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.

• Sabah Akhtar and others vs Salah-Ud-Din and another1986 MLD 1933 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• S.Maruf Ahmadali, Advocate vs Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and another1986 MLD 493 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• S. Maruf Ahmad Ali, Advocate vs Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore And Another1986 PLC (C.S.) 335 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Hussain Shah and others vs Mst. Akhtari Begum and others1986 MLD 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1986-08-01Read full judgment →
• Rustam Zaman vs The Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 21986 MLD 528 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
• Rust Am and 6 others vs Mst. Mehfi and another1986 MLD 1946 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-04Read full judgment →
• Rozedar Khan vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2660 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-04Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Petitioner vs The State1986 PLD Lahore 222 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-15
  criminal revisionattempted murderexamination of accusedomission of certificatecurable irregularityaccused as witnessretrospective effectplea of alibiadministration of oath
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner raised legal questions regarding whether the omission of the mandatory certificate under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiated the trial, and whether the amendment to Section 340(2) introduced by Ordinance XII of 1985 applied retrospectively, necessitating the accused to give evidence on oath. The Lahore High Court held that the omission of the Section 364 certificate was a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no prejudice or failure of justice was demonstrated. The Court further ruled that Section 340(2), as amended in 1985, operated to the detriment of the accused by compelling testimony on oath and eliminating statutory protections; hence, it was substantive in character and not retrospective. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the omission to append the certificate required under Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is an illegality that vitiates the trial or an irregularity curable under Section 537?
  • Whether the amendment to Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 enacted via Ordinance XII of 1985 has retrospective effect in pending criminal cases?
  • Can the constitutional vires of an amending criminal statute be challenged collaterally in criminal revisional proceedings?
  • Are criminal courts permitted to administer oaths to witnesses on the Holy Qur'an or in forms other than those prescribed under the High Court Rules and Orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Hussain vs Rehm Din1986 CLC 527 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2878 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
• Riaz Steel Mill vs WAPDA and others1986 MLD 745(1) · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali and 7 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Kasur and 13 other1986 MLD 1028 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs Abdul Ghani1986 CLC 858 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Allah Rakha and others1986 MLD 781 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1394 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali Kohar vs Mist. Sardaran Bibi and 15 Others1986 PLD Lahore 283 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-05
  remand orderadditional evidenceOrder XLI Rule 27appellate court jurisdictioncivil revisioninheritance suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition impugned the validity of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, remanding a civil suit touching the inheritance of land back to the trial court. In appeal against the dismissal of their suit by the trial court, the respondents had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for permission to produce additional evidence. The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, remanding the entire suit alongside the application to the trial court for decision. The High Court accepted the revision petition, holding that an appellate court cannot delegate or abdicate its statutory authority to decide an application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 to a trial court. The High Court set aside the impugned remand order and remanded the appeal back to the District Judge for fresh disposal of both the appeal and the additional evidence application in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court remand an application for additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the trial court for decision?
  • Does a trial court have jurisdiction to entertain and decide an application for additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 during appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali And Another vs Ghulam Nabi1986 CLC 2176 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
• Razi And Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2553 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
• Rasul Bakhsh vs Rab Nawaz Khan And 3 Other1986 CLC 2151 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bakhsh And Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2294 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-28Read full judgment →
• Rashid and another vs The State1986 MLD 1698 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State1986 MLD 2825 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-07Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1756 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad Alias Badsha vs The State and another-1986 P Cr. L J 2199 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-08Read full judgment →
• Rao Manzoor Ahmad and 5 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1986 MLD 569 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
• Rao M. Hashim Khan And 4 Others vs Martial Law Administrator Zone 'A'1986 P Cr. L J 2385 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Shaukat Ali vs Raja Khushi Muhammad and others1986 MLD 2520 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09Read full judgment →
• Rana Nayyar Iqbal vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2180 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-09Read full judgment →
• Rana Daud And Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1405 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
• Rana Ata Muhammad vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1783 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs Amir1986 MLD 562 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Bibi and 14 Others vs Ahmed Din1986 PLD Lahore 402 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
• Ramzan And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-11Read full judgment →
• Rajasab Khan, vs Mahmood Hussain And Another1986 CLC 1859 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• Raja Khizar Hayat and Others vs Saleh Muhammad1986 PLD Lahore 242 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-14
  pre-emptionagricultural landowner of the estatepecuniary jurisdictionKhasra Girdawariresidential landsuit valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenged a decree for possession through pre-emption granted by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff, claiming a superior right of pre-emption based on ownership in the estate, maintained that status despite the land forming the basis of the claim having been converted into a residential site. The Court held that the land had lost its agricultural character due to permanent construction and residential use, thereby ceasing to be part of the estate. Consequently, the plaintiff was no longer an owner of the estate and lacked the requisite qualification to claim pre-emption. The Court emphasized that a pre-emptor must retain their qualification until the date of the decree. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Khasra Girdawaris not formally exhibited in evidence cannot be relied upon to rebut existing records. The principle established is that when land is converted to non-agricultural use, its owner effectively walks out of the estate, losing pre-emption rights, regardless of whether the land remains assessed to land revenue. The trial court's decree was set aside, and the suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does land assessed to land revenue necessarily retain its character as agricultural land for the purposes of pre-emption?
  • Can a pre-emptor claim a superior right of pre-emption if the land forming the basis of that right has been converted into a residential site?
  • Is a Khasra Girdawari that has not been formally exhibited in evidence admissible for judicial reliance?
  • Must a pre-emptor retain their qualification for pre-emption until the date of the decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Basharat Ali vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-07Read full judgment →
• Raisham Bibi vs Umar Din1986 CLC 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
• Rai Shabbir Ahmad vs Shamas Raza Khan1986 MLD 2158 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-12Read full judgment →
• Rai Muhammad Hussain vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 736 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 827 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Muhammad Bakhsh1986 P Cr. L J 2408(1) · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Mst. Nasim Akhtar1986 CLC 1041 · Lahore High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And Other1986 CLC 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bakhsh And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 915 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
• Raheel Sajid vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1006 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
• Raham Dad Khan and others vs Border Allotment Committee, Narowal1986 MLD 495 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
• Rafique Muhammad Gill vs Additional Settlement Commissioner And 51986 CLC 817 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2433 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Rafhan Maize Products Company Ltd. vs Monopoly Control1986 PLD Lahore 346 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rafhan Maize Products Co. Ltd vs Monopoly Control Autho-Rity And 9 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 373 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-27Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ali vs Hidayat Ali And Others1986 P Cr. L J 989 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-21
  cross-casestransfer of criminal caseconflicting decisionsrule of prudencecriminal proceduresimultaneous trialCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a request to transfer a complaint case pending before a Magistrate to the Court of Session, where a cross-case arising from the same criminal occurrence is already pending. The petitioner argued that separate trials in different courts risk conflicting decisions and prejudice the parties. The respondents opposed the transfer, citing the lack of express statutory provisions and potential loss of appellate rights. The Court held that while the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 contains no express provision mandating the consolidation of cross-cases, it is a long-established rule of prudence and practice that such cases should be tried by the same court. This procedure is essential to avoid the risk of diametrically opposite findings regarding the same incident, which could result in serious injustice. The Court clarified that while evidence must be recorded and weighed independently for each case, trying them simultaneously before the same judge serves the ends of justice. Consequently, the transfer was allowed to ensure consistency and judicial efficiency, rejecting the respondents' concerns regarding the loss of appellate rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cross-cases arising from the same occurrence should be tried by the same court to avoid conflicting decisions?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 contain an express provision for the transfer of cross-cases to a single court?
  • Is the trial of cross-cases by the same court legally permissible despite the lack of a specific statutory mandate?
  • Does the transfer of a complaint case to the Court of Session deprive the accused of their right to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2864 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz And 2 Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1911 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
• R a FL U D D in vs Additional District Judge and others1986 MLD 793 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• Qutab Ali and 3 others vs The State1986 MLD 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-22Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali and 5 others vs Fateh Muhammad and another1986 MLD 2403 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
• Qazi Mushtaq Hussain vs Mst. Fazal Jan And 2 Other1986 CLC 1699 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Qazi Khalid Saifullah vs Sh. Lutfur Rehman and another1986 P Cr. L J 2619 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
• Qasim and others vs Punjab Province and others1986 MLD 748 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1016 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali and another vs Ch. Nematullah and another1986 MLD 2121 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
• Qasim Ali and 2 Others vs Zulpiqar Ali and 2 Others1986 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Akhtar vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-21Read full judgment →
• Punjab Province vs Abad Hussain1986 CLC 1804 · Lahore High Court · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab and another vs Messrs Industrial Machines1986 MLD 501 · Lahore High Court
  arbitration awardremission of awardappellate jurisdictionreasons for awardarbitration ordinancerule of courtcontinuation of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several first appeals arising from arbitration proceedings where awards were made rules of the court prior to the enactment of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. The core legal question is whether the appellate court possesses the jurisdiction to remit an award to an arbitrator for the recording of reasons under Section 3 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, even after the award has been made a rule of the court and a decree passed. The Court held that the appellate court, as a continuation of the trial court, retains the power to remit awards for the provision of reasons under Section 3 of the Ordinance. The Court established that the term 'Court' in Section 3 of the Ordinance includes the appellate court, and that an appeal against an order making an award a rule of the court constitutes a proceeding in relation to that award. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned decrees and remitted the awards to the arbitrators with directions to provide detailed reasons for their findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'Court' in Section 3 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 include an appellate court?
  • Can an appellate court remit an arbitration award to an arbitrator for the recording of reasons under Section 3 of the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981?
  • Does the filing of an appeal against an order making an award a rule of the court constitute a proceeding in relation to an award?
  • Does the merger of an arbitration award into a decree prevent an appellate court from remitting the award for reconsideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of the Punjab And 4 ,Others vs Ch. Muhammad Akhtar1986 PLC (C.S.) 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Mehr Khan & Co.1986 CLC 2215 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-27Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab vs Asgh Ar Ali and others1986 MLD 422 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Through Secretary To Government Of Punjab, Communication And Works Department And 4 Others vs Ehsan Fazal & Company, Lahore1986 CLC 2800 · Lahore High Court · 1986-01-20
  arbitration staystep in the proceedingswaiver of arbitrationcivil procedurerecovery suitarbitration agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 39(1)(v) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenges the order of the Civil Judge dismissing the appellants' application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for staying proceedings in a recovery suit. The core legal question was whether the appellants had taken steps in the proceedings before filing the stay application, or had waived their right to arbitration, and whether the failure to explicitly detail the dispute in the stay application was fatal. The Lahore High Court held that neither seeking to set aside ex parte proceedings nor a routine court adjournment for filing a written statement constituted a 'step in the proceedings' under section 34, and that the omission of specific dispute details in the application was not fatal where the existence of the arbitration agreement and its applicability to the claim were undisputed. The court laid down the principle that an act constitutes a step in the proceedings only if it displays an unequivocal intention to proceed with the suit and give up the right to arbitration, accepting the appeal and staying the suit proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether filing an application to set aside ex parte proceedings constitutes a step in the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does obtaining an adjournment for filing a written statement amount to taking a step in the proceedings precluding a party from seeking a stay under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Is the omission to explicitly detail the dispute in an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 fatal to the request for staying a suit?
  • What is the true test for determining whether a defendant's act constitutes a step in the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Faisalabad and others- vs Ch.Umar Draz Khan and another1986 MLD 2732 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Sialkot vs Naseer Khan and 31986 MLD 2273 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab through Collector, Rahim Yar Khan and 3 others vs Decent Construction Company1986 MLD 1649 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-03Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and Another vs Messrs Muhammad Saeed Malik, Government Contractors1986 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab and another vs Akhtar Saleem1986 MLD 1980 · Lahore High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab And 2 Others vs Muhammad Haziq And 3 Other1986 CLC 530 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-09
  land acquisitionpermanent injunctionwithdrawal from acquisitioncivil revisionpond areafresh notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Sialkot, which decreed the respondents' suit for a permanent injunction restraining the Province of Punjab from taking over possession of their land. The core legal question concerned whether the Government had validly withdrawn from the land acquisition proceedings and whether fresh acquisition proceedings were necessary if the land was required for a different purpose subsequently. The Lahore High Court held that the lower appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence showing the Government's withdrawal from the acquisition pursuant to competent directives and agreements, and that once withdrawn, previous notifications stood rescinded. The ratio laid down is that if the Government decides to acquire land anew for a different purpose after withdrawing from previous acquisition proceedings, it must initiate fresh proceedings under the relevant provisions of the law, including issuing a new notification.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Government withdraw from land acquisition proceedings once initiated?
  • Does a change in the purpose of land acquisition require fresh proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act?
  • Whether previous notifications stand rescinded upon the Government's withdrawal from acquisition?
  • Is a civil suit for permanent injunction maintainable against unlawful dispossession following withdrawal from acquisition?
  Read full judgment →
• Piara vs Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan And Other1986 CLC 1022 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-07Read full judgment →
• Peter John and others vs Syed Ali Imam and others1986 MLD 1008 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
• Pervez Ahmad And Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2737 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Khan And 3 Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 877 · Lahore High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 935 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Akhtar vs Engineering University And 2 Other1986 CLC 848 · Lahore High Court · 1985-11-04Read full judgment →
• Perv Een vs Abdul Sattar1986 CLC 2518 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-10Read full judgment →
• Pehlwan vs Abdul Sat,Tar and others1986 MLD 606 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
• Pattay Khan vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1520 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan vs Ali Muzaffar1986 CLC 2362 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Planning and Development (Population1986 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1986-07-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Lahore And Other vs Punjab Labour Court, Lahore-1986 PLC 973 · Lahore High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. and another vs Messrs Dilshad Hussain1986 MLD 823 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
• N/A vs The Punjab Agricultural Development and Supplies1986 PLC 360 · Lahore High Court · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Samad vs Muhammad Aslam and 16 others1986 MLD 431 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots), Lahore1986 MLD 1005 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Rukkan Din1986 MLD 559 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Member (Judicial) Borad of Revenue, Punjab1986 PLD Lahore 237 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10
  constitutional petitionrevisional jurisdictionmutationreview sanctionland revenuesubsistence holding
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge an order of the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition as incompetent. The dispute arose when a landowner sought review of two mutations on the ground that they violated the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (M.L.R. 115). The District Collector granted permission for review, which the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged before the Additional Commissioner and subsequently the Board of Revenue, both authorities holding that no appeal or revision lies against a Collector's order granting permission to review. The High Court examined Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act 1967, focusing on the wide import of the terms 'any case', 'any proceedings', and 'order'. The Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is sufficiently broad to encompass all kinds of proceedings and orders, including a Collector's sanction for review. Consequently, the High Court declared the impugned order unlawful and remanded the revision petition for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of the District Collector granting sanction for review of a mutation under the Land Revenue Act is open to challenge in revision before higher revenue authorities?
  • What is the legal scope and import of the terms 'any case', 'any proceedings', and 'order' as used in Section 164 of the Land Revenue Act 1967?
  • Is a second revision petition competent before the Board of Revenue under the Land Revenue Act 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Din Muhammad And Other1986 CLC 2337 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1958 · Lahore High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain vs Haji Pir Bakhsh1986 MLD 869 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain vs Election Tribunal and another1986 MLD 666 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• Noor Hameed Jan vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2363 · Lahore High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
• Noor Din vs Muhammad Shafqat1986 CLC 2318 · Lahore High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
• Noor Din vs Additional District Judge and others1986 MLD 596 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-04Read full judgment →