 347 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanvir Alias Tanvir Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2063 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan Mir Etc vs M. Yousaf Hussain Dada EtcK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 469 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan and others vs Faqir Ullah and others1991 CLC 1098 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11
  pre-emptionnature of transactiongift vs salelocus standiconcurrent findings of factcolourable transactionregular second appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal challenges a concurrent decree for possession through pre-emption, where the trial and appellate courts determined that a transaction disguised as a gift was, in reality, a sale. The core legal question was whether a pre-emptor possesses the locus standi to assail the validity of a gift—specifically regarding non-delivery of possession—to demonstrate the transaction is subject to pre-emption. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a pre-emptor is not precluded from challenging the validity of a gift to establish its true nature as a sale. The Court affirmed that courts may look behind the deed and admit oral evidence to determine if an alienation is colourable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that factual arguments regarding the motive or consideration for the gift, which were not pleaded at the trial stage, cannot be introduced during appellate proceedings. The judgment reinforces the principle that the substance of a transaction prevails over its form in pre-emption matters, and that concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the transaction are generally final.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pre-emptor have the locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift to prove it is actually a sale?
  • Can a court admit oral evidence to determine the true nature of a transaction that purports to be a gift?
  • Can a party introduce new factual arguments regarding the motive or consideration for a gift at the appellate stage if they were not pleaded in the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1758 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs S.H.O., Police Station Nankana and another-1991 P Cr. L J 2390 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs District Judge, Gujranwala and 2 others1991 CLC 1781 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 others vs Lehr Din and 2 others1991 CLC 1206 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1991 MLD 1762 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher vs Fateh Khan Etc(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 99) · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 510 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sher And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1991 P Cr. LJ 912 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1991 MLD 2406 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2067 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 506 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Malik Abdur Razzaq1991 MLD 1867 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1991 CLC 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and others vs Abdullah and others1991 CLC 1381 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif alias Sharabi vs The State1991 MLD 2539 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham vs Mst. Hakim Bibi1991 P Cr. L J 410 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaft Chaudhry and 4 others vs Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department and 6 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 235 · Lahore High Court · 1990-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Rent Controller, Faisalabad and 2 others1991 MLD 2358 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Addl. District JudgeK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Additional District Judge, Gujrat and another1991 MLD 774 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Additional District Judge, Gmat and 4 others1991 CLC 719 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Raja vs Government of the Punjab, through Chief1991 CLC 617 · Lahore High Court
  quo warrantowrit petitionpardonreinstatement in servicepremature retirementpublic officecompetent authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition in the nature of a writ of quo warranto was filed challenging the authority of Respondent No. 3 to hold the public office of Chief Engineer, Buildings North Zone, Lahore. Respondent No. 3 had been prematurely retired from service under CMLO 17 by the Governor/MLA. Subsequently, the Governor/MLA granted him a 'pardon' upon a mercy petition. Based on this pardon, Respondent No. 2 (Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department) issued a notification reinstating Respondent No. 3 into service. The core legal questions were whether an order of 'pardon' granted by the competent authority automatically amounts to or includes 'reinstatement' in service, and whether Respondent No. 2 had the jurisdiction to issue the reinstatement order. The Lahore High Court held that 'pardon' does not restore a person to public office or equate to reinstatement, but merely removes disabilities. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 misconstrued the pardon and exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the reinstatement notification without a specific order from the Governor/MLA. The court allowed the petition and restrained Respondent No. 3 from functioning as Chief Engineer.

  Questions settled

  • Does a grant of pardon by a competent authority automatically equate to or mandate reinstatement into public service?
  • Can a departmental secretary issue a notification of reinstatement when the power to reinstate is vested exclusively in the Governor or Martial Law Administrator?
  • Whether a writ of quo warranto can be maintained to challenge an executive order reinstating a public officer passed without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Ahmad vs Mumtaz Hussain Lali, Additional1991 CLC 1545 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1121 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and others1991 CLC 1650 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and others vs State Life Insurance Corporation and others1991 CLC 1400 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and 4 others vs The State1991 MLD 2029 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs The State and another-1991 P Cr. L J 813 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Sakina Bibi and 6 others1991 CLC 544 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mian Taj Mahmood and others1991 MLD 1597 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Chairman, Union Council and 2 others1991 MLD 1508 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabir Shah vs Mst. Dilshad Fatima and others1991 CLC 786 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shabbir vs Mst. Zahida and others1991 CLC 1541 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1991PCr.LJ 150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1991 MLD 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1159 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1696 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh and 2 others vs Muhammad Ali and another1991 MLD 1430 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Border Area CommitteeK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 222 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Border Area Committee and others1991 CLC 822 · Lahore High Court · 1990-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Butt vs Muhammad Siddique And Others1991 P Cr. LJ 915 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and 4 others vs Hasnain Ahmad and others1991 CLC 1420 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem and 2 others vs Muhammad Siddique1991 PLD Lahore 278 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Safdar vs Sardar Muhammad and others1991 MLD 1587 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1051 · Lahore High Court · 1990-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Muhammad Ahmed and others1991 CLC 1384 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1760 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Muhammad Sadiq and others1991 CLC 1460 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Mst. Bashiran and others1991 CLC 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs House Building Finance Corporation and others1991 MLD 2153 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, Pakistan1991 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1990-11-03
  ex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreeadjourned date defaultlimitation periodrevision petitionunchallenged evidencecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an appellate court order that accepted the respondent's application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and set aside an ex parte decree passed against the respondent in a service termination suit. The core legal questions involved whether the lower appellate court erred in appreciating un-cross-examined evidence, whether the decree was passed under Order XVII Rule 2 or Rule 3 making an application under Order IX Rule 13 maintainable, and which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governed the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree when the default occurred on an adjourned date rather than upon initial summons. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court's appreciation of unchallenged evidence did not constitute a misreading warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, that the trial court's order adopting ex parte proceedings rendered the resulting decree an ex parte decree making Order IX Rule 13 maintainable, and that Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 applied strictly to initial non-appearances under summons while defaults on adjourned dates under Order XVII Rule 2 fell under the residuary Article 181. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decree passed after proceeding against a defendant ex parte on an adjourned date under Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is amenable to an application under Order IX Rule 13?
  • Does Article 164 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to cases where a defendant fails to appear on an adjourned date after having previously appeared and contested the suit?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed due to non-appearance on an adjourned hearing?
  • Can a High Court interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with findings of fact by a lower appellate court based on the evaluation of unchallenged evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Abdul Ghani and others1991 CLC 1398 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Alias Saddi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1681 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Inspectorgeneral of Police1991 P Cr. L J 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs Sufi Allah BachayaK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 123 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs Sufi Allah Bachaya1991 CLC 102 · Lahore High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Chughtai vs Soofi Allah Bachaya1991 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz and others vs The State1991 MLD 991 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2371 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1868 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1200 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Rafhan Maize Product and others1991 PLC 68 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Mst. Afshan Kanwal and 2 others1991 CLC 1823 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11
  constitutional petitionexecution of decreemaintenance decreerecovery of moneyarrears of land revenuefamily court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arises out of execution proceedings concerning a maintenance decree passed by the Family Court. The core legal question was whether a Family Court lacks jurisdiction to execute a money decree itself and whether such a decree can only be enforced by the Collector as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964. The Lahore High Court held that section 13(3) is an enabling provision providing an additional procedure for recovery as arrears of land revenue only if the Court so directs, and it does not oust the general jurisdiction of the Family Court to execute its own decrees under subsection (4). The Court affirmed that all decrees passed by the Family Court are to be executed by it or by another designated Civil Court, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Family Court has the jurisdiction to execute a money decree itself?
  • Does section 13(3) of the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 oust the jurisdiction of the Family Court to execute a money decree through normal execution processes?
  • Is the recovery of a decretal amount as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the Punjab Family Courts Act 1964 mandatory or dependent on a specific direction of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Ghulam Zohra1991 CLC 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1049 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1789 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Muhammad Ishaque and 3 others1991 CLC 1090 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Mst. Anwaran Bibi and 6 others1991 CLC 884 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 955 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs SH. Muhammad IqbalK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 150 · Lahore High Court · 1990-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Muhammad Ali and others1991 CLC 1310 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Additional District Judge and others1991 CLC 1675 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Mir vs Malik Muhammad Nawaz and others1991 CLC 859 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and others vs Hashmat Ali and others1991 CLC 1640 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1562 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Muhammad Sharif and another1991 MLD 1223 · Lahore High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Panah vs WaryamK.L.R.1991 Criminal Cases 548 · Lahore High Court · 1991-03-30Read full judgment →