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. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Faqir Muhammad Khan vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue and 51990 MLD 575 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-20Read full judgment →
• Faizullah vs Gulsher1990 CLC 1887 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zebun Nisa vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council1990 MLD 1816 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Iftikharul Haq vs The State and others1990 P Cr. L J 1677 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-04Read full judgment →
• Dildar vs Safdar and 2 others1990 P Cr. L J 158 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-18
  plea of alibirelease of accusedinherent powers of high courtinvestigating officer powersbail rejectionquashing of ordercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the complainant Dildar to challenge an order passed by a Magistrate releasing respondent Safdar under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of a plea of alibi, after challan had already been submitted. The core legal question was whether an investigating officer and a magistrate can discharge an accused prior to trial based on a pre-trial evaluation of a plea of alibi when sufficient incriminating evidence exists on record. The Peshawar High Court held that the investigating officer and magistrate acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial and accepting a plea of alibi contrary to the weight of ocular and medical evidence, ignoring prior rejections of the same plea up to the Supreme Court. The court laid down the principle that section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not permit an investigating officer to arrogate the functions of an adjudicator to give a pre-trial verdict of innocence on a special plea like alibi, and the High Court can invoke its wide inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to strike down illegal or arbitrary orders to prevent abuse of court process and secure the ends of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an investigating officer release an accused under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the basis of a plea of alibi after a challan has already been submitted to the court?
  • Whether a Magistrate acts lawfully by mechanically adopting an investigating officer's report for the release of an accused without independently examining the case record and existing evidence?
  • Does the availability of alternate remedies bar the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to set aside an illegal and arbitrary order?
  • Is a pre-trial evaluation of evidence and acceptance of a special plea like alibi permissible during the investigation stage when sufficient ocular and medical evidence implicates the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Dauran Khan And Another vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar1990 CLC 1208 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-18
  pre-emptionexecution proceedingsres judicataphysical possessionjudgment-debtordecree-holdertenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from execution proceedings initiated by a decree-holder following a final judgment in a pre-emption suit. The judgment-debtors sought to obstruct the delivery of physical possession of the decreed land by filing objection petitions, asserting that they held the land as tenants and were co-sharers in a joint khata. The Executing Court and the appellate court both dismissed these objections, noting that the issues of tenancy and co-sharership had been conclusively adjudicated against the judgment-debtors in the original suit, which had attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed their leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether a judgment-debtor could re-agitate pleas of tenancy and co-sharership during execution proceedings to defeat a warrant for physical possession when those pleas had already been rejected in the underlying suit. The High Court held that such pleas were barred by the principle of res judicata. The court affirmed that this bar applies not only to subsequent suits but also to execution proceedings, thereby preventing the re-litigation of settled issues.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judgment-debtor re-agitate claims of tenancy and co-sharership during execution proceedings if those claims were rejected in the original suit?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to execution proceedings regarding issues already decided in the main suit?
  • Is a decree-holder entitled to physical possession of land despite the judgment-debtor's claim of being a tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Abdul Jabbar vs The State1990 MLD 1048 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-02-24Read full judgment →
• Chairman, P.M.D.C. and another vs Khiyal Nawaz Khattak1990 MLD 2203 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-20Read full judgment →
• Bannu Sugar Mills (Private) Limited vs Inspector Customs and Central1990 CLC 569 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-21
  excise dutyexemption withdrawalvested rightconstitutional petitionaggrieved personalternative remedysugar manufacturingduty clearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved three writ petitions filed by sugar manufacturing industries challenging a Federal Government notification that withdrew an earlier exemption from excise duty on sugar and re-imposed duty at Rs.2 per kilogram. The petitioners contended they had acquired a vested right to exemption for sugar manufactured during the exemption period but not yet cleared. The Peshawar High Court first addressed preliminary objections regarding the availability of alternative remedies and the petitioners' standing as aggrieved persons. The Court held that the remedies under Sections 35, 35-A, and 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, were inadequate as the challenge was to a Federal Government notification, not an officer's order, and a civil suit was also not appropriate. However, the Court ruled that no vested right to exemption existed for sugar manufactured during the exemption period but not cleared before the exemption withdrawal, clarifying that under Section 3-C of the Act, duty is realized at the time of clearance. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioners, as manufacturers, were not "aggrieved persons" under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the incidence of excise duty is ultimately passed on to the consumer. Consequently, all three writ petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are the remedies provided under Sections 35, 35-A, and 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, adequate for challenging a notification issued by the Federal Government?
  • Does a vested right to exemption from excise duty arise for goods manufactured during an exemption period if they are not cleared before the exemption is withdrawn?
  • Are sugar manufacturers considered "aggrieved persons" under Article 199 of the Constitution when excise duty is re-imposed, given that the incidence of duty is passed on to consumers?
  • When is excise duty leviable and realizable on excisable goods under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 670 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-26Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Khan and another vs Haji Ghulam Sarwar1990 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Kaiian and Other vs Haji Ghulam SarvarK.L.R.1990 Revenue Cases 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-07Read full judgment →
• Azim Gul vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-06Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs Muhammad Sadiq and anothers1990 PLD Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-13
  criminal revisionacquittalretrialocular evidenceforensic evidenceinterested witnessmedical jurisprudencerecovery memo
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, in a murder case. The core legal questions concerned whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of ocular evidence, forensic reports, and the credibility of recovery witnesses. The High Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence. Specifically, the court ruled that the trial judge unjustifiably discarded recovery witnesses without assessing their character, and that minor discrepancies regarding the distance of firing and the side of injury do not invalidate ocular testimony, as such events occur in split seconds. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the trial judge failed to consider the forensic report linking the accused’s licensed pistol to the crime scene, which was pivotal. The court clarified that witnesses related to the deceased are not 'interested' unless they possess a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Consequently, the acquittal was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Are witnesses related to the deceased automatically considered 'interested witnesses' in a criminal trial?
  • Does a minor discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can a trial court's failure to consider forensic evidence linking a weapon to the crime scene constitute grounds for setting aside an acquittal and ordering a retrial?
  • Is it permissible for a trial court to reject recovery witnesses solely because they are not from the immediate locality?
  Read full judgment →
• Asal Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 437 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• Arshad Iqbal Through L.Rs. vs Abdul Qayum Khan Babar1990 CLC 1183 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Arbab Muhammad Tariq vs Election Tribunal, Peshawar And 3 Other1990 CLC 286 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-01Read full judgment →
• Arbab Jehangir Khan And 11 Others vs Abdur Rauf Khan And Another1990 CLC 1601 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-14Read full judgment →
• Alnoor Industries Ltd. through Chief Executive, Saidu Sharif, Swat vs The Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs and 5 others1990 PLD Peshawar 145 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Mehmood Shah1990 CLC~ 33 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ali Rehman And Others vs Haji Muhammad Suleman Amd Other1990 CLC 11 · Peshawar High Court
  pre-emptioncompromiseestoppelwaiverpartial pre-emptiontalabsrevision petitionapprobate and reprobate
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two revision petitions arising from a consolidated pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involve the validity and binding effect of a compromise reached between the vendees and one pre-emptor, the consequences of withdrawing pre-emption money, and the maintainability of a partial pre-emption claim. The court held that a party who enters a compromise with full knowledge and accepts benefits cannot later repudiate it, as the doctrine of estoppel and waiver applies. Furthermore, the court affirmed that under Section 23(5) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, the withdrawal of pre-emption money results in the dismissal of the suit. Regarding the second pre-emptor, the court held that a claim for partial pre-emption is incompetent when the plaintiff could have claimed the entire property, and failure to perform the requisite Talabs under Shariat precludes a decree. Consequently, the court modified the lower court's decree to reflect the compromise and dismissed the second pre-emptor's revision. The principle established is that parties cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting benefits of a compromise while repudiating its burdens.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party to a pre-emption suit repudiate a compromise after accepting benefits arising from it?
  • Does the withdrawal of pre-emption money by a plaintiff result in the dismissal of their suit under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
  • Is a suit for partial pre-emption maintainable when the plaintiff could have legally enforced their right over the entire property?
  • Does the doctrine of estoppel and waiver apply to a party attempting to challenge a compromise they previously entered into?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamzeb vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1899 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-06-30Read full judgment →
• Akhto Jan vs Gul Ahmad And 8 Other1990 CLC 1232 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-23Read full judgment →
• Afzal Shah vs Land Acquisition Collector and others1990 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-01-29
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensation enhancementpotential valuerevenue recordcompulsory acquisitionSection 9 notice
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act concern the determination of fair compensation for land acquired for industrial clay procurement. The core legal questions involved the proper classification of the acquired land and the assessment of its market value, specifically whether potential future use and the time elapsed between the notification under Section 4 and the final award should influence compensation. The Court held that while the classification of the land as 'Maira' based on revenue records was correct, the compensation required enhancement. The Court established that the factors for determining market value under Section 23 are not exhaustive and must account for the land's potential future use and the inflationary gap between the initial notification and the award. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the bar under Section 25(2) against claiming higher compensation does not apply where the acquiring authority fails to prove service of the mandatory notice under Section 9. Consequently, the compensation was enhanced based on the average market value of similar land during the relevant period.

  Questions settled

  • Are the factors for determining market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act exhaustive?
  • Can the potential future use of land be considered when assessing compensation under the Land Acquisition Act?
  • Does the bar under Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act apply to claims for enhanced compensation if notice under Section 9 was not served?
  • Should the time gap between the Section 4 notification and the final award be considered in determining land compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao, President of Pakistan Peoples Party, N.W.F.P. vs The Governor, N.W.F.P. and others1990 PLD Peshawar 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-09-26
  dissolution of provincial assemblyconstitutional petitionjudicial reviewdiscretionary powerprior approval of the presidentrestoration of assemblyobjective grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by the former Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province challenging the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly and the dismissal of the Provincial Cabinet by the Governor. The core legal questions involved the justiciability of the dissolution order, whether the objective conditions required under Article 112(2)(b) existed, whether the prior approval of the President was duly obtained and on proper advice, and whether the consequential relief of restoring the Assembly ought to be granted. The Peshawar High Court held that the dissolution order lacked relevant objective grounds, failed to demonstrate prior presidential approval, and was unconstitutional and without lawful authority. By a majority, the Court ruled that the illegally dissolved Provincial Assembly and Cabinet must be restored, distinguishing the circumstances from prior precedents where relief had been denied. The key principle laid down is that the discretionary power of the Governor to dissolve a provincial assembly must be founded on objective facts directly related to a constitutional breakdown, and such executive actions remain fully subject to judicial review.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the order of the Governor dissolving a Provincial Assembly is subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the exercise of discretionary power by the Governor to dissolve the Provincial Assembly require objective grounds showing a breakdown of constitutional mechanism?
  • Is the prior approval of the President mandatory for the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly under Article 112(2)(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the superior courts can grant the relief of restoring a provincial assembly and cabinet when its dissolution is found to be unconstitutional?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam And Others vs Collector And Other1990 CLC 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf and 8 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1694 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs Maroof Shah1990 CLC 1607 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-04-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hanan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 777 · Peshawar High Court · 1973-07-31
  false informationpublic servantcognizance of offencedelegation of authorityquashment of proceedingscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the validity of a conviction under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the accused was convicted for providing false information to a public servant. The core legal question was whether the trial court could take cognizance of the offence when the complaint was not filed by the specific public servant to whom the false information was allegedly given, as required by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, strictly requires the complaint to be in writing by the public servant concerned or their superior, and does not permit the delegation of this authority. Consequently, because the complaint was not lodged by the proper authority, the court lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance. The conviction was set aside, and the proceedings were quashed. The court further clarified that this dismissal does not constitute an acquittal on merits, and the prosecution remains at liberty to file a fresh, legally compliant complaint if advised.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant delegate the authority to file a complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the dismissal of a complaint for non-compliance with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate as an acquittal?
  • Is a court empowered to take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a complaint from the concerned public servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 145 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Akbar vs Fazal Mahmood and 2 others1990 MLD 1019 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
• 1. Bannu Sugar Mills (Private) Ltd. 2. Premier Sugar Mills And Distillery Co.PTCL 1990 CL. 651 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zi Ar a T G Ul vs Qadar Gul and 7 others1989 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
• Zarin Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 299 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-17Read full judgment →
• Zarin and anothers vs Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Home1989 PLD Peshawar 240 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
• Zardad vs Ali Akbar And 8 Other1989 CLC 2028 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State1989 MLD 2745 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-02Read full judgment →
• Z a H Ir Shah vs Jalandar and 6 others1989 PLD Peshawar 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Ali Gul Packages Industries Ltd. And Other1989 CLC 1743 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
• Umerzad and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1275 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Umarzad and Other vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 645 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sultan Muhammad and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 2038 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nawab Khan1989 P Cr. L J 1659 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Zubair and another1989 P Cr. L J 2116 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aqil Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 1655 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Razaaq1989 P Cr. L J 1663 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• The State through AdvocateGeneral N.W.F.P. vs Abdur Rashid1989 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
• The President, Frontier Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd and 3 others1989 PLC 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
• The Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and anothers vs Muhammad Zubair Khan and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Talizar Khan vs Khalil-Ur-Rehman and others1989 PLD Peshawar 262 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
• Taj Malook vs E.A.C.I, Swat and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Zulifqar Ali Shah and others vs S T at E1989 PLD Peshawar 6 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Shah Jehan Shah vs Mastana Shah And Another1989 CLC 1547 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Jamal Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 209 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Abu Ul Fazal vs Mehmood And Another1989 CLC 2357 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad And 2 Others vs Mst. Najabat Sultan And 6 Other1989 CLC 1683 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• State through AdvocateGeneral, N .W F P vs Jumma and anothers1989 PLD Peshawar 149 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Yousaf KhanPLD 1989 Peshawar · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-22Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Ghalib Raza Gilani1989 P Cr. L J 782 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General, N.W.F.P. vs Safdar and another1989 P Cr. L J 1972 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General N.W.F.P., Peshawar vs Abdur RazzaqK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 523 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Squardon Leader (Retd.) Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli vs Chief of the Air1989 CLC 2038 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-20Read full judgment →
• Siraj Ahmad Khan vs Gogai And 23 Other1989 CLC 1756 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Sikandar and 2 others vs Muhammad Ayub and 6 others1989 PLD Peshawar 89 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Sherin vs Sher Zaman and another1989 P Cr. L J 1660 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
• Sheri Zaman and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1526 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Sher Nawaz Khan vs Bat in Khan And Other1989 CLC 1332 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad And 6 Others vs Gul Fraz1989 CLC 1344 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-25
  pre-emptioncomputation of timecalendar monthexclusion of first daycivil revisiondeposit of pre-emption money
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed by the defendant-vendees against an appellate court's judgment restoring a pre-emption decree in favor of the plaintiff-respondent. The trial court had decreed the pre-emption suit on 25-10-1984, subject to the deposit of the balance pre-emption money within 'one month'. The plaintiff deposited the amount on 25-11-1984, which the trial court rejected as being out of time, subsequently dismissing the suit. The appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court examined whether the day of the order is excluded from computation and how 'one month' is calculated. Applying the equitable principles of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act 1908, the Court held that the date of the order must be excluded. Furthermore, under Section 3(33) of the General Clauses Act 1897, 'month' means a British calendar month, which terminates on the day of the succeeding month numerically corresponding to the day of its beginning less one. Consequently, the deposit made on 25-11-1984 was within time, and the revision petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the equitable principles of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act 1897 apply to the construction of time periods prescribed in court decrees and orders?
  • Whether the day on which a court order is passed should be excluded when computing a prescribed period of time for making a deposit?
  • How is the term 'month' to be calculated when it does not commence on the first day of a calendar month?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Azam and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2127 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-18Read full judgment →
• Sher Adat Khan and Other vs Sahib with Etc.K.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 421 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Adat Khan and another vs Sahib Din and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 1299 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Fakhari Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan And Another1989 CLC 2367 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
• Shazada Salahuddin Khan And 8 Others vs WAPDA Through Its Chairman1989 CLC 2060 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
• Shakar Ud Din And Another vs Asghar Ali1989 CLC 1751 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Shakar Ud Din And Another vs Asghar Ali1989 MLD 2265 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Shah Pasand vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1966 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Shah Gulzam and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2395 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
• Shah Dad Khan And 7 Others vs Behram Khan And 20 Other1989 CLC 1620 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Seth Saifullah vs Appellate Tribunal and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
• Sareed Khan vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad vs The Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar1989 PLD Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
• Samar Khan and 6 others vs Safdar and 9 others1989 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
• Saleem Cigarettes Industries Ltd. vs The Examiner of Trade Marks and 21989 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Salahuddin And 4 Others vs Additional District Judge, Kohat And 21989 CLC 1658 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
• Said Malook alias Superdent vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2259 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Said Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2056 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
• Said Ahmad Khan vs Akram Khan and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 201 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sahib Jan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 384 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sahib Jan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1693 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Safiullah vs The Managing Director, Agricultural Development1989 PLD Peshawar 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and 4 others1989 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Shah and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1330 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Saadat Khan vs N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1989 PLC 506 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• S I K an D Ar vs Muhammad Anwar1989 PLD Peshawar 45 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2748 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
• Rothan Bacher Peter vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 47 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ullah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1699 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Raid Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2247 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan and 5 others vs Afridi Khan and 4 others1989 PLD Peshawar 75 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →