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.
- Mahmoodulhassan and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodul Hassan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 130 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodul Has San and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989, Criminal Cases 533 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Hussain vs Pakistan International Airlines and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 549 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges the dismissal of a suit filed by the petitioner against Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) regarding the termination of his service. The petitioner sought a declaration that his termination was illegal, mala fide, and void, arguing that he was condemned unheard and that the termination order was issued by a junior officer. The core legal questions were whether the relationship between the petitioner and PIA was governed by the principle of master and servant, whether the Civil Court at Lahore had territorial jurisdiction, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The Court held that the relationship between PIA and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant, as PIA's service regulations are directory instructions rather than statutory rules. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction as no cause of action arose in Lahore, and the suit was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of statutory rules governing employment, the relationship between a corporation and its employees is one of master and servant, allowing termination in accordance with internal service codes.
Questions settled- Is the relationship between Pakistan International Airlines and its employees governed by the principle of master and servant?
- Does the mere existence of a subordinate office of a corporation in a city confer territorial jurisdiction on the civil court of that city for a service termination suit?
- Can the limitation period for filing a suit be extended by the filing of departmental appeals where no such appeal is provided for by law?
- Do the service regulations of Pakistan International Airlines constitute statutory rules?
- Mahmood Hussain Shah vs The State1989 MLD 3728 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Alias Sultan Mahmood vs The State1989 MLD 4827 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a split decision by a Division Bench regarding the nature of the offense. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s act of stabbing the deceased constituted premeditated murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court, upon reviewing the evidence, found that the prosecution failed to establish premeditation or prior enmity. Instead, the evidence demonstrated that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel and exchange of hot words between the parties. Consequently, the court held that the appellant’s actions fell within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300, as the act was committed in the heat of passion without undue advantage. The court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 (Part I) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence accordingly. The judgment affirms the principle that where a homicide occurs during a sudden, unpremeditated quarrel, it constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Questions settled- Does a sudden quarrel and exchange of hot words without premeditation mitigate murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be altered to Section 304 (Part I) when the prosecution fails to prove prior enmity or premeditation?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences for culpable homicide?
- Mahmood Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 703 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-17Read full judgment →
- Mahmood Ahmad Khan vs Province of Punjab And Other1989 MLD 4845 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mahmand vs The State1989 MLD 4930 · Lahore High Court · 1989-09-10Read full judgment →
- Mahboob vs The State1989 MLD 2727 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mahar Dad And Another vs Barkat Ali1989 MLD 4236 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- M.D. Tahir vs Federal Government And 12 Other1989 CLC 1369 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the appointment of eleven Judges of the Lahore High Court made by the President of Pakistan under Article 197 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner contended that the appointments were illegal because they were made without the advice of a Prime Minister (as there was only a caretaker cabinet following the dissolution of the National Assembly) and without consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine. It held that the record demonstrated the Chief Justice had initiated and recommended the names, satisfying the requirement of "consultation" under Article 193. The Court ruled that Article 193 is a specific provision governing judicial appointments which does not mention the Prime Minister, and thus overrides the general requirement of presidential action on the Prime Minister's advice under Article 48(1). Furthermore, the Court affirmed that caretaker governments are competent to perform day-to-day administrative functions, including filling vacant judicial offices, and that law officers remain qualified as advocates for such appointments.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice under Article 193 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require a specific form, or is the substance of the communication sufficient?
- Does a specific constitutional provision governing judicial appointments override the general provision requiring the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister?
- Can a caretaker government validly fill vacant judicial offices as part of running the day-to-day affairs of the State?
- Are Law Officers, such as Advocate-Generals and Deputy Attorney-Generals, disqualified from being appointed as High Court Judges under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- M.A. Shore vs Settlement Commissioner (Industries), Board of and Revenue Punjab, Lahore And Other1989 MLD 4092 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
- M. Sharif vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 30 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- M. Rafi Alias Nausha Khan vs The State1989 MLD 2952 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- M Ukhtar vs The State1989 MLD 757 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- M Uhammad vs The State1989 MLD 758 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- M U H Anima D Jamshed vs Excise and Taxation Officer, Rawalpindi and 2 others1989 PLD Lahore 460 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
- Lt.Col. Nafisuddin Ansari vs Qazi Habib Ullah and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) allotting disputed land to the respondent. The petitioner, a retired military officer, claimed rights based on an allotment by the Border Area Allotment Committee. The respondent contested the petitioner's locus standi, arguing the petitioner was a member of the committee that granted him the land, rendering the allotment void. The Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction because his own allotment was tainted by a fundamental conflict of interest, violating the principle of "nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa." Furthermore, the Court found the Border Area Allotment Committee lacked the authority to allot the land as it had not been surrendered or taken possession of under the relevant regulations. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order, as the petitioner’s own title was based on a patent illegality. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a member of an allotment committee validly participate in a decision to allot land to himself?
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge an allotment order if their own title to the property is based on a patent illegality?
- Is an allotment made by the Border Area Allotment Committee valid if the property was not surrendered or taken possession of under the relevant regulations?
- Is the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 discretionary when the petitioner's own conduct involves a conflict of interest?
- Lt. Genl. (Rtd.). A.A.K. Niazi vs Border Area Committee And Another1989 MLD 3355 · Lahore High Court · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1714 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Liaqat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1869 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Hussain Shah and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1985 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2750 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2472 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 322 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali And 7 Others vs Mst. Jannat And Another1989 MLD 104 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
- Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan Through Mst. Rasool Bibi And Others vs Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 3423 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector vs Malik Sawal Khan Through His Legal1989 MLD 1255 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
- Lal vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 51 · Lahore High Court · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
- Lal vs Mst. Ghulam Ilahi and anothers1989 PLD Lahore 93 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner1989 MLD 52 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan And Others vs Sultan Ahmad1989 MLD 231 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan And 3 Others vs Bashir Ahmad1989 CLC 140 · Lahore High Court · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
- Lal Hussain And Others vs Superintending Canal Officer And Other1989 MLD 240 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
- Lal Din and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
- Lal Baz And Another vs Gulab Represented By Legal Heirs1989 CLC 8 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff-respondent successfully claimed a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer in the joint khata, obtaining a decree for possession upon payment of the sale price. The appellants raised two primary arguments: first, that no proper determination of the superior right of pre-emption was made; and second, that the appeal filed before the District Judge was unauthorized due to a defective power of attorney. The Lahore High Court held that the plaintiff was indeed a co-sharer prior to the impugned sale and possessed a superior right of pre-emption compared to the defendants who were merely owners of the estate. The Court further held that Section 85 of the Evidence Act 1872 raises a rebuttable presumption regarding powers of attorney authenticated by specified authorities, but it is not exhaustive, and the lack of formal authentication does not automatically invalidate a power of attorney if execution is otherwise established and no objection was raised during the trial. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a co-sharer in a joint khata has a superior right of pre-emption over a mere owner of the estate?
- Does Section 85 of the Evidence Act 1872 exclude other legal modes of proving a power of attorney when it is not authenticated by a designated authority?
- Can an objection regarding the lack of authority of an attorney to file an appeal be raised for the first time in a second appeal without being pleaded in the lower courts?
- What are the limitations on an appellate court's discretion to receive additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Lal and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2380 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Lal Alias Laloo And Another vs The State1989 MLD 170 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore vs Muhammad Sharif Puri Through His Legal Heirs1989 MLD 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority vs Mst. Mehraj Begum And Other1989 MLD 4327 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Kristopher vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 206 · Lahore High Court · 1988-01-15Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 488 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
- Kohinoor Industries Ltd., Faisalabad And Others vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 1 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four writ petitions challenging the imposition of central excise duty by the Central Excise Authorities on man-made (synthetic) yarn and fabrics produced on the same machinery (looms and spindles) already subject to excise duty on production capacity for cotton products. The core legal question is whether the authorities can levy excise duty under Section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, while simultaneously maintaining the levy on production capacity under Section 3(4) of the same Act for the same machinery, without granting abatement, and whether this constitutes impermissible double taxation. The Court held that the levy of excise duty under Section 3(1) without granting abatement for duties paid under Section 3(4) constitutes double taxation and is without lawful authority. The Court struck down the formula in the Central Excise General Order No. 8 of 1968 as unreasonable and directed the authorities to calculate and refund the excess duties. The key principle established is that excise duty on production capacity under Section 3(4) is in lieu of duties under Section 3(1); therefore, taxing both on the same machinery without abatement violates the constitutional mandate against double taxation.
Questions settled- Does the levy of excise duty under Section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, on goods produced on machinery already subject to production capacity duty under Section 3(4) constitute impermissible double taxation?
- Are manufacturers entitled to abatement of excise duty paid under Section 3(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, when the same machinery is used to produce goods subject to duty under Section 3(1)?
- Is the formula prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue under the Central Excise General Order No. 8 of 1968 for granting relief in respect of excise duty valid?
- Khushi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1201 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 186 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-30Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 669 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Mst. Nazir Begum And Other1989 CLC 1984 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from a pre-emption suit filed on 24th September 1970 for the possession of land through an oral sale followed by a mutation attested on 28th September 1969. The petitioner contested the suit as time-barred, arguing first that physical possession was delivered on 20th September 1969, and second that the plaint was improperly presented to the Reader of the court while the Civil Judge was on leave and placed before the judge only on 6th October 1970. The lower courts decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, legal representatives of the original pre-emptor. The Lahore High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the petitioner failed to establish physical possession as of 20th September 1969, making the limitation period run from the date of mutation attestation, thus rendering the suit filed on 24th September 1970 within time. Furthermore, the court held that presentation of a plaint to a court reader during the presiding officer's leave is either valid under court practice or, if unauthorized, treats the court as closed during that period, extending the limitation under section 4 of the Limitation Act.
Questions settled- Whether the limitation period for a pre-emption suit based on an oral sale without a registered deed is reckoned from the date of alleged physical possession or the date of attestation of the mutation?
- Does the presentation of a plaint to the Reader of a court in the absence of the Presiding Officer constitute a valid institution of the suit within the period of limitation?
- Whether a court is deemed to be closed during the absence of its Presiding Officer on leave for the purpose of computing limitation under section 4 of the Limitation Act when no authorized officer is available to receive plaints?
- Khushi Muhammad And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4959 · Lahore High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Maalik And Other1989 MLD 3753 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ali And Others vs Syed Muhammad Amin Shah, Deputy1989 MLD 3838 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-23Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad And Others vs Nisar Ahmad And Other.1989 MLD 3309 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
- Khudeja Tul Kubra vs Abid Butt1989 MLD 949 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 654 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Mehdi Hassan1989 PLD Lahore 78 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 196 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Khizra and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 456 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Zafar Nizami And Others vs Member (S & R), Board of Revenue1989 MLD 963 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Kharati And Others vs Muhammad Ibrahim And Other1989 CLC 894 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners claiming a superior right of pre-emption regarding agricultural land. During the proceedings, the trial court permitted the plaintiffs to implead an omitted vendor as a defendant after finding that the omission resulted from an incorrect certified copy of the sale-deed supplied to them. A revision against this order was dismissed by the District Judge. Subsequently, after trial, the suit was dismissed on merits, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision and accepted the defendants' appeal by reopening the question of limitation and finding against the plaintiffs on the issue of waiver and estoppel. Upon review, the Lahore High Court held that the prior revisional order upholding the amendment and resolving the limitation question had attained finality and operated as res judicata, precluding the lower appellate court from reopening it. The Court further held that the lower appellate court misread the oral evidence and erred on the issue of waiver and estoppel, particularly disregarding that the plaintiff's testimony denying presence at the sale was left uncross-examined. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's decree dismissing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an interlocutory order on limitation that attained finality operates as res judicata preventing an appellate court from reopening the question?
- Does a mistake by a public functionary in issuing an incorrect certified copy of a sale-deed save a pre-emption suit from being barred by limitation when adding a necessary party?
- Does failure to cross-examine a witness on a material point amount to an acceptance of that witness's statement?
- What is the standard of proof required to establish the plea of waiver and estoppel in a pre-emption suit?
- Khanoo Alias Khan Bahadur Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Mumman1989 MLD 4110 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Khan Zaman Khan vs The State1989 MLD 4368 · Lahore High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Khan Naeemullah vs United Bank Ltd.1989 CLC 2492 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 260 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad And Others vs Talib Hussain1989 MLD 1269 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- Khan Mast vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Shariat Cases 37 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Khan Badshah Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 452 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Khan Badshah and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2270 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
- Khan alias Khanu and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1880 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
- Khan Alias Khanu and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 349 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-28Read full judgment →
- Khaliq Dad vs Fateh Khan1989 CLC 138 · Lahore High Court · 1987-12-21Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 174 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 719 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- Khalida Begum vs Messrs Settlers (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 CLC 1718 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervez and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1824 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervaiz vs Punjab Seed Corporation1989 PLC (C.S.) 444 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
- Khalid Pervaiz vs Amir Akhtar And Other1989 MLD 3845 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-28Read full judgment →
- Khalid Javed vs The State1989 MLD 790 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Khalid Javed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 473 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 3712(1) · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Khalid Hussain vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 440 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Khalid and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 742 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Khalid Aitmad vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Ciminal Cases 75 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
- Khalid Ahmed Etc vs Ghulam HussainK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 126 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2210 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain Malik And Others vs Land Acquisition Collector And Other1989 CLC 1074 · Lahore High Court · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1785 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Khadija Bibi And Another vs The State And 2 Other1989 MLD 836 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
- KH. Zahoor Ul Hassan And Another vs Deputy (Plots) Settlement1989 MLD 3090 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Kh. Muhammad Sharif vs Federation of Pakistan1989 CLC 1387 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
- Kausar Mohammad Etc vs Mohammad Maalik EtcK.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 124 · Lahore High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh vs Muhammad Nawaz1989 CLC 807 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Karamat Ali alias Kaman vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1590 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-17Read full judgment →
- Karam And 9 Others vs Hassan Ashraf And Other1989 CLC 174 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
- Karam Ali And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4040 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
- Kaneez Fatima vs Khalil Ahmed1989 MLD 3071 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
- Kamla And Others vs Faqir Muhammad And Other1989 CLC 2395 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-22Read full judgment →
- Kamal Din vs Manzoor Ahmad1989 CLC 2148 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Kamal And Others vs The State1989 MLD 850 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Kalsoom Bibi And Others vs Allah Dad And Other1989 MLD 3317 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-22Read full judgment →