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 Shamshad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 625 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and 3 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 124 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 268 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Punjab Province through Collector, Vehari and Another1982 CLC55 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Azam1982 CLC 2111 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Khushi Muhammad and Others1982 P Cr. L J 498 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs District Judge, Gujrat and Another1982 CLC 2057 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-24
  dissolution of marriagekhulazar-e-khulafamily court appealappellate jurisdictionFamily Courts Act 1964
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a writ petition challenging an appellate judgment of the District Judge, Gujrat, which reduced the 'zar-e-khula' (consideration for dissolution of marriage) payable by the respondent from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 32. The petitioner argued that under Section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, no appeal lies against a decree for dissolution of marriage, and therefore, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the fixation of 'zar-e-khula' in a dissolution decree constitutes a decision appealable under the Family Courts Act, 1964, despite the general bar on appeals against dissolution decrees. The Court held that while the decree for dissolution itself may not be appealable, the specific decision regarding the fixation of the consideration (zar-e-khula) is distinct and appealable under Section 14(1) of the Act. The Court affirmed that the appellate court acted with lawful authority in reviewing the quantum of the consideration. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that the financial terms attached to a khula decree are subject to appellate review.

  Questions settled

  • Is the fixation of 'zar-e-khula' in a decree for dissolution of marriage appealable under the Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Does the bar on appeals against a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 14(2) of the Family Courts Act 1964 extend to the financial terms of the decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Capt. Nizam Din1982 PLD Lahore 405 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 646 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Muhammad Saleem1982 CLC 268 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Muhammad Sadiq and Others1982 CLC 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs Muhammad Sadiq and Other1982 CLC 2359 · Lahore High Court · 1975-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Punjab Election Authority and Another1982 CLC 899 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 373 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and Others vs Begum Musarrat Bashirul Hassan and Others1982 CLC 868 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and Others vs Begum Musarrat Bashirul Hassan and Other1982 CLC 868 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1276 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Member. Board of Revenue1982 CLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Anjuman Jamia Hanfia (Regd.) Al Minar Mosque1982 PLD Lahore 657 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Irshad Begum, and 3 Others1982 CLC 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Irshad Begum and 3 Other1982 CLC 1829 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Aziz Jan1982 CLC 726 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razzaq and 3 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1105 · Lahore High Court · 1976-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ranizan vs Abdul Razzaq1982 CLC 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan, Etc. vs Government of Pakistan and 20 Others1982 CLC 992(2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan, Etc. vs Government of Pakistan and 20 Other1982 CLC 992(2) · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Ch. Muhammad Saeed and Another1982 PLD Lahore 75 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Abdul Razzaq1982 CLC 1489 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Alias Jani vs Government of Pakistan and Another1982 P Cr. L J 1273 · Lahore High Court · 1979-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Ahmad Yar.and Another1982 PLD Lahore 825 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-01
  Intra-Court Appealregistration of F.I.R.talaqjactitation of marriagezinacognizable offencecivil and criminal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal arose from a Constitutional petition where the learned Single Judge directed the police to register a criminal case on the application of respondent No. 1. The respondent asserted that he had not divorced his wife, that a purported notice of Talaq was forged, and that the appellant was living in sin (zina) with his wife under a false pretense of marriage. The appellant contended that a prior F.I.R. regarding the wife's abduction had already been registered, and that civil suits for jactitation of marriage and perpetual injunction were pending, which should bar the registration of a new criminal case. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the earlier F.I.R. related to an entirely different transaction and was not a counter-version of the same incident. Furthermore, the court ruled that the subsequent filing of civil suits does not prevent the registration and investigation of a cognizable criminal offense where the machinery of criminal law was set in motion first. The court declined to interfere with the ongoing police investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit for jactitation of marriage bar the registration or investigation of a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and zina?
  • Can a second F.I.R. be registered if the earlier registered F.I.R. relates to an entirely different transaction and incident?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to give a notice of divorce to the Chairman under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq and 2 Others vs Border Area Committee and Another1982 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 14 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1342 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 92 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 458 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzaffar Ali vs Muhammad Abdus Salam1982 CLC 2134 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mumtaz and Others vs Ghulam Hassan Shah and Others1982 CLC 2292 · Lahore High Court · 1979-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsan Alias Mohsin Ali vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 648 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha vs Muhammad Din1982 CLC 1383 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs Superintendent of Police, Lahore and 2 Others1982 PLC (C. S.) 211 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs District Judge, Lahore and 3 Other1982 CLC 255 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif and 7 Others vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1982 CLC 490 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif Alias Teefa vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 862 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Mali and 14 Other1982 CLC 639 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs The State1982P Cr. L J 129 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid vs Combined Industries STD.1982 PLD Lahore- 768 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1176 · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid . vs Muhammad Munir and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 630 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Summary Military Court1982 P Cr. L J 557 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1064 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Israr vs Sh. Muhammad Salim1982 CLC 1592 · Lahore High Court · 1978-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 528 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Taj Din1982 CLC 717 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Ashraf1982 PLD Lahore 197 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-18
  pre-emptionmisconstruction of plaintconsent decreepre-emption money depositremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit where the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit without framing issues or recording evidence, erroneously interpreting the plaint as containing an admission regarding the actual payment of the sale price. The core legal questions involve whether the plaint contained an admission of the sale price, whether the decree was a consent decree, and whether the non-deposit of pre-emption money within the time fixed by the trial court rendered the appeal incompetent. The court held that the plaint, read as a whole, did not constitute an admission of the sale price, that the decree was not a consent decree, and that the failure to deposit pre-emption money does not defeat an appeal challenging the decree itself when the trial court's judgment is set aside due to misconstruction of pleadings. The key principle laid down is that plaints in pre-emption suits must be construed as a whole to determine if an admission of sale price exists, and an appellate court has the power to vary or extend the time for depositing pre-emption money or set aside the requirement entirely upon the annulment of the underlying erroneous decree.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement in a pre-emption plaint mentioning the sale price recited in a sale-deed amount to an admission of its actual payment?
  • Whether a decree passed without framing issues or recording evidence based on a misconstrued admission is sustainable?
  • Does the failure of a pre-emptor to deposit pre-emption money within the time fixed by the trial court render his appeal incompetent?
  • Can an appellate court vary or set aside the time limit for depositing pre-emption money when the trial court's decree is annulled?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Khan vs Ghulam Muhammad1982 CLC 1695 · Lahore High Court · 1979-11-10
  evictionbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantburden of proofcredibility of witnessrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a landlord's appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, which set aside an eviction order previously granted by the Rent Controller regarding two shops. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal requirement for the shops for the use of his sons. Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court held that the landlord failed to demonstrate the necessary bona fides. The Court observed that the landlord did not produce the sons for whose benefit the shops were allegedly required, and evidence suggested they were already independently settled. Furthermore, the landlord’s credibility was undermined by his previous conduct, where he had obtained possession of a shop on the pretext of personal use only to convert it into residential property. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the eviction applications, holding that a tenant cannot be evicted based on the mere whim of a landlord, and that the requirement must be proven with credible evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord's bare statement sufficient to establish a bona fide personal requirement for eviction?
  • Does the failure to produce the intended beneficiary as a witness affect the proof of personal need in an eviction case?
  • Can a landlord's previous conduct in converting a vacated shop to residential use be considered when determining the bona fides of a new eviction application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishfaq and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 385 · Lahore High Court · 1982-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1130 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Muhammad Shafi1982 CLC 1622 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs A. R. Khan1982 CLC 562 · Lahore High Court · 1969-11-19
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementlandlord and tenantcourt-feesecond appealurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking to evict a tenant from a shop in Murree for the personal use of his son. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the District Judge reversed the decision on appeal, holding the application to be mala fide. The Lahore High Court addressed whether the appellate court erred in assessing the landlord's good faith and whether time could be granted under section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code to make up a deficient court-fee. The High Court held that the landlord has the sole right to choose which property to utilize for his son's business, that the appellate court misdirected itself by dictating the choice of location, and that penal provisions in the Ordinance serve as a safeguard against bad faith. Consequently, the High Court allowed time to make up the court-fee, accepted the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can grant time under section 149 of the Civil Procedure Code to make good a deficient court-fee on a memorandum of appeal arising from rent restriction proceedings?
  • Does the law empower a court to dictate to a landlord which particular property or locality he or his child should select for starting a business?
  • Are the penal provisions contained in section 13(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, a relevant safeguard against bad faith when determining a landlord's personal requirement?
  • Does the drawing of an inference regarding good faith from proved facts in rent proceedings constitute a question of law open to interference in second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq and Others vs Sh. Ghulam Rasul1982 CLC 1526 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State- Respondent1982 P Cr. L J 172 · Lahore High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Summary Military Court and Others -1982 P Cr. L J 560 · Lahore High Court · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi vs Rehmat Ali Etc.1982 CLC 1337 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikhlaque Rizvi vs United Commercial Finance and Others1982 CLC 2462 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikhlaque Rizvi vs United Commercial Finance and Other1982 CLC 2462 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Registrar of District Gujranwala and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 163 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Member Board of Revenue and Other1982 CLC 969 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs District Judge, Kasur and 2 Other1982 CLC 1211 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Etc. vs Shahab Din Etc1982 CLC 61 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Etc. vs Rasul Bibi Etc.1982 CLC 2502 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Anc) Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 85 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State-.Respondent1982 P Cr. L J 292 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and Others vs Ali Muhammad and Others1982 CLC 23 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat and Others vs Ali Muhammad and Other1982 CLC 23 80 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 577 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-08
  murderbenefit of doubtocular testimonymedical evidenceFIRcriminal appealforensic evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the prosecution's ocular testimony was fundamentally irreconcilable with the medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the First Information Report (FIR). The Court held that the conviction was unsafe and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. The ratio established that where eyewitness accounts regarding the number of shots, the distance, and the direction of fire are directly contradicted by medical findings, the ocular testimony cannot be relied upon. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that an FIR recorded at the scene of the crime, where police presence is established prior to the formal recording, creates a strong presumption of preliminary investigation and deliberation, rendering the FIR and subsequent investigation unreliable. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, necessitating his immediate acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular testimony is irreconcilable with the medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries?
  • What is the legal consequence when an FIR is recorded at the spot after the police have already arrived at the scene?
  • Is it safe to rely on forensic reports when the weapon and empty cartridge remained in police custody for an extended period before being sent to the laboratory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs District Food Controller, Bahawalpur and Another1982 CLC 2233 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Kasur and 21982 PLD Lahore 239 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-26
  limitationcondonation of delayspecial enactmentMuslim Family Laws Ordinancerevision petitionmaintenancestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Collector, Kasur, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition against a maintenance certificate issued by an Arbitration Council as time-barred. The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, arguing that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, did not expressly exclude the application of Section 5. The core legal question was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applies to revision petitions filed under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, in the absence of an express exclusion clause. The Court held that the revision petition was correctly dismissed as time-barred. The ratio is that the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance is a special enactment, and under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, the provisions of Section 5 do not apply to special or local laws unless the special enactment expressly extends such application. Since the Ordinance lacks such a provision, Section 5 is inapplicable, and the Collector's order was upheld. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to proceedings under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 by default?
  • Is an express provision required in a special law to extend the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the absence of an express exclusion clause in a special law automatically make Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to it?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hadayatullah vs Haji Allah D1tta and Others1982 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ha Day Atullah vs Haji Allah Ditta and Other1982 CLC 1477 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gohar and Others vs Pakistan and Others1982 CLC 1621 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gohar and Others vs Pakistan and Other1982 CLC 1623 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghias and Other vs Market Committee, Kamalia and Another1982 PLD Lahore 710 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-27
  market committeemunicipal committeeagricultural producelocal governmentparallel marketstatutory conflictlicencefood and drink
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged orders denying them the right to carry on the wholesale business of vegetables and fruit in shops leased from the Municipal Committee, Kamalia, and sought directions for the issuance of licences under the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Ordinance, 1978. The core legal question involved determining whether there is a conflict between the functions of Market Committees under the 1978 Ordinance and urban councils under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, particularly regarding overlapping powers over agricultural produce and articles of food and drink. The Lahore High Court held that where conflicting parallel provisions exist between the two enactments, they must operate in exclusive areas regarding common items. Furthermore, by virtue of the overriding superseding clause in section 4 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, an urban council holds exclusive control over markets and the sale of articles of food and drink within its limits, meaning the Market Committee cannot exercise control over businesses operating within a municipal committee's jurisdiction. The petition was allowed and the impugned action declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether there is a conflict between the functions of Market Committees under the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Ordinance, 1978 and urban councils under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Do Market Committees have the authority to exercise control over the sale and purchase of agricultural produce within the limits of an urban local council?
  • Does the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 override inconsistent provisions in earlier laws by virtue of its superseding clause?
  • Can a municipal committee establish and maintain public markets for the sale of articles of food and drink and animals within its local area?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 510 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Etc. vs THB State and Another1982 P Cr. L J 1237 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Municipal Committee, Karor Pakka1982 CLC 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Municipal Committee, Ka Ror Pakka1982 CLC 1157 · Lahore High Court · 1981-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Mst. Razia Sultana Etc.1982 PLD Lahore 90 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Cirief Settlement Commissioner and Other1982 CLC 2117 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and Others1982 CLC 2117 · Lahore High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary1982 PLC (C. S.) 767 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Banaras vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1305 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh and 3 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1277 · Lahore High Court · 1982-08-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 208 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 694 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Safia Bibi and Another1982 CLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Abdul Jabbar1982 CLC 1504 · Lahore High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 5 Others vs The State1982 P Cr, L J 500 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashrar and 5 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 691 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asghar Khan vs District Judge Sahiwal and Another1982 CLC 2127 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →