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. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.
- Qasam Jan vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
- Qabil Shah And 2 Others vs The Additional Custodian of Evacuee1989 CLC 2409 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-10-03Read full judgment →
- Premier Tobacco Industries Ltd. vs Deputy Collector of Central1989 CLC 2045 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-11Read full judgment →
- Pir Allaud Din And Another vs Anwar And Other1989 CLC 705 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Paper Corporation Ltd. vs The Collector, Central Excises1989 CLC 2243 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Noorul Haq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1322 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
- Noor Sahib Khan And 3 Others vs Mir Jananson And 6 Other1989 CLC 1666 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Nazir vs Rabnawaz and others1989 P Cr. L J 2179 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir vs Rabnawaz and OtherK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 342 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Muhammad Khan vs Sehraj Umar1989 CLC 1739 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-13Read full judgment →
- Muzaffar vs Ali Khan And 3 Other1989 CLC 2342 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit where the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession conditional upon depositing a specified sum of money within a stipulated period. Due to a clerical error in the report of the court's moharrir, the trial court mistakenly directed the decree-holder to deposit a balance that was four paisas short of the total decretal amount, which the plaintiff accordingly deposited. Subsequently, the judgment-debtor applied for the dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-compliance with the conditional decree. Both lower courts accepted the application and dismissed the suit. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the decree-holder was aware of the correct decretal amount and could not take advantage of a bona fide judicial mistake or a clerical error arising from the court's staff, especially when no steps were taken to deposit the deficient amount or seek condonation. The key principle laid down is that a party must strictly comply with the terms of a pre-emption decree and cannot benefit from a court's inadvertent error regarding the calculation of the payable sum.
Questions settled- Whether a pre-emptor's suit stands dismissed if there is a short deposit of the pre-emption money due to a mistake by the court?
- Can a decree-holder take advantage of a bona fide mathematical or clerical error made by the trial court in calculating the balance amount payable under a decree?
- Does an act of the court in specifying an incorrect balance relieve the decree-holder from the strict statutory obligation to deposit the full pre-emption price?
- Musafir Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 497 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Musafir Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1662 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Murad Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2735 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-11-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousaf And 43 Others vs Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property1989 CLC 1761 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob Sethi vs President, National Bank of Pakistan and another1989 PLC 899 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-06-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tahir vs The ST a Te1989 PLD Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of Arbab Sikandar Khan Khalil, alongside an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused and a murder reference. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, the evidentiary value of retracted confessions, and the jurisdictional competence of the trial court to try an offence under the arms legislation. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through trustworthy eyewitness testimony, prompt apprehension with the weapon of offence, and supporting ballistic and medical reports, while upholding the acquittal of the co-accused due to a lack of incriminating evidence. However, the court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the relevant arms ordinance to try the weapons charge, setting aside that specific conviction. The key principle laid down is that direct ocular testimony, when consistent and corroborated by prompt recovery of the weapon and forensic evidence, is sufficient to sustain a murder conviction even in the absence of established motive, and that statutory jurisdictional bars regarding specific offences must be strictly observed.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and prompt recovery of the weapon of offence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Can a retracted confessional statement form the basis of a conviction without independent corroboration and when the delay in recording it is unexplained?
- Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965?
- Whether the absence of a proved motive vitiates an otherwise well-supported prosecution case founded on direct eyewitness accounts?
- Muhammad Shah And Another vs Said Ahmad Shah And 7 Other1989 CLC 791 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Salim Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 539 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Salim and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1670 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sabir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2047 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Raza vs Abdul Majid Etc.K.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 658 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Raza vs Abdul Majid and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 1695 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Noor And 3 Others vs Ghulam Mu14ammad And 30 Other1989 CLC 1575 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the plaintiff's suit for declaration and consequential relief regarding agricultural land was decreed. The core legal questions involved the propriety of invoking Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for default in producing evidence and appearance, and the effect of revenue mutations contrary to a previous High Court judgment. The Peshawar High Court held that where the defendants failed to produce evidence despite being granted a last opportunity and absented themselves without offering any explanation for the default, the trial court was legally justified in applying Order 17 Rule 3, C.P.C. and deciding the suit on the available record. The High Court established the principle that an appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the trial court's invocation of summary procedure for evidentiary default is supported by the record and left unexplained by the defaulting party.
Questions settled- Whether a trial court is justified in invoking Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party fails to produce evidence on a last given opportunity and remains absent without explanation?
- Can revenue mutations sanctioned in violation of a previous binding High Court judgment be challenged through a civil suit?
- Does an appellate court interfere with concurrent findings of fact where the trial court properly exercises its discretion upon the default of the defendants?
- Muhammad Farid Khan vs The Civil Judge I, Abbottabad And 3 Other1989 CLC 1630 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the orders passed by the lower courts regarding the execution of a money decree for dower and maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a money decree passed under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 can only be executed as arrears of land revenue or if the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked. The Peshawar High Court held that the recovery of a decretal amount as arrears of land revenue under subsection (3) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is discretionary and not mandatory; if the executing court refrains from issuing such a direction, it may adopt the procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court laid down the principle that the execution of family court money decrees is not exclusively restricted to land revenue recovery, and constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to aid attempts by a judgment-debtor to deprive a decree-holder of the fruits of litigation.
Questions settled- Whether the recovery of a decretal amount as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 is mandatory or discretionary for the executing court?
- Can an executing court adopt the procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for executing a money decree passed by a family court?
- Does section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 bar the application of all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in execution proceedings before a Family Court?
- Muhammad Ayub vs Muhammad Afzal And 4 Other1989 CLC 2043 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub Khan Tanoli, M.P.A., Minister Of Law And Parliamentary1989 CLC 2456 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub and 4 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1667 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayaz Khan Etc vs Haji Bhurey Khan EtcK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 507 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayaz Khan and 2 others vs Haji Bburey Khan and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 1697 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam Khan And Another vs Government of N. W.F.P.1989 CLC 2034 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asif vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1310 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arose from the arrest of the petitioner, Muhammad Asif, who was found in possession of a Kalashnikov rifle and charas. The petitioner sought bail after the Special Court refused his application, citing the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the Special Court retained jurisdiction over the offence under the Arms Ordinance, 1965, following the expiration of Ordinances Nos. XVI and XVII of 1988. The Court held that the Ordinances, which had expanded the Special Court's jurisdiction to include offences under section 13-B of the Arms Ordinance, expired on February 13, 1989, as they were not passed by Parliament within the four-month period prescribed by Article 89 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Consequently, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction at the time of the impugned order. The offence reverted to the normal sentencing regime, falling outside the restrictive bail provisions of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Bail was granted, noting the recovery was witnessed only by police personnel during a prearranged raid.
Questions settled- Does a Special Court retain jurisdiction over an offence if the Ordinance conferring such jurisdiction expires before the court passes an order?
- What is the effect of the expiration of an Ordinance promulgated under Article 89 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, if not passed by Parliament?
- Does an offence under section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Muhammad as Lam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amin Khan And 10 Others vs Khan Muhammad And Another1989 CLC 1552 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
- Mufti Aman Ullah and 64 others vs Settlement Commissioner1989 PLD Peshawar 250 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Mst.Raj Bibi vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 271 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mst.Lob1a Jan Etc. vs Roghan Shah Etc.K.L.R 1989 Revenue Cases 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zohra Bibi vs The StateK.L..R 1989 Criminal Cases 236 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zohra Bibi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1865 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zahida Begum vs Abdul Aziz and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 181 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Z Ariz a Dga I vs Fida Muhammad and others1989 PLD Peshawar 10 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. T Asleem vs Abdul Rasheed Bacha1989 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. T Ahira Bibi vs Shah Dad and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shaheen Rafiq vs Khanzada And 3 Other1989 CLC 2049 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shagufta Jabeen vs Muhammad Tariq and others1989 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Raj Bibi vs Payao Shah and another1989 P Cr. L J 1706 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs The State1989 MLD 2725 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mubarik Jan vs Sultan and anothers1989 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Lobia Jan and others vs Rogh a N Shah and others1989 PLD Peshawar 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kishwar Begum vs Qadir Khan. And Another1989 CLC 1818 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khaista Jana and anothers vs Bak-as and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ikhlaq Fatima vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 1979 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fareeda Khanum vs Raza Muhammad1989 CLC 1745 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Amina vs Ikramullah And 4 Other1989 CLC 698 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition arises out concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's suit for a declaration of ownership and possession of a residential house and agricultural land claimed under a dower deed executed by her late husband. The petitioner asserted that the property was transferred to satisfy her dower debt, but the mutation was subsequently rejected after her husband allegedly denied the transfer before a court-appointed commissioner. The core legal questions involved the genuineness and execution of the dower deed, whether it was acted upon, and whether an unstamped and unregistered dower deed concerning immovable property valued over one hundred rupees could create a valid legal interest. The Peshawar High Court held that the dower deed was shrouded in doubt given that the husband was incarcerated at the alleged time of execution, that the deed was never acted upon as evidenced by revenue records, and that under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908, the document required compulsory registration to create any right or interest in immovable property. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an unregistered dower deed creating an interest in immovable property valued over one hundred rupees is admissible to transfer ownership?
- Can a dower deed executed while the husband was incarcerated be considered genuine without corroborative proof?
- What is the evidentiary value of a revenue mutation that has been formally rejected after recording the statement of the property owner?
- Mst. Ajmana And Another vs Mst. Wazir Jan1989 CLC 1342 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Farida Begum vs Government of N.-W.F.P. Health and Social1989 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
- Moambar vs Additional Secretary Home for Government of N.-W.F.P. and 4 others1989 PLD Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mir Wali Shah vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 525 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mir Wali Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1671 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mir Shah Jehan And Another vs Syed Ali And 5 Other1989 CLC 2206 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-29Read full judgment →
- Mir Qadayaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1511 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mir Qad Ayaz Etc. vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 586 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mir Dad Khan vs Afsar Khan and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 206 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal vs Jhangi Khan And Other1989 CLC 1680 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs Servis Sales Corporation Ltd. vs Javid Akhtar1989 CLC 1662 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Messrs Ali Gul Khan, Packages Ltd1989 CLC 1774 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous appeal arose from a report by joint liquidators regarding the distribution of assets of a company under liquidation, specifically concerning the rejection of WAPDA's claim for priority payment of outstanding electricity dues. The core legal questions were whether WAPDA qualifies as a local authority entitled to preferential payment under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and whether electricity charges recoverable as arrears of land revenue constitute government dues or local authority revenues entitled to priority. The Peshawar High Court held that WAPDA is not a local authority empowered to impose taxes, cesses, or rates, and that the mere recoverability of electricity dues as arrears of land revenue does not convert them into land revenue or government dues entitled to preferential treatment under company liquidation laws. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that WAPDA's electricity charges do not enjoy priority status under section 405 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.
Questions settled- Whether WAPDA qualifies as a local authority entitled to preferential payment of its dues under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Does the statutory recoverability of electricity charges as arrears of land revenue make them government dues or land revenue?
- Do electricity charges owed to WAPDA enjoy priority over other debts in the winding up of a company?
- Mehr Din vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 660 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
- Masood vs Abdul Jeelani And 2 Other1989 CLC 2324 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
- Masood Ahmad Khalil vs N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission and another1989 PLC (C.S.) 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
- Major Sher Bahadur (Rid.) And Another vs Member, Board of Revenue1989 CLC 2052 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
- Maj. Gen. (Rtd) Naseerullah Khan Babar vs President, Summary Military1989 PLD Peshawar 215 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mahboob vs The State and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 2050 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
- Lt.Gen. (Retd.) Fazle Haq vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 227 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-22Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad and anothers vs Muhammad1989 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
- Lal Shahadat Khan And Another vs Mst. Gul Marjana1989 CLC 803 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an appellate court's judgment that reversed a trial court's dismissal of a suit concerning a disputed sale mutation. The core legal question is whether the burden of proof regarding the genuineness of a transaction shifts to the defendants when the plaintiff is a 'Pardanasheen' lady, even if this status was not explicitly pleaded in the plaint, and whether the suit was time-barred. The court held that once the 'Pardanasheen' status of the plaintiff is established—even through the defendant's own admissions—the burden of proof regarding the genuineness of the transaction and the passing of consideration shifts to the beneficiaries of the mutation. The court further held that the residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to such declaratory suits, allowing a six-year limitation period from the date of knowledge. The key principle laid down is that the protection afforded to 'Pardanasheen' women is a substantive legal right that courts must recognize once the status is proven, regardless of whether it was formally pleaded, and that the burden of proof for the transaction's validity rests on the beneficiaries.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the defendants to prove the genuineness of a transaction when the plaintiff is a 'Pardanasheen' lady?
- Can the benefit of 'Pardanasheen' status be extended to a plaintiff who failed to explicitly plead such status in the plaint?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit for a declaration regarding a disputed sale mutation?
- Is a suit for declaration and possession regarding land governed by the six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Khanimullah and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1289 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Khalifa Subedar vs Member, Federal Land Commission And Other1989 CLC 2328 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-28Read full judgment →
- Khalid Mahmood Khan vs Iftikhar Ahmed and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
- Johar Din vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 237 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-02Read full judgment →
- Jeh Anzeb Khan vs Muhammad Yaqub and anothers1989 PLD Peshawar 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaqur Rehman vs The Chancellor, N. W.F.P. University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar And 5 Other1989 CLC 1303 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
- Isa Khan and 23 others vs Barkatullah and 9 others1989 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges an appellate court's judgment decreeing a suit for possession of specific Khasra numbers. The core legal questions concern whether the plaintiffs, having acquired the land through a pre-emption decree, held valid physical possession, and whether the defendants, claiming as co-owners, could lawfully dispossess them. The court held that the plaintiffs had established their physical possession through revenue records, which carry a presumption of truth under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The court affirmed that while a co-sharer in exclusive possession of joint property cannot be ousted except through partition, this principle does not apply when a co-sharer enters possession as a tenant or licensee of another co-owner, as they are estopped from denying the landlord's title. The court further held that symbolical possession delivered by an executing court is equivalent to actual possession. Consequently, the appellate court's decision to restore possession to the plaintiffs was upheld, as the defendants' dispossession of the plaintiffs was unlawful.
Questions settled- Does a co-sharer in exclusive possession of joint land have the right to retain possession until partition?
- Is symbolical possession delivered by an executing court equivalent to actual possession?
- Can a co-sharer who enters into possession of joint property as a tenant or licensee deny the title of the co-owner landlord?
- Does the presumption of truth attached to revenue records apply to entries in the annual record of rights?
- Iqbal Jahangir Khan vs The N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission and 41989 PLC (C.S.) 448 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Al-Mansoor Ltd. and 61989 PLD Peshawar 191 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
- Imam Hanif vs Tufail and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 1518 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Ijaz Hussain and 12 others vs Mst. Hussan Ara and 6 others1989 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-04-19Read full judgment →
- Hamza Ali vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 519 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Hamza Ali Khan and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1665 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
- Hamid Khan vs Wali Muhammad 4 And Other1989 CLC 2273 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Umar Khan and 7 others vs Jehanzeb and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 179 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
- Haji Sewa Gul vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. and 171989 PLD Peshawar 73 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Rehman vs The Election Tribunal, Peshawar Division, Peshawar and others1989 PLD Peshawar 244 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
- Haji Nawab vs Fazali Wahid and 4 othersPLD 1989 Peshawar J · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Siddique vs District Judge, Peshawar And 11 Other1989 CLC 1296 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
- Haji Hayat Gul And 2 Others vs Mufti Ghazi Khan And 2 Other.1989 CLC 2372 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulamuddin and another vs Illauddin Khan and others1989 P Cr. L J 1765 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Faiz Muhammad vs Assistant Commissioner Sawat Mingora And 41989 CLC 2081 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
- Haji Aurangzeb vs Haji Abdur Rehman and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 195 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
- Haji Afsar Khan and anothers vs Inayatullah Khan and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →