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. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Lt. (Retd.) Hazar Muhammad Malik vs Government Of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 52 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Loung And Others vs Central Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 4596 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali and 2 otherss vs The State and another1989 PLD Karachi 481 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-27
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionZina Ordinanceouster of jurisdictionFederal Shariat Courtrevisional jurisdictionabuse of processHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings under Section 561-A is ousted by Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, given the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Shariat Court by Article 203-DD. The Court held that the High Court’s jurisdiction remains intact because the Federal Shariat Court lacks the specific inherent powers equivalent to Section 561-A. Consequently, the High Court may entertain such petitions to prevent the abuse of the court's process, provided the allegations are groundless and unlikely to result in conviction. The key principle laid down is that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of superior courts is not to be readily inferred and requires explicit statutory language; furthermore, inherent powers under Section 561-A are distinct from, and not curtailed by, the revisional jurisdiction of other forums.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in cases involving Hudood laws?
  • Is the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 equivalent to its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court entertain a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending before a Special Court under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Latif H. Hamid And 3 Others vs Agha Mohsin Jaffari1989 MLD 2762 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
• Latif Ebrahim Jamal vs The Controller of Estate Duty1989 PTD 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-09Read full judgment →
• Latif and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2061 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Lala Ayub Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 29 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-01Read full judgment →
• Lakson Tobacco Company Ltd. vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark1989 MLD 1598 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-01Read full judgment →
• Kuwait Flour Mills Co. Sak Arabian Gulf Kuwait vs m.v. _Kashmir_ and another1989 PLD Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Begum vs The State and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 477 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-01Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad and 4 others vs The Senior Member, Federal Land1989 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs Government of Sind and others1989 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-08
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionalternative remedyinheritance mutationIslamic law of inheritancegestation periodland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding the mutation of agricultural land inheritance. The core dispute involved the alleged birth of a posthumous son and the subsequent re-determination of inheritance shares. The petitioner sought to set aside the revenue officer's order, arguing it was passed without jurisdiction. The High Court, however, addressed the preliminary objection regarding the availability of alternative remedies. The Court held that the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, provides a comprehensive mechanism for appeals and revisions against orders passed by revenue officers, which the petitioner failed to exhaust. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, as the statutory remedies were both adequate and efficacious. Furthermore, the Court noted that while Islamic law recognizes a foetus as an heir if born alive within the minimum gestation period of six months, the factual determination of such matters should be addressed through the prescribed revenue hierarchy rather than through writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 when the petitioner has not exhausted the appellate and revisional remedies provided under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Under Islamic law, what is the minimum gestation period required for a posthumous child to be considered an heir to the deceased's property?
  • Does a Revenue Officer have the authority to inquire into the correctness of entries in the register of mutations under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Khawar and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 124 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-10Read full judgment →
• Khan Bahadur Khan vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 PLC (C.S.) 208 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. And 2 Other1989 MLD 1752 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2432 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Kassim vs Syed Rahim Shah1989 MLD 2327 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Karimuddin vs Bachayo and others1989 P Cr. L J 2436 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
• Karam Din and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 8 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-01Read full judgment →
• Karachi Sind Development Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-1989 PTD 472 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Haji Ghulam Ali And Other1989 MLD 2238 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
• Karachi Building Control Authority vs Sufi Muhammad Ismail And Other1989 MLD 2987 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-06
  temporary injunctiondeemed sanctionbuilding planrevisional jurisdictionprima facie casebalance of convenienceSindh Building Control Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application arises from concurrent orders passed by the courts below granting a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, restraining the Karachi Building Control Authority from interfering with their building operations on a plot situated on main Clifton Road, Karachi. The plaintiffs submitted a building plan for a residential-cum-commercial building, which was not processed or refused by the defendant authority within sixty days. Consequently, relying on Regulation 13 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations Part I, the plaintiffs claimed the plan was deemed to be sanctioned. The core legal question concerns whether the courts below properly exercised discretion in granting a temporary injunction based on the deeming provision of Regulation 13 and whether interference is warranted under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts committed no jurisdictional error or material irregularity, as the plan was not refused within sixty days, creating a valid prima facie case and a balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs. The revision application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the main suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a building plan submitted to the Karachi Building Control Authority is deemed to be sanctioned if no order of approval or refusal is passed within sixty days under Regulation 13 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations Part I?
  • Can the High Court interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with the concurrent discretionary orders of lower courts granting a temporary injunction when no jurisdictional defect is shown?
  • Is the issuance of notice before the presentation of an appeal against an interlocutory order under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Building Control Authority vs Muhammad Amin And 4 Other1989 MLD 1588 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• Kamal Khoso vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 611 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Kafeeluddin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 251 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
• Jumo vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayhardened criminaldesperate criminaldangerous criminalZina Ordinancecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by an accused facing trial for offences under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay in the disposal of his case, as he had been incarcerated for a significant period without trial progress. The trial court had previously denied bail, characterizing the applicant as a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court examined whether the mere existence of accusations or pending cases constitutes sufficient grounds to label an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' to deny bail. The Court held that while the fourth proviso allows denial of bail to such individuals, the determination must be based on a cumulative assessment of the nature of the accusation, the accused's conduct during the incident, and available material like police reports. Ultimately, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Court granted bail to the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' in the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, require a previous conviction?
  • What factors should a court consider when forming an opinion that an accused is a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal' for the purpose of denying bail?
  • Can an accused be denied the benefit of the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, without adequate material placed on record to support the classification of the accused as a dangerous criminal?
  Read full judgment →
• Jeson International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Company Circle1989 PTD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-28
  reopening of assessmentdefinite informationchange of opinionincome taxescaped assessmentunder-assessmentseverability of noticewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 by the Income Tax Officer seeking to reopen the petitioner's completed assessment for the year 1984-85. The department sought reopening based on survey reports regarding understated purchase prices of land, salary entries, and an unrecorded loan entry. The core legal questions were whether the Assessing Officer possessed 'definite information' justifying reopening or whether the notice constituted a mere change of opinion on fully disclosed facts, and whether an assessment order passed during the pendency of the petition rendered the challenge infructuous. The High Court held that reopening an assessment based on market rate comparisons of disclosed land transactions and salary entries constituted a mere change of opinion and was without jurisdiction. However, the discovery of a contradictory certificate regarding a loan of Rs. 1,100,000 constituted definite information. Holding the notice severable, the Court declared the notice and subsequent reassessment order illegal regarding the land and salary items, while upholding the proceedings regarding the loan entry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessment can be reopened under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 on a mere change of opinion where all material facts were fully disclosed during the original assessment?
  • What constitutes 'definite information' for the purpose of reopening an income tax assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether a show-cause notice for reopening an assessment that is partially illegal and without jurisdiction can be severed to sustain the legal portions of the notice?
  • Does the completion of a reassessment order during the pendency of a writ petition challenging the underlying notice render the constitutional petition infructuous?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Akhtar vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 79 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Japan Shippers vs Deputy Collector Of Customs (Appraisement) And AnotherPTCL 1989 CL. 319 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad alias Jano vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2149 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Marker Brothers Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi1989 PTD 1034 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
• Jamshaid Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases. 135 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
• Jamia Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 721 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Jamal vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 231 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Jagan and otherss vs THS State1989 PLD Karachi 281 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• J.L.Wei & Co. and others vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan Establishment Division Through Its1989 MLD 368 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-29Read full judgment →
• Irshad and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 828 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Irshad And Another Shakeel vs The State The StatePTCL 1989 CL. 510 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali vs S.M. Rafl1989 MLD 359 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Muhammad And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2812 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2122 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-04Read full judgment →
• Intizamuddin vs Muhammad Saleem Chowman, And Other1989 MLD 4739 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-15Read full judgment →
• Inham Refrigeration b.v. vs The Owners of _F.T.Parivash_ and _Transocean Holdings Ltd1989 PLD Karachi 65 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Indus Textile Mills Ltd vs Commissioenr of Income-Tax1989 PTD 567 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28
  income taxrejection of account booksinvisible wastagesuppressed productionreference applicationcotton yarn manufacturerstatutory wastage record
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference matter arises from an assessment order for the year 1971-72 wherein the Assessing Officer rejected the appellant cotton yarn manufacturer's book version, deeming the invisible wastage inflated and production suppressed, and made an addition to the income. This rejection was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and subsequently by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The applicants sought a reference to the High Court under section 66(1) of the Income Tax Act, questioning the legality of rejecting the account books under sections 13 and 13-A. The Sindh High Court held that while an assessing officer may reject accounts if income cannot be correctly deduced, accounts regularly maintained and accepted in the past should not be rejected without pointing out specific defects or fault, nor can rejection be based on the absence of particular records or data that cannot possibly be maintained in the ordinary course of that specific trade. The reference question was answered in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessing officer can legally reject regularly maintained account books without pointing out substantial mistakes, discrepancies, or defects?
  • Can account books be rejected solely on the ground of non-maintenance of particulars and data that are not practically possible to maintain in a particular trade or business?
  • Whether the assessing officer is justified in rejecting accounts previously accepted in identical circumstances without establishing that income cannot be correctly deduced from them?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1115 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-28
  preventive detentionquashing of proceedingsSind Crimes Control Actissuance of warrantprocedural compliancepolice report requirementsliberty of subject
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the legality of proceedings initiated against the applicant by the S.D.M./Tribunal under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal complied with the mandatory procedural requirements for issuing a warrant of arrest and whether the police report provided sufficient notice of the allegations as required by law. The Court held that the proceedings were legally flawed. It emphasized that the issuance of a warrant under the proviso to Section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, is not a mere formality but requires the Tribunal to record specific reasons demonstrating that the act complained of cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest. Furthermore, the Court held that the police report failed to meet the requirements of Section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, which mandates that the report must detail the specific acts, times, and places of the alleged conduct to ensure the accused has adequate notice of the charges.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory requirements for a Tribunal to issue a warrant of arrest under Section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  • Does a police report initiating proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, require specific details of time and place of the alleged acts?
  • Can proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, be quashed if the police report fails to comply with the requirements of Section 6?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayat Masih and another vs Talib Allah Ditta and another1989 P Cr. L J 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
• In Re: Messrs Barisons (Private) Ltd. vs Not1989 MLD 3075 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• In Re: Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 vs Not1989 MLD 398 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• In Re: Amin Fabrics Limited vs Not1989 MLD 1861 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-11Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 2860 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Imam Bux Baloch vs The StateK.L.R.1989 Criminal Cases 386 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-08Read full judgment →
• Imam Bux Baloch vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 208 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-19Read full judgment →
• Ihtisham Izhar Khan vs Secretary, Department of Health1989 MLD 923 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-27Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1918 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-25Read full judgment →
• ICI Pakistan Limited vs Federal Government Through Finance SecretaryPTCL 1989 CL. 272 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 202 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• I.C.I. Pakistan Ltd. vs Federal Government And 3 Other1989 MLD 1391 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
• Hussain Ali vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 4721 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Humayun Akhtar vs Shamsunnisa1989 MLD 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Hukumuddin Alias Chiri Pehlwan vs The State1989 MLD 654 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Hukum vs The State1989 MLD 655 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Hoshang B. Patel vs M.V. 'Ashar'1989 MLD 3005 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
• Homes Limited vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Zone-5, Karachi and another1989 PTD 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-08Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Ali Khan vs The State1989 MLD 3246 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bakhsh vs The State1989 MLD 4987 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
• Hatim Ali Bhatti vs The Excise and Taxation Officer And Other1989 MLD 948 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-29Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ahmad alias Muhammad Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1344 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-06Read full judgment →
• Hashmi Can Company Ltd. vs Government of Sind through the Secretary, Labour and Cooperative and 3 others1989 PLC 193 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-09Read full judgment →
• Hashmi Can Company Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi1989 PTD 570 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Hashmi Can Company Limited (M/s.). vs Commissioner Of Income Tax,PTCL 1989 CL. 500 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Harsan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 809 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Hamzo Khan Palijo and 6 others vs The State and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 2009 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-18Read full judgment →
• Hameedullah Khan vs Mst. Shah Jehan Begum And Other1989 MLD 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-02Read full judgment →
• Hameed Ahmad Ayas vs Ghulam Raider And 3 Other1989 MLD 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan. vs The Federation Of Pakistan, Etc.PTCL 1989 CL. 317 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan vs The Federation of Pakistan1989 MLD 928 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Dawakhana vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner1989 PTD 1089 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-08Read full judgment →
• Hakim Alias Kaku and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 396 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Muhammad Irfanullah Khan Shafi And Others vs Secretary, Ministry of Religious_Minority Affairs And Other1989 MLD 4742 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• Hakeem M. Hammad Saeed vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 470 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Haji vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue And 4 Other1989 MLD 1417 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Haji vs Jaffar1989 MLD 2779 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Siddique vs The State1989 MLD 859 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Umer vs The Federal Government Ofpakistan Through Its Secretary, Religious And Minority Affairs, Islamabad And 3 Other1989 MLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Shah and 3 others vs Wealth Tax Officer, Circle IV, Karachi and 3 others1989 PTD 488 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Shafi 3 Other vs Wealth Tax Officer, Circle IV, Karachi And 3 OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 535 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Aslam Aijaz Ali & Brothers vs Cotton Trading1989 MLD 2886 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Alam Baluch vs Pakistan Steel And Another1989 MLD 2294 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Muhammad vs Province of Sind And 3 Other1989 MLD 1418 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Dildar vs The State1989 MLD 658 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Barkat Ali vs Commander Aa. Shaikh And 2 Other1989 MLD 502 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Ashfaq Ahmed Khan And 6 Others vs The Custodian, Evacuee1989 MLD 3029 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Alif Din and 4 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 429 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad vs Member, Board of Revenue (Land Utilization) Sind And Other1989 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Abdul Qadir vs State Bank of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 2041 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• Hadi Dastbaz, Sind Club vs M. V. Rice Trader And Another1989 MLD 1615 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-04Read full judgment →
• Habibur Reh Man Khan Durrani vs Akhlaq Ahmed Siodiqui1989 MLD 561 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →