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.
- Syed Djlshad Hussain vs District Magistrate, Sialkot and Another1983 PLD Lahore 97 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Arif Ali and Others vs Abdul Aziz1983 CLC 3155 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- Syed Amjad Ali Shah vs Iqbal Ahmad Farooqi1983 PLD Lahore 674 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-08Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Ahsan and Others vs Federal Land Commission and Others1983 CLC 410 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
- Syed Agha Hussain Naqvi vs Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah Sabz Wari1983 P Cr. L J 2235 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
- Surraya Bibi vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1554 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-18Read full judgment →
- Sultan vs The State1983 PCr.LJ 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- Sultan Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2396 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
- Sultan Muhammad and Another vs Sh. Saeed Ahmad and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 27 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- Sultan Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1513 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-19Read full judgment →
- Sultan Khan vs Federal Public Service Commission1983 CLC 2803 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981 challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature for the Special Competitive Examination 1982 by the Federal Public Service Commission. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner, a government servant domiciled in Punjab, could claim a domicile of origin in Sind (Urban) through his father for the purpose of appearing in an examination restricted to specific provinces and areas. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's father had acquired a domicile of choice, not a domicile of origin, in Sind, and that the creation of the Province of Sind in 1970 did not convert a domicile of choice into a domicile of origin. The court laid down that a government servant who entered service based on a Punjab domicile cannot claim eligibility for reserved provincial quotas in another province through a domicile of choice acquired by his father, thereby upholding the cancellation of his candidature and dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether a domicile of choice is converted into a domicile of origin upon the creation or reorganization of a new province?
- Can a government servant who entered service on the basis of a domicile in one province claim eligibility for provincial quotas in another province based on his father's domicile of choice?
- Does the Federal Public Service Commission have the authority to cancel the candidature of an ineligible candidate after allowing him to take the written examination?
- Sultan and Others vs Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and Others1983 P Cr. LJ 2182 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
- Sultan and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1540 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
- Sultan Alias Qamra and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- Suleman vs Asma Bibi1983 CLC 2400 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-18Read full judgment →
- Suleman Sadiq Khan vs National Industrial Relations Commission1983 CLC 1702 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-03Read full judgment →
- Suleman Khan and 2 Others vs Nazar Khan and Another1983 CLC 1502 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal challenges the dismissal of the appellants' first appeal by the Additional District Judge due to their failure to make up a deficiency in the court-fee on the memorandum of appeal within the granted opportunity and after the period of limitation had expired. The core legal questions concern the proper construction of `net profits` under the Court Fees Act versus `net assets` under the Land Revenue Act, whether the court is legally bound to conduct an investigation under section 9 of the Court Fees Act before demanding deficient court-fees, and the application of Order VII Rule 11 and sections 148, 149, and 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appeals involving barred limitation periods. The Lahore High Court held that `net assets` and `net profits` are distinct concepts, that courts are not strictly bound to order a commission under section 9 in every case, and that a negligent appellant who fails to pay deficient court-fees within limitation cannot claim indulgence when a valuable right has accrued to the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the term `net profits` under the Court Fees Act is synonymous with `net assets` defined in Section 4(16) of the Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Is it incumbent upon the Court in every case to order an investigation under Section 9 of the Court Fees Act to ascertain net profits before requiring a party to make good a deficiency in the court-fee?
- Does Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply directly to appeals regarding the payment of deficient court-fees?
- Can an appellant who is negligent and fails to make good a deficient court-fee within the period of limitation claim an extension of time when a valuable right has accrued to the respondent?
- State vs Muhammad Shabbir1983 P Cr. L J 2405 · Lahore High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- State vs Ismail and Another1983 P Cr. L J 658 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
- State vs Bashir Ahmad1983 P Cr. L J 639 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
- State vs Abdul Majid1983 P Cr. L J 1465 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
- Soofi Irshad Ahmad and Anothers vs Raza Kamal Mir1983 CLC 755 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din vs Mst. Rehmat Bibi and 2 Others1983 CLC 2090 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and Others1983 CLC 3151 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
- Siraj Din vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 2459 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- Sikandar vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1827 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- Sikandar Hayat vs Ghulam Muhammad Shahbazi and Others1983 CLC 233 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
- Siddiq and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2506 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- Siddiq and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2169 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Additional District Judge and oTHERs1983 CLC 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad and Others vs Ali Gohar and Others1983 CLC 2473 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1983 PCr.LJ 2019 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-23Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Rehman vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 75 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-15Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Ashraf vs Assistant Registrar, Cooperative1983 CLC 918 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed to challenge an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, directing the recovery of a substantial loan amount from the petitioner under Section 22-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The department had relied on an audit report which alleged that the petitioner was the real beneficiary of loans advanced to his relatives, subsequently initiating recovery proceedings under Martial Law Order No. 241. The petitioner contended that no inquiry was conducted to establish his liability for the loans of other borrowers. The High Court held that an audit report based solely on books of account cannot substitute for a proper inquiry to determine the real character of a loan and fix liability. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the determination of liability under Section 6 of the Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Bank (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 is a condition precedent for initiating coercive measures under Martial Law Order No. 241. Consequently, the impugned order and subsequent recovery proceedings were declared to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can an audit report based solely on books of account serve as a substitute for a statutory inquiry required to fix financial liability on a member under Section 22-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925?
- Is the determination of liability under Section 6 of the Co-operative Societies and Co-operative Bank (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance 1966 a mandatory condition precedent for initiating recovery proceedings under Martial Law Order No. 241?
- Does the availability of an alternative appeal under Section 64 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 bar a writ petition if the impugned order was passed in excess of jurisdiction?
- Sheikh Muhammad Anwar and Another vs Sheikh Ata Muhammad and Others1983 CLC 2354 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Ilahi Bakhsh and 10 Others vs Ghulam Muhammad Khan and 201983 CLC 934 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-08Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Fazal Muhammad vs Sheikh Muhammad Shafi and 2 Others1983 CLC 261 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge against the petitioner-tenant. The core legal questions were whether an eviction application filed before the expiry of a lease is inherently incompetent, and whether the landlord’s ownership of other business property precludes a claim of personal requirement. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that although the application was technically premature, the lease expired during the pendency of the proceedings, rendering the objection a mere technicality that did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. Regarding the personal requirement, the Court held that the landlord's existing brick-kiln did not disqualify him from seeking eviction for a rice-husking plant, as the existing property was not 'suitable' for the new purpose, and the law does not mandate closing an existing business to satisfy personal requirements. The key principle established is that courts should avoid technicalities that force redundant litigation when the underlying cause of action matures during proceedings, and 'suitability' of alternative property is a factual determination regarding the specific intended use.
Questions settled- Can an eviction application filed before the expiry of a lease be maintained if the lease expires during the pendency of the proceedings?
- Does the ownership of other business property by a landlord automatically disqualify a claim for personal requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is a landlord required to close an existing business to satisfy the 'suitability' criteria for personal requirement under rent laws?
- Shehzad Ahmad vs Muhammad Hayat and, 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 234 · Lahore High Court · 1983-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out of a judgment of the Additional District Judge upholding the rejection of the plaintiff-petitioner's plaint in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff, claiming independent possession of a disputed shop, filed the suit during the pendency of execution proceedings of an ejectment order passed under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The trial court and appellate court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding the suit barred under Section 15(5) of the Ordinance and Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal questions involved whether a separate suit by a stranger to challenge an ejectment order or execution is barred by Section 15(5) of the Ordinance, and whether a person apprehensive of dispossession can approach the executing court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that Section 15(5) of the Ordinance bars any suit calling in question an ejectment order, whether by parties or by any person whose interests are adversely affected, and that aggrieved strangers must seek remedies through execution proceedings rather than a separate civil suit.
Questions settled- Whether Section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance bars a separate civil suit challenging an ejectment order filed by a person who was not a party to the rent proceedings?
- Does the bar under Section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance apply to all persons whose interests are adversely affected by an ejectment order or only to the actual parties to the proceedings?
- Can a person apprehensive of dispossession in execution of an ejectment order file an objection petition before being physically dispossessed?
- Whether a suit for declaration seeking to nullify an ejectment order obtained under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance is maintainable in view of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Shaukat Riaz and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2398 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hussain vs Zulfiqar Ahmed, S. H. O., P. S. Mozang and 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 676 · Lahore High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging police raids and subsequent proceedings regarding the seizure of foreign cloth from the petitioners' shops. The core legal questions involve whether the searches and seizures complied with the mandatory provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, and what effect non-compliance has on departmental adjudication and criminal prosecution before the Special Judge Customs. The court held that the searches were conducted in clear violation of sections 162, 163, and 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, as mandatory pre-conditions—such as obtaining a search warrant or recording written grounds of belief and serving copies thereof—were ignored. Consequently, the court ruled that the illegal search and seizure vitiate the entire proceedings, striking at the constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The petitions were accepted, the search and seizure were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and the seized goods were ordered to be returned to the petitioners.
Questions settled- Does an entry into private shop premises by police to find and seize smuggled goods constitute a search under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can a search under section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969 be legally carried out without recording the written grounds of belief and fulfilling procedural requirements?
- What is the effect of an illegal search and seizure on subsequent proceedings before the Customs Authorities and the Special Judge Customs?
- Whether the presence of a Magistrate acting merely as an attesting witness obviates the necessity of obtaining a formal search warrant under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Shaukat Ali vs Mst. Saeeda Khatoon and Others1983 CLC 3136 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2203 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali Alias Papoo vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 289 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
- Sharafat Huss Ain vs Deputy Commissioner, Kasur and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1485 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-19Read full judgment →
- Shamsher Ali and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 959 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- Shamshad Hussain Butt vs The State- Respondent1983 P Cr: L J 1985 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1942 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Sultan Alias Bhola vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 86 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- Shahmand vs The State1983 PLD Lahore 534 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
- Shahid Naeem vs Muhammad Akram and 2 Others1983 CLC 751 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ahmad Khan vs Superintendent of Archaeology, Northern1983 PLC (C. S.) 527 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- Shahdev vs Lehri Khan and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 46 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a suit for declaration and consequential relief filed by the petitioner, where the trial court initially granted a temporary injunction. Upon appeal by the respondents, the District Judge vacated the injunction and dismissed the entire suit on the grounds of res judicata. The core legal question before the High Court was whether an appellate court, hearing an appeal strictly against an interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction, possesses the jurisdiction to dismiss the main suit itself. The High Court held that the District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. The ratio of the decision is that an appellate court exercising powers in an appeal against an interlocutory order cannot determine the ultimate fate of the main suit, which remains pending before the trial court. The court clarified that the appellate court's authority is limited to upholding, vacating, or modifying the specific order under appeal. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court hearing an appeal against a temporary injunction dismiss the main suit?
- Does an appellate court have the authority to decide the merits of a suit when only an interlocutory order is under challenge?
- What is the scope of an appellate court's power under Order XLI, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in an appeal against a temporary injunction?
- Shahbaz vs Additional Distri CT Judge and Others1983 CLC 2392 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Khan vs Additional District & Sessions Judge and Others1983 CLC 604 · Lahore High Court · 1980-06-30Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Khan and Others vs Member, Board of Revenue and Others1983 CLC 2313 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
- Shahamand and Others vs Nazar Muhammad and Others1983 CLC 2159 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
- Shahadat Ali vs Commissioner, Faisalabad and Another1983 PLC (C. S.) 639 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
- Shahab Din vs Mst. Khudija Begum and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 591 · Lahore High Court · 1983-07-02Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Alam Din and Others1983 P Cr. LJ 2139 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-09Read full judgment →
- Shah Madar and 2 Others vs S. H. O., Police Station, Kamoke and 21983 P Cr. L J 2481 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-18Read full judgment →
- Shah Ali and Another vs The State-1983 P Cr. LJ 2016 (2) · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
- Shah Ahmed Noorani vs Government of Punjab1983 PCr. L J 1799 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
- Shafique vs He State1983 P Cr. L J 1296 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
- Shafique Muhammad and 2 Others vs Syed Mustafa Ali and OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 911 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
- Shafique Ahmad Butt vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Others1983 CLC 1352 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of a batch of Intra-Court Appeals involving a common preliminary objection regarding their competence under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to section 3(2) of the Ordinance, which bars an Intra-Court Appeal against an order passed under Article 199 of the Constitution if the underlying application arises out of any proceedings in which the applicable law provided for at least one appeal, revision, or review against the original order. The court examined whether the term 'proceedings' encompasses all historical steps related to a subject-matter or requires a close nexus with a specific determinative order, and whether quashed orders remain relevant for the bar. While expressing reservations regarding the broad interpretation adopted in prior precedents like Inayat Bibi's case—holding that separate historical phases or prior allotments constitute the same proceedings—the court ultimately followed the established precedent due to pending matters before the Supreme Court. The court held that where the applicable law provided for appeal, revision, or review remedies which were either available or availed of, the Intra-Court Appeals were incompetent and thus dismissed them.
Questions settled- Does an Intra-Court Appeal lie under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, if the law applicable to the original proceedings provided for an appeal, revision, or review?
- What constitutes 'any proceedings' and an 'original order' within the meaning of the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Does the quashing of an order by the High Court without lawful authority obliterate the order for the purpose of determining the bar to an Intra-Court Appeal?
- Are administrative appeals or departmental revisions considered valid remedies capable of barring an Intra-Court Appeal under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Shabbir Hussain vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2578 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-17Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Alias Muhammad Boota vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2320 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad Wattoo vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2014 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Sadiq and Others vs Settlement & Rehabilitation1983 CLC 2311 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Nazir vs Mst. Amina Degum and 3 Others1983 PLD Lahore 29 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
- Sh. Khuda Bakhsh vs Abdul Majid and Others1983 CLC 2495 · Lahore High Court · 1982-10-27Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdur Rahim Allah Ditta (Regd.) Re-Rolling Mills vs Water and Power Development Authority, Lahore and 4 Others1983 CLC 2941 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- Satawat Jahan and 7 Others vs Major (Retg.) Mufti Nazar Muhammad1983 CLC 1381 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sardara and Others vs Nazir and Others1983 CLC 2949 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-16Read full judgment →
- Sardar Sakhawatuddin and 5 Others vs Muhammad Iqbal and 2 Others1983 PLD Lahore 448 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad vs Muhammad Sharif Khan1983 PLD Lahore 416 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-15Read full judgment →
- Sardar Muhammad and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 1015 · Lahore High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2226 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-27Read full judgment →
- Sardar Khan and 5 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
- Sardar Hafeezur Rehman Khan vs Member, Federal Land Commission1983 CLC 2842 · Lahore High Court · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
- Sardar Bibi and Others vs Shakila Bibi and Others1983 CLC 1668 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- Sardar Alias Dari vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2494 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali vs Rab Nawaz1983 CLC 83 · Lahore High Court · 1973-02-22Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ali and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-18Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ahmad Bhatti vs Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lyallpur East and Another1983 CLC 790 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 699 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Iftikhar Begum and Others1983 CLC 561 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
- Sanatta vs The State1983 PCr. LJ 2161(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-30Read full judgment →
- Sana-Ur-Rehman vs Rent Controller, Lahore and Another1983 CLC 911 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-11Read full judgment →
- Samual Masih vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2573 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-15Read full judgment →
- Salman Aslam vs Additional District Judge and Others1983 CLC 1390 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
- Saleem-Ur-Rehman Etc. vs Government of Punjab Etc.1983 PLC (C. S.) 642 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
- Salamat and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2167 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- Sakhawat Ali Siddiqui vs The Province of Punjab and Others1983 CLC 1972 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- Saifullah and Others vs District Judge, Rahimyar Khan and Others1983 CLC 3079 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
- Said Akbar Abbasi vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Others1983 CLC 1177 · Lahore High Court · 1972-05-09Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad Siddiqui vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1619 · Lahore High Court · 1983-05-17Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Mumammad and Others vs The State1983 PCr. LJ2159(1) · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →