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.

• Shadi Khan Versus Makhmad1975 PLD 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Aslam Versus University of Peshawar through Its Vice1975 PLD 186 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-04-24Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Ihsanullah Khan Versus Commissioner, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar1975 PLD 182 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-04-02Read full judgment →
• Adil Shah Versus The State1975 PLD 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-03-25Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad Versus Muhammad Noor1975 PLD 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-09-09Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan Versus The State1975 PLD 164 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-03-18Read full judgment →
• Government of N.-W. F. P. through Collector, Land Acquisition, Nowshera Versus Muhammad Sharif Khan1975 PLD 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-03-03Read full judgment →
• Khaista Gul Versus Akbar Khan1975 PLD 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-12-23Read full judgment →
• Kifayatullah Versus The State1975 PLD 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-12-16Read full judgment →
• Sher Bahadur Khan Alias Malik Bahadur Khan Versus Abdul Samad Khan1975 PLD 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Pari Versus Sultan Muhammad Khan1975 PLD 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1975-01-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Versus Ghulam Jan1975 PLD 12 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-09-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Ali Shah Versus1975 PLD 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-11-04Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq Versus1975 PLD 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-11-06Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Its Chairman, Lahore Versus Aurangzeb Khan1975 PLD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-08-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Versus Allah Ditta1974 PLD 51 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khaista Gul Versus Mian Gul1973 PLD 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1970-01-21Read full judgment →
• 1973 PLD 1671973 PLD 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1973-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan Khattak Versus S. M. Ayub and 2 Other1972 PLD 175 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Versus The State1971 PLD 226 · Peshawar High Court · 1971-07-15Read full judgment →
• The State Versus Ghulam Jaffar Etc.1970 PLD 66 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Itbar Khan and 18 Others Versus The State1970 PLD 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1969-08-29Read full judgment →
• Shafiullah Khan Versus The Government of West Pakistan through Secretary, Agriculture, Lahore and 3 Others1970 PLD 176 · Peshawar High Court · 1970-05-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Versus K. B. Mian Feroze Shah (Represented by 10 Heirs) and 4 Others1970 PLD 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1970-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shuja and 4 Others Versus Sher Afzal Khan and 2 Others1970 PLD 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1969-11-11Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad Versus Government of West Pakistan and 3 Others1970 PLD 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan Alias Dara and 3 Others Versus District Magistrate, Kohat and 2 Others1970 PLD 1 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mukammil Shah Versus Mst. Apogai1970 PLD 110 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zubair Ul Haq vs Izhar Ul Haq etc2025 PHC 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs The State and others2025 P Cr. L J 983 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-23
  constitutional petitionquashment of orderJustice of Peaceregistration of FIRcognizable offencewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the quashment of an order passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, whereby a direction was issued to the SHO for the registration of an FIR against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Justice of Peace was justified in ordering the registration of an FIR when the contents of the application did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and lacked corroborative material. The Peshawar High Court held that the Justice of Peace is under a legal obligation to examine whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offence before ordering registration of an FIR, and since the complaint failed to disclose a cognizable offence and was contradicted by affidavits of court personnel and lack of CCTV footage, the impugned order was unsustainable. The court laid down the principle that a Justice of Peace cannot direct the registration of an FIR under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 unless the application discloses a cognizable offence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Justice of Peace is bound to verify if an application discloses a cognizable offence before directing the registration of an FIR?
  • Can an order passed by a Justice of Peace directing the registration of an FIR be set aside through a constitutional petition under Article 199?
  • Is the registration of an FIR warranted when the allegations in the complaint are uncorroborated and contradicted by independent staff affidavits and CCTV footage?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Ahmad and others vs Shaukat Ali and others2025 PHC 86 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-04Read full judgment →
• Zardad & another vs The State2025 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-11Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ellahi vs The State and another2025 MLD 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-24Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Khan and another vs Altaf Khan and others2025 CLC 449 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-23Read full judgment →
• Wasi-ud-Din vs Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary &2025 PHC 98 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Waqas Khan and 2 others vs The State2025 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-06-21Read full judgment →
• Waqas etc vs The State, etc2025 PHC 174 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-17
  murder trialcapital punishmentbenefit of doubtocular accountweapon recoveryfsl reportmotive double-edged weaponcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and connected matters arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, convicting the appellants for qatl-e-amd and under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, resulting in a death sentence for one appellant and life imprisonment for the other. The core legal questions involved the credibility of the ocular account, the reliability of weapon recoveries and FSL reports, the effect of unexplained delays, and the utility of motive as a double-edged weapon in cases of prior enmity. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of eyewitnesses beyond reasonable doubt, pointing out material contradictions between the ocular testimony, medical evidence, and site plan, as well as tainted recoveries and delayed forensic transmission. The court laid down that a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case is sufficient to warrant the acquittal of the accused, and that close relatives' testimonies lacking independent corroboration are unsafe for sustaining a capital conviction. Consequently, the convictions were set aside, the death sentence was not confirmed, and the appellants were acquitted on the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of closely related eyewitnesses can form the basis of a capital conviction without independent corroboration when their presence at the crime scene is rendered doubtful?
  • Does the delayed submission of crime empties and alleged weapons of offence to the Forensic Science Laboratory compromise the evidentiary value of a positive FSL report?
  • Can a prior land dispute and resulting civil litigation serve as a reliable standalone corroborative circumstance or does it operate as a double-edged weapon?
  • Is a single circumstance creating a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case sufficient to extend the benefit of doubt and acquit an accused person?
  Read full judgment →
• Wajahat Ali Shah vs The State & another2025 PHC 96 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-02Read full judgment →
• Wahid Ullah vs The State and another2025 PHC 132 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• University of Peshawar through Contoller of Examination University of Peshawar vs Mst. Iqra & 03 others2025 PHC 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-29Read full judgment →
• Umar Farooq vs Arshad Malook, etc2025 PHC 254 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-09Read full judgment →
• Umar Badshah vs The State and others2025 PHC 74 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Shafee2025 PHC 38 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali vs Hilal Shah2025 CLC 348 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-21Read full judgment →
• Tamrez vs DPO Nowshera and others2025 P Cr. L J 905 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-29
  illegal detentionpolice high-handednessJustice of the Peaceregistration of FIRcognizable offenceinter-provincial arrestconstitutional safeguardscriminal writ petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal writ petition addressed police high-handedness involving the alleged unlawful arrest and detention of the petitioner's brother by local police officials without following statutory procedures for inter-provincial arrests, followed by the District Police Officer's failure to act and the ex-officio Justice of the Peace's erroneous direction for an inquiry rather than ordering the registration of a criminal case. The core legal questions revolved around the legality of the arrest in violation of fundamental rights, the scope of powers of a Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the appropriate legal consequences for police misconduct. The Peshawar High Court held that the arrest and detention were illegal and in violation of constitutional safeguards, and that a Justice of the Peace cannot order an inquiry instead of directing the registration of an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence. The court established that police officials must strictly adhere to statutory procedures like Section 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, when executing arrests, and that a Justice of the Peace must order FIR registration upon disclosure of a cognizable offence rather than ordering a police inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the arrest and detention of a person without following the mandatory procedure for inter-provincial arrests under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is illegal and violates fundamental constitutional rights?
  • Does an ex-officio Justice of the Peace have the power to order a police inquiry into a complaint instead of directing the registration of a criminal case when the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • What are the legal duties of an officer in charge of a police station upon receiving information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Whether police officials can be held criminally and administratively accountable for carrying out arbitrary arrests without a warrant or lawful justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mehmood & 2 others vs The State & another2025 PHC 268 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Taskeen Ali vs Mst. Syeda Sadaf Batool, etc2025 PHC 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Safeer Hussain vs The State and others2025 MLD 194 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Bahadar Shah vs Syed Aamir Shah etc2025 PHC 248 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-04Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General vs Ishfaq2025 PHC 30 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
• State through A.G Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs Muhammad Aslam & 02 others2025 PHC 66 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• SNGPL and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 MLD 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
• Sidra Tul Muntaha vs The Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission2025 PHC 68 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sial Muhammad alias Siyal vs The State etc2025 PHC 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-08-19Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Khan etc vs Land Acquisition Collector & Others2025 PHC 8 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
• Shaista Fazal & others vs Chairman, WAPDA & others2025 PHC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-06Read full judgment →
• Shah Zamin and others vs The State and another2025 PHC 6 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-01-23Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Khan and others vs The State through Additional2025 PCRLJ 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-05-02
  preventive detentionjudicial reviewfundamental rightsrule of lawpublic orderlibertyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment concerns 19 constitutional petitions challenging preventive detention orders issued by Deputy Commissioners against political workers under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, following political agitations in May 2023. The core legal question was whether these detention orders were passed with lawful authority and in a lawful manner, particularly regarding the sufficiency of material supporting the detaining authority's satisfaction. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petitions, setting aside the impugned detention orders. The Court held that while preventive detention is an executive power, it is subject to judicial review. The detaining authority bears the initial burden of proving the legality of the detention by producing sufficient, objective material. The Court established that satisfaction must be real, meaningful, and reasonable, rather than based on conjecture or vague, indefinite grounds. An order lacking supporting evidence or failing to demonstrate that the authority applied its mind to specific material is unsustainable. Consequently, the Court emphasized that preventive detention cannot be weaponized against political dissent and must strictly comply with constitutional safeguards and the objectives of the authorizing statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does a detaining authority have an initial burden to produce material justifying a preventive detention order?
  • Is the subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, immune from judicial review?
  • Can a preventive detention order be sustained if the grounds provided are vague and indefinite?
  • What is the standard of satisfaction required for a valid preventive detention order?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan and others vs Mst. Haseena Bibi and others2025 CLC 992 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain vs Shafiq Ur Rahman2025 PHC 196 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-03Read full judgment →
• Shah Faisal etc. vs Mst. Zainab etc2025 PHC 22 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-19Read full judgment →
• Saqib and another vs The State and another2025 YLR 277 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-13
  illegal arms possessionrecovery on pointationcriminal appealKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Actappreciation of evidenceconviction maintenance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV/Judge MCTC, Haripur, which convicted the appellants for the illegal possession of firearms under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to two years of simple imprisonment after the prosecution established that they had led the police to the recovery of a repeater and a 30-bore pistol during the investigation of a separate murder case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the recovery of the weapons on the pointation of the appellants and if the conviction was sustainable in the absence of valid licenses. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the recovery through consistent witness testimony and documentary evidence, which remained unrebutted during cross-examination. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no material contradictions or loopholes in the prosecution's case. The principle laid down is that multiple accused can be held responsible for information leading to the discovery of incriminating evidence, and such recovery, when verified and unrebutted, constitutes sufficient grounds for conviction under the Arms Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can multiple accused be held responsible for information leading to the discovery of incriminating evidence under the law?
  • Is a conviction for illegal possession of firearms sustainable when the accused fails to produce a valid license or rebut the recovery evidence?
  • Does the failure to object to a recovery memo during trial preclude the accused from challenging its validity on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanam Saleem etc vs Government of Pakistan, through Federal Secretary2025 PHC 102 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sana Ullah Zahid vs Mir Akbar & 2 others2025 PHC 44 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-07Read full judgment →
• Samdani vs Ms. Zahida Bibi and another2025 PHC 176 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
• Salah-ud-Din vs Government of Pakistan through Postmaster General, Pakistan Post, etc2025 PHC 140 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saifullah vs The State2025 PHC 12, 2025 PTD 495 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-10Read full judgment →
• Said Naik Shah vs The State2025 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-03-25Read full judgment →
• Said Fareen vs The State through Additional Advocate General and others2025 PHC 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-16Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Noor Ul Amin vs The State and another2025 PHC 262 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-08-22Read full judgment →
• Sabiha vs Muhammad Asim alias Asim, etc2025 PHC 2 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-01-28Read full judgment →
• Rozi Khan & Others vs Fazil & Others2025 PHC 10 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-07Read full judgment →
• Rizwana Bibi vs The State2025 PHC 256 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-08Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ali Khan vs Akzo Nobel Pakistan Ltd & others2025 PHC 180 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Sahib Jan & others vs Malik Ichha & others2025 PHC 164 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-23Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mehmood vs The State2025 PHC 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
• Rajwali and others vs Lac/Dor & E, Nowshera2025 YLR 360 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-07-01Read full judgment →
• Rai Hoider Ali Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretory Ministry of Parliamentary Alfoirs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2025 PHC 260 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rahmat Wali and others vs Residents of Munoor Garam Chashma, Chitral2025 PHC 20 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Raheem Ullah etc vs The State2025 PHC 104 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-08
  murderspot arrestweapon recoverysuppression of factsmitigating circumstancescommutation of sentencecapital punishmentjudicial complex shooting
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for murder under sections 302 and 324 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident of firing inside a judicial complex that resulted in three deaths. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of evidence where both parties suppressed material facts, the evidentiary value of a spot arrest with weapon recovery versus conflicting ocular accounts, and the application of mitigating circumstances for sentencing. The Peshawar High Court held that while the spot arrest and recovery of matching firearms proved the active participation of two appellants, the suppression of facts by both sides and the uncertainty of events made the death penalty too harsh. Consequently, the court acquitted one co-appellant due to insufficient connecting evidence, and partially allowed the appeal of the remaining two appellants by commuting their death sentences to imprisonment for life, while dismissing the complainant's revision petition for sentence enhancement. The key principle laid down is that where both prosecution and defence conceal material facts and present conflicting narratives, courts must exercise extreme judicial caution in assessing evidence, and such mitigating uncertainties can warrant the commutation of capital punishment to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the suppression of material facts by both the prosecution and the defence warrants the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the ocular account of the sole eyewitness contradicts the physical evidence such as the site plan and recovery of empties?
  • Whether an accused not arrested on the spot and against whom no weapon of offence is recovered can be convicted solely on general allegations when the prosecution fails to establish his active participation?
  • Is the spot arrest of an accused coupled with the recovery of matching firearms sufficient to prove participation in a crime beyond a shadow of doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. Almazeb Manan & five others vs Executive Officer2025 PHC 158 · Peshawar High Court
  property tax exemptioncantonment boardretired government servantslegitimate expectationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by retired employees of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, challenging demand notices for enhanced annual property tax issued by the Cantonment Board Abbottabad under Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, as retired government servants, are entitled to 100% property tax exemption under SRO 156(I)/2004, and whether their status as government servants was affected by subsequent organizational changes. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners retired when the institution was a government entity and thus retained their status as retired government servants entitled to the tax exemption. The court ruled that the impugned notices, issued without lawful justification or withdrawal of the exemption through a transparent process, violated principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation. The key principle laid down is that retired public servants fulfilling the criteria of SRO 156(I)/2004 are entitled to property tax exemptions, and subsequent autonomous transitions of institutions do not retrospectively strip employees who retired prior thereto of their vested retirement benefits and status.

  Questions settled

  • Whether retired employees of a former government medical institution are entitled to property tax exemptions under SRO 156(I)/2004?
  • Does a subsequent statutory transition of a hospital into an autonomous body affect the retirement status and accrued benefits of employees who retired prior to the change?
  • Are property tax demand notices issued without affording an opportunity of hearing sustainable under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Peshawar Medical College vs Pakistan Medical & Dental Council (PMDC) &2025 PHC 54 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sahib Zaman son of Toor Khan vs The State & another2025 PHC 26 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Muslim League (N) through its President, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs The Election Commission of Pakistan through its Secretary and others2025 PHC 228 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nouman Ali vs The State2025 YLR 687 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-10-11Read full judgment →
• Niamat Ali Khan vs Provincial Housing Authority of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2025 PHC 218 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nawabzada Muhammad Khisro Khan and another vs Mst. Aneesa Bibi and others2025 PHC 148 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nasir and others vs The State and others2025 PCRLJ 168 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-30
  criminal appealmurderocular accountmedical evidencecontradictionbenefit of the doubtmotiveacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants under sections 302(b)/34 and 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising out of a double murder case. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution successfully established the presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot, whether the incident occurred in the manner alleged, and whether the motive and ocular account were supported by trustworthy evidence and medical reports. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from major inherent defects, including unproven motive, glaring contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number and dimensions of injuries, unnatural conduct of the witnesses, and exaggerated implication of accused persons. The court laid down the principle that when the ocular account is inconsistent with medical evidence and the prosecution fails to establish its foundational story and motive beyond a reasonable doubt, the resulting benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and acquittal of the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution's case becomes doubtful when the medical evidence is in direct conflict with the ocular account regarding the number and nature of firearm injuries?
  • Does failure to prove the alleged motive react adversely against the prosecution when motive is set up as the primary basis for the crime?
  • Whether the exaggeration of the number of accused persons requires the court to apply a higher standard of care and circumspection in appraising evidence?
  • Is a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused sufficient to entitle him to an acquittal as a matter of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Asghar & another vs Provincial Govt.& others2025 PHC 210 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-07-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Taj Vegetable Oil Processing Unit (Pvt.) and others. Ltd vs FederationPTCL 2025 CL. 261 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Shamsi Builders Limited Karachi through its Authorized2025 PHC 186 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s R-SC Internet Services Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. through Assistant Manager2025 YLR 266 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-21Read full judgment →
• M/s Neutro Pharma Lahore (Pvt) Ltd. vs The State through Drug Inspector2025 PHC 150 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s GHC International Pvt. Ltd (Engineers & COntractors), Peshawar vs2025 PHC 236 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Govt. of K.P,K and others2025 PHC 112 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad and others vs Mst. Pass Bibi and others2025 PHC 106 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
• Musa Khan etc vs The State etc2025 PHC 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
• Murad Ali vs Shah Jehan & Others2025 PHC 258 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-08Read full judgment →
• Munawar Khan etc vs Sheikh Fazal Ur Rehman etc2025 PHC 36 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mumraiz Khan vs Abdul Manan Abbasi and another2025 YLR 711 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-03-08Read full judgment →