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.
- Mahmood Hussain vs Zahoor Hussain and 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 442 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Masih vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone a1982 P Cr. L J 564 · Lahore High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- M. Yakoob vs Ch. Barkat Ali1982 CLC 500 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M. Saifullah Khan vs Muhammad Afzal and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 77 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition called in question the right of respondent No. 1 to hold the seat of a Union Council as a peasant member after inheriting agricultural land that brought his total holding above the statutory limit of five acres. The core legal questions were whether a special interest qualification must be maintained throughout the tenure of office, whether involuntary acquisition of property through inheritance distinguishes from incurred disqualification, and whether a writ of quo warranto lies to unseat a member who loses their legal character. The Lahore High Court held that special qualifications for reserved seats must be maintained continuously for the full tenure, and losing the status of a peasant results in an implied cessation of the right to hold office, which can be challenged via quo warranto irrespective of whether statutory de-seating provisions were invoked by the government. The court laid down that a representative occupying a special interest seat must continuously possess the requisite qualifications, and the inability to do so—even through inherited property—results in disqualification and vacation of the office.
Questions settled- Does a member holding a special interest seat as a peasant cease to be qualified if their agricultural landholding exceeds five acres due to inheritance during their tenure?
- Is a writ of quo warranto an appropriate remedy to challenge the continued holding of a local council seat by a person who has lost their pre-requisite special qualification after election?
- Must the special qualifications required for reserved seats in local councils be possessed only at the time of election or continuously for the full tenure of office?
- Does the receipt of property through inheritance that exceeds the statutory land limit for a peasant constitute a disqualification under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- M. Saeed Ahmad Dar and 14 Other vs Shahabuddin and 16 Other1982 PLD Lahore 362 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
- M. Latif Qureshi vs The State Etc. s1982 P Cr. L J 24 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
- Liaqat Ali vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 539 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan vs Gulab Khan1982 CLC 1991 · Lahore High Court · 1978-10-10Read full judgment →
- Lal Din vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 927 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
- Lal Din vs Mst. Kariman Bibi1982 PLD Lahore 187 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-11Read full judgment →
- Lal Din and Another vs Rasul Bibi1982 PLD Lahore 615 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
- Lakhera vs Waryam1982 CLC 681 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-31Read full judgment →
- Lakha vs Ata Muhammad and 3 Others1982 P Cr. L J 155 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →
- Lahore] Ali Muhammad and Others vs Muhammad Hayat and Others1982 CLC 2383 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-05Read full judgment →
- Lahore Municipal Corporation-- vs Syed Nazir Hussain Shah and Other1982 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition was filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, which decreed a suit for permanent injunction in favor of the respondents' predecessor-in-interest, restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession over a disputed piece of land adjacent to his house. The core legal question involved whether the disputed land was legally transferred to the plaintiff as part of an evacuee property by the Settlement Department, and whether the demarcation plan relied upon was valid despite not consulting the revenue record. The Lahore High Court held that the demarcation plan prepared by the Settlement Inspector and approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was a valid piece of evidence proving ownership, and that the petitioner failed to establish its own title to the land. Furthermore, the petition suffered from unexplained laches. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that findings based on proper appraisal of evidence do not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a demarcation plan prepared by a Settlement Inspector without consulting the revenue record loses its evidentiary value regarding property transfer?
- Is a revisional petition liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay in filing?
- Whether concurrent or appellate findings based on a proper appraisal of evidence can be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Lahore Municipal Corporation vs Mian Hamid Rashid1982 CLC 1608 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-12Read full judgment →
- Lahore Development Authority vs Rao Dastgir Ahmad Khan1982C L C 646 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
- Khyam Films and Another vs Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd.1982 CLC 1275 · Lahore High Court · 1966-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a revision petition challenging the dismissal of a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a suit. The core legal questions concerned the validity of a power of attorney (POA) where the authority of its executants was questioned, the effect of a bank's management takeover on an existing POA, and the impact of filing a POA after the period of limitation. The court held that objections to an agent's authority to institute a suit can only be effectively raised by the principal, and if the principal continues to recognize the agent's authority, it amounts to ratification, validating the suit. The court deprecated the practice of framing preliminary issues on such points and trying them separately for extended periods, stating they should be tried along with the main suit to prevent delays. It was further held that an authority given by a bank continues even after its management is taken over by another bank, unless explicitly cancelled. Finally, the mere fact that a power of attorney was filed after the limitation period does not affect the question of limitation if the authority to institute the suit existed at the relevant time.
Questions settled- Can a defendant effectively challenge the validity of a power of attorney on the grounds that the executants lacked authority under the company's articles or memorandum?
- Does a principal's continued recognition of an agent's authority amount to ratification, thereby validating a suit instituted by the agent?
- Should preliminary objections regarding an agent's authority to institute a suit be framed as separate issues and tried over an extended period?
- Does an authority granted by a bank cease to be valid upon the bank's management being taken over by another bank?
- Does the filing of a power of attorney after the period of limitation affect the limitation of the suit if the authority to institute the suit existed?
- Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Akram1982 P Cr. L J 1300 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-17Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Ata Muhammad1982 CLC 1647 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from a dispute over the digging of a drain for sullage water. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from constructing a drain through his property. While the trial court initially refused a temporary injunction, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting the injunction. The petitioners challenged this in the High Court, arguing that they had an easementary right and that stopping the flow would damage their homes. The High Court, in dismissing the revision petition, held that the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit for a permanent injunction is generally the rule, while refusal is the exception, particularly where refusal would defeat the object of the suit. The Court found that the respondent had an arguable case, that he would suffer irreparable loss if the drain were constructed, and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent. Consequently, the Court affirmed the appellate court's exercise of discretion and declined to interfere under its revisional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Is the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction considered the rule or the exception?
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with the discretionary order of an appellate court regarding a temporary injunction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What are the primary considerations for a court when deciding whether to grant a temporary injunction?
- Khushi Muhammad vs Anwar Begum Etc.1982 PLD Lahore 295 · Lahore High Court · 1979-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges the concurrent dismissal of an ejectment petition by the Rent Controller and the District Judge. The appellant-landlord sought eviction of the respondents on grounds of default, damage to property, reconstruction, and bona fide personal use for his sons. The lower courts dismissed the petition, citing the landlord's failure to obtain specific permissions for converting residential property to commercial use and his alleged mala fide intent to increase rent. The High Court reversed these findings, holding that the lower courts misapplied the law and misread the evidence. The Court clarified that Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 does not govern Section 13, and there is no legal requirement for a landlord to notify tenants of reconstruction plans or to produce family members as witnesses to prove personal need. The Court affirmed that a landlord's desire to develop property is a legitimate ground for ejectment, and concurrent findings of fact are reviewable when based on irrelevant considerations or misconstruction of law. The appeal was accepted, and the respondents were ordered to vacate.
Questions settled- Does Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 govern the provisions of Section 13 regarding ejectment?
- Is a landlord required to produce his family members as witnesses to prove the bona fide personal need for premises?
- Can a court in second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact if they are based on misreading of evidence or irrelevant considerations?
- Does a landlord have a legal obligation to notify a tenant before obtaining sanction for a building plan for reconstruction?
- Khushi Muhammad and 4 Other vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 694 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1198 · Lahore High Court · 1978-06-27Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam vs Nazir Ahmad and 2 Others1982 CLC 854 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Alam vs Nazi R Ahmad and 2 Other1982 CLC 854 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- Khurshid Ahmad Qais vs Shahabuddin and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 13 · Lahore High Court · 1981-09-26Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh vs Additional District Judge and Another1982 CLC 262 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-19Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh and Others vs Mehr Din and Another1982 CLC 2047 · Lahore High Court · 1974-07-09Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh and 5 Other vs Sultan Ahmad and 8 Other1982 PLD Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-09Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bakhsh and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 934 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
- Khawar Iqbal and Another vs Ghulam Rasool and 2 Others1982 CLC 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
- Khawar Iqbal and Another vs Ghulam Rasool and 2 Other1982 CLC 1787 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
- Khaqan vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 344 · Lahore High Court · 1974-05-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, murder reference, and connected revision petition arose from a trial where the appellant was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death, while his co-accused was acquitted. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony from injured and related witnesses, the necessity of independent corroboration for recoveries proved solely through police officers when private witnesses are won over, and the grounds for setting aside an acquittal in revision. The Lahore High Court held that despite some resiling by an injured witness whose statement was transferred under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the prosecution case was fully corroborated by prompt and reliable recoveries, including a revolver part and blood-stained items. The court laid down the principle that the solitary testimony of an investigating officer can sufficiently prove recoveries when independent recovery witnesses have been won over, and that an unsatisfactory acquittal based on a failure to consider material corroborative evidence may be set aside for a retrial.
Questions settled- Can the testimony of an investigating officer alone sufficiently prove recoveries under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the private recovery witnesses have been won over?
- Whether the statement of a witness recorded during the committal inquiry can be transferred as evidence under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the witness resiling during the trial?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court set aside an acquittal and order a retrial in a criminal revision petition?
- Khan Bahadur and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 26 · Lahore High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- Khaliq Dad and 7 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 713 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmad and Others vs Kamal Din and Other1982 CLC 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-22Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahm Ad and Others vs Icamal Din and Others1982 CLC 1614 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-22Read full judgment →
- Khalid vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 839 · Lahore High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood Khan vs Municipal Committee, Khanewal1982 CLC 2268 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
- Khalid Amir. vs Haveezullah Khan1982 CLC 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
- Khalid Amir vs Hafeezullah Khan1982 CLC 1558 · Lahore High Court · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
- Khair Din vs The State- Respondent1982 P Cr. L J 346 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-27Read full judgment →
- Khadim Hussain vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 1301 · Lahore High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
- Khadim Ali and 3 Other vs The State and Another1982 PLD Lahore 512 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-10Read full judgment →
- Karim Bakhsh Etc. vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 421 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
- Kaniz Fatima vs Noor Muhammad1982 CLC 2214 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-24Read full judgment →
- Kallu Khan vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 403 · Lahore High Court · 1980-09-28Read full judgment →
- Kaley Khan vs Charagh Din1982 CLC 932 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- Kaley Khan vs Charag.H Din1982 CLC 932 · Lahore High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- Kaiser Abbas vs Mst. Khalida Begum Etc.PLD 1982 Lahore 500. · Lahore High Court · 1982-04-09Read full judgment →
- Jugga vs Bashir and Others1982 P Cr. L J 611 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
- Jodha vs Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura and 32Other1982 PLD Lahore 363 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
- Javed Khalid vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 60 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
- Javed Jan vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 171 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1193 · Lahore High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
- Janat Bibi vs Sikandar Ali and Other1982 CLC 2076 · Lahore High Court · 1976-10-03Read full judgment →
- Jamil Ahmad vs Provincial Government of West Pakistan and 4 Other1982 PLD Lahore 49 · Lahore High Court · 1972-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision before the Lahore High Court arose from the dismissal of the petitioners' applications for a temporary injunction. The petitioners, appointed as Assistants in the Office of the Chief Engineer B & R, challenged a government order that re-fixed and reduced their pay scales based on subsequent audit objections. While the lower courts found that the petitioners possessed a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored them, they denied the temporary injunction on the sole ground that no irreparable loss would accrue since any illegally deducted salary could eventually be refunded. The High Court analyzed the interplay between Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Sections 54 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. It held that where a recurring breach of a constitutional safeguard regarding remuneration is threatened, refusing an injunction would encourage a multiplicity of proceedings. The Court concluded that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury are closely linked, and since the reduction was prima facie arbitrary, the refusal of the injunction was an illegal exercise of jurisdiction. The revisions were allowed, and the temporary injunction was granted.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be refused solely on the ground of monetary compensability if the balance of convenience strongly favors the plaintiff and the threatened injury is recurring?
- Does a recurring or continuing breach of an obligation regarding salary safeguards justify the grant of a temporary injunction to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings?
- How do the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable injury interact under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when evaluating an interlocutory injunction against a government department?
- Jamat Ali vs Evacuee Trust Property Board and Others1982 CLC 2227 · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-25Read full judgment →
- Jamat Ali vs Evacuee Trust Property Board and Other1982 CLC 2227 (1) · Lahore High Court · 1974-03-25Read full judgment →
- Jamal Din Alias Mahga vs The State1982 PCrLJ 503 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- Jalal Shah and Others vs Custodian, Evacuee Property Etc1982 CLC 503 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Jaffar vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1100 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
- Ittefaq Foundries Ltd. vs Commissioner, Punjab Employees' Social1982 PLC 769 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
- Islamuddin vs Muzaffar Hussain and Others1982 CLC 2558 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- Islam Hassan Khan vs Punjab Province1982 PLC (C. S.) 805 · Lahore High Court · 1979-06-29Read full judgment →
- Isla Muddin vs Muzaffar Hussain and Other1982 CLC 2558 · Lahore High Court · 1977-10-21Read full judgment →
- Irshad Mahmud and 5 Other vs Maqbool Ahmed and 3 Other1982 PLD Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
- Irfana Pal vs Javed Akhtar1982 CLC 7 · Lahore High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- International Food Centre Ltd. Lahore vs United Bank Ltd., Karachi1982 CLC 108 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an interlocutory order passed by a trial court in a suit for recovery of money filed by a bank. The petitioner, a defendant, was granted conditional leave to defend the suit, requiring the deposit of a substantial sum or the furnishing of a bank guarantee. The petitioner contended that this condition was oppressive, particularly given the existence of security and a pending cross-claim. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an interlocutory order passed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, when the statute itself bars appeals against such orders. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that it would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to circumvent the legislative intent which expressly bars appeals against interlocutory orders to ensure speedy recovery of loans. The principle laid down is that the constitutional jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be invoked to defeat the express provisions of statutory law or to interfere with interlocutory orders, as such interference would delay proceedings and frustrate the legislative objective of providing a speedy recovery mechanism.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to interfere with an interlocutory order where the statute expressly bars an appeal?
- Does the trial court have the discretion to impose conditions, such as the deposit of money or furnishing of security, while granting leave to defend a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a writ petition maintainable against an interlocutory order when the relevant statute provides no remedy of appeal or revision?
- Indus Valley Construction Company Ltd. and 3 Other vs Pakistan1982 PLD Lahore 290 · Lahore High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah and 3 Other vs The State1982 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-27Read full judgment →
- In Re: Packages Limited vs Not1982 CLC 2426 · Lahore High Court · 1980-04-15Read full judgment →
- In Re: Humber Iron Works And Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. (1869) 4 Ch. 643; Esmail1982 CLC 2660 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
- Imam Din vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 589 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
- Ilam Din vs Ilam Din and Another1982 PLD Lahore 9 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
- Ilam Din and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1009 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
- Ikram Ud Din vs The State-1982 P Cr. L J 693 · Lahore High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad Piracha vs Judge, Special Court Banking and Others1982 CLC 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-17Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Ahmad Piracha vs Judge, Special Court Banking and Other1982 CLC 2367 · Lahore High Court · 1981-11-17Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim Khan and 3 Others vs Ch. Iqbal Ahmad Mahmood, Settlement1982 CLC 2094 · Lahore High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
- Hayat Shah vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1165 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
- Hassan Ali Etc. vs The State1982 P C r. L J 138 · Lahore High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- Hashwani Hotels Ltd vs Government of Pakistan and 2 Other1982 PLD Lahore 621 · Lahore High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- Hashmat Ali vs Abdul Hameed1982 CLC 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1980-02-18Read full judgment →
- Hashmail Ali vs Muhammad Ali Etc.1982 CLC 2377 · Lahore High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
- Hashim Bibi and Another vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot1982 CLC 1435 · Lahore High Court · 1975-11-27Read full judgment →
- Haque vs Special Judge, Anti. Corruption1982 P Cr. L J 551 · Lahore High Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 859 · Lahore High Court · 1981-08-03Read full judgment →
- Haq Nawaz vs Taj Muhammad1982 CLC 64 · Lahore High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →
- Hamidullah Khan vs Muhammad Nawaz Qasuri1982 PLD Lahore 203 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of money based on dishonoured cheques. The petitioner sought permission to defend the suit, claiming the cheques were without consideration, but the trial court refused leave and decreed the suit. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, raising a new plea that the cheques were issued at the request of a third party. The core legal question was whether the petitioner disclosed facts sufficient to warrant granting leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court dismissed the revision in limine, holding that a mere denial of consideration without disclosing plausible facts or substantial questions of fact or law does not entitle the defendant to leave to defend, and that the new plea raised was an afterthought devoid of substance. The court laid down that leave to defend a summary suit should be refused where the defendant fails to disclose sufficient facts making it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration or showing a plausible defence.
Questions settled- Whether a mere denial of consideration in an application for leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is sufficient to grant permission to defend?
- Can a defendant raise a new factual plea for the first time in revision when it was not pleaded before the trial court in the application for leave to defend?
- When is a defendant entitled to leave to defend a suit based on negotiable instruments under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Hamid Ali Khan vs Muhammad Mursaleens1982 CLC 87 · Lahore High Court · 1981-06-20Read full judgment →
- Hakim Muhammad Yaqub Ali vs Muhammad Fayyaz Andanother1982 PLD Lahore 194 · Lahore High Court · 1981-12-04Read full judgment →
- Hakim Fazal Din vs Babu Nawab Din and 2 Others1982 CLC 784 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
- Hakim Fazal Din vs Babu Nawab Din and 2 Other1982 CLC 784 · Lahore High Court · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
- Hakim Ali and Others vs Deputy Commissioner and Others1982 CLC 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
- Hakim Ali and Others vs Deputy Commissioner and Other1982 CLC 1498 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-30Read full judgment →
- Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Yaqub vs Deputy Administrator (Residual1982 CLC 1184 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
- Haji Yar Muhammad Etc. vs Director-General, Excise and Taxation Etc.1982 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Yar Muhammad Etc. vs Director General, Excise and Taxation Etc1982 CLC 1204 · Lahore High Court · 1975-06-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Shahab Din vs Punjab Government and Other1982 CLC 28 · Lahore High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →