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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Abdul Hamid vs Chairman, WAPDA And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 91 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-05-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Khokhar vs Government of the Punjab Through Secretary, Communication And WorksDepartment, Lahore1994 PLC (C.S.) 1607 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 629 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a departmental order placing respondent No.4 senior to the petitioner. The core legal question concerns the determination of inter se seniority between the petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Works Manager (Auxiliary), and respondent No.4, appointed as an Assistant Manager (P.R.), and whether the two posts belonged to the same cadre. The Supreme Court held that the question of seniority and cadre equivalence had already been conclusively resolved between the parties in prior litigation by the Tribunal and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and further noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the departmental seniority list issued earlier. Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that matters of seniority and cadre determination conclusively settled by prior judicial adjudication cannot be reopened, and unexplained failure to challenge contemporaneous seniority lists precludes subsequent agitation.
Questions settled- Whether the question of inter se seniority and cadre equivalence settled by prior judicial adjudication can be reopened in subsequent proceedings?
- Does the failure to challenge a departmental seniority list at the relevant time preclude a civil servant from agitating the seniority issue at a later stage?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against a Service Tribunal judgment upholding a settled seniority position?
- Abdul Hamid Khan vs Secretary, Establishment Division and others1994 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning a departmental seniority dispute over respondent No. 4. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority over respondent No. 4, considering prior tribunal and Supreme Court adjudications determining that the respective cadres were equivalent and establishing respondent No. 4's seniority date based on his earlier appointment. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, noting that the seniority issue had already been conclusively resolved in earlier litigation between the same parties and that the petitioner's failure to timely challenge the departmental seniority list could not be plausibly excused. The court laid down the principle that previously litigated and settled seniority determinations between parties in service matters attain finality, and stale challenges based on delayed awareness of seniority lists cannot be entertained.
Questions settled- Whether an employee can challenge a departmental seniority list years after its issuance without a plausible explanation for the delay?
- Does a prior adjudication by a Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court regarding cadre equivalence and seniority operate to bar subsequent re-litigation of the same issue between the same parties?
- Abdul Hameed Janjua vs The Secretary, Management Services Division, Islamabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arising from a decision of the Federal Services Tribunal. The core legal question presented for consideration is whether the dispute brought before the Tribunal pertained to the recognition of educational qualifications or their equivalence to Pakistani degrees, or whether it fundamentally related to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the subject matter falls within the statutory jurisdiction of the Federal Services Tribunal, thereby challenging the Tribunal's previous determination or the scope of its authority in such matters. By granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the necessity of examining whether the Tribunal erred in its jurisdictional assessment. The holding establishes that the distinction between academic qualification disputes and service-related terms and conditions is a critical threshold issue for determining the Tribunal's competence. The principle laid down is that the nature of the grievance must be strictly analyzed to ascertain if it constitutes a service matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does a dispute regarding the recognition of educational qualifications constitute a matter related to terms and conditions of service?
- Does the Federal Services Tribunal have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the equivalence of foreign degrees with Pakistani degrees?
- Abdul Hameed Janjua vs The Secretary, Management Services Division, Islamabad and 2 others (Copy)1994 SCMR 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a decision of the Federal Services Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of the Federal Services Tribunal regarding matters related to the terms and conditions of service versus the recognition of qualifications or their equivalents with Pakistani degrees. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine the contention that the subject matter fell within the domain of terms and conditions of service, thereby engaging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The holding established that disputes touching upon the terms and conditions of service of civil servants fall within the adjudicatory competence of the Tribunal, laying down the principle that the Tribunal's jurisdictional remit must be determined by the substance of the service matter in controversy rather than superficial categorization.
Questions settled- Whether a service matter relating to terms and conditions of service falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Services Tribunal?
- Does the Federal Services Tribunal have jurisdiction over matters concerning the recognition of qualifications or equivalents with Pakistani degrees?
- Abdul Haleem vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Sukkur1994 PLC 464 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakeem vs The State1994 SCMR 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the High Court of Sindh directing that proceedings against the appellant under section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code be conducted by the High Court itself, after a forged death certificate of an absconding accused was produced by the appellant surety. The core legal question was whether, in view of section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court was exclusively bound to make a formal complaint in writing to a competent trial court, or whether it was alternatively empowered to try the offence summarily itself under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empowers the court in which, or in relation to whose proceedings, an offence under section 195(1)(b) has been committed to take cognizance and try the case itself by following the summary trial procedure, alongside its discretion to forward the case under section 476-A. The key principle laid down is that sections 195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate concurrently to grant the court where the offence occurred the discretionary jurisdiction to either file a complaint or conduct a summary trial itself.
Questions settled- Whether a court before which a false document is produced in judicial proceedings can try the offender summarily under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a court from trying an offence under section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code itself under section 476?
- Can a court exercise discretion to hold a summary trial for perjury committed in relation to its own proceedings?
- Whether section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 restricts the application of summary trials under section 476 to sentences passed before the rising of the court?
- Abdul Ghani vs Zahoor Ahmed and 6 others1994 SCMR 2037 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a property dispute concerning the ownership and possession of a shop. The petitioner claimed ownership based on a Property Transfer Order (P.T.O.), while the respondent's predecessor-in-interest acquired the shop through a government auction, obtaining a P.T.O. and Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.). The core legal question was whether the respondent's suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession was maintainable, particularly regarding the adequacy of court fees and the petitioner's prior suppression of facts. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, which had restored the trial court's decree in favor of the respondent. The Court found that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained eviction of the previous occupant by suppressing the fact that his own P.T.O. did not include the disputed shop, a fact established by previous Settlement Department proceedings and a dismissed writ petition. The Court affirmed that the petitioner held possession without entitlement for twenty-five years, justifying the imposition of special costs. The judgment reinforces the principle that a party cannot benefit from the suppression of material facts in judicial proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration with a prayer for possession as consequential relief is maintainable under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Can a party who suppresses material facts regarding the ownership of property in eviction proceedings be allowed to retain possession?
- Is a High Court justified in awarding special costs against a litigant who maintains possession of property without legal entitlement for a prolonged period?
- Abdul Ghani vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 147 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Rasib Khan and 5 others1994 PLD Azad J&K 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Rasib Khan And 5 Other1994 PLD Azad J&K 8 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Province of Balochistan through Secretary, Law(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 101) · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Muhammad Ashfaq And Other1994 CLC 444 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which ordered the petitioner, a grandfather, to pay maintenance to his minor grandchildren following the death of their father. The petitioner contended that his advanced age, reliance on his own sons, and limited land ownership exempted him from this financial obligation. The core legal question was whether a grandfather is liable to maintain his minor grandchildren upon the death of their father, and whether the petitioner's financial circumstances warranted interference with the maintenance order. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the grandfather bears a statutory obligation to maintain his minor grandchildren after the death of their father. The Court ruled that neither the petitioner's age nor his limited land ownership provided a valid legal ground to evade this liability. Furthermore, the Court found the maintenance amount reasonable given current socio-economic conditions and declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with the fair and just orders of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Is a grandfather legally liable to provide maintenance to his minor grandchildren after the death of their father?
- Does a grandfather's advanced age and limited land ownership constitute valid grounds to avoid the statutory obligation of maintaining minor grandchildren?
- Can a maintenance order for minor grandchildren be challenged in a constitutional petition if no jurisdictional defect is shown?
- Abdul Ghani vs Muhammad AhmadK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 98 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Mst. Fatima 131Bi and 5 others1994 SCMR 1786 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition in limine. The dispute concerned a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, which had been allotted to the petitioner as an Islamabad Oustee under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The petitioner argued that the agreement was void under Section 19 of the said Act, contending that his status remained that of a tenant even after the conferment of proprietary rights. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell land allotted under the Act is enforceable after the conferment of proprietary rights. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, relying on the precedent set in Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v. Mst. Jhando Bibi and others (1992 SCMR 1510), rejected the petitioner's arguments. The Court held that the agreement was valid and enforceable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the grant of leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is discretionary and declined to exercise such discretion in favor of the petitioner, thereby dismissing the petition.
Questions settled- Is an agreement to sell land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, enforceable after the conferment of proprietary rights?
- Does the status of an allottee remain that of a tenant after the conferment of proprietary rights under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
- Is the grant of leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 a matter of right or judicial discretion?
- Abdul Ghani vs Azad Government State of Jammu and Kashmir1994 PLC (C.S) 1388 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-02-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani through L.Rs, and 5 others vs Khalid and 17 others1994 SCMR 1791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. The core legal question concerned two questions of fact: whether Dost Muhammad Khan had executed a power of attorney in favour of Abdul Hameed, and whether he had sold land to Munawar Khan during the pendency of the suit. The lower courts concurrently held both questions in the negative, finding that Dost Muhammad was mentally infirm and incapable of entering into such transactions. The Supreme Court held that no case was made out for interference with the concurrent findings of fact by the subordinate courts. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed in the absence of a compelling legal basis.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts regarding the execution of a power of attorney?
- Does the revisional jurisdiction permit interference with concurrent factual determinations concerning a person's mental capacity?
- What is the standard for granting leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact relating to property transactions?
- Abdul Ghani And Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (L), Gujranwala And Other1994 CLC 1334 · Lahore High Court · 1991-08-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani and another vs The State1994 MLD 862 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs The StateK.L.K. 1994 Shariat Cases 40 · Federal Shariat Court · -Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Amtul Saeeda1994 MLD 1463 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and 2 others vs The State1994 MLD 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Fareed Khan vs FerozuddinK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 538 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Basir Khan and 3 others vs Sanaur Rehman and 2 others1994 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Basir Khan And 3 Other vs Sanaur Rehman And 2 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Bari vs Khushi Muhammad And Other1994 CLC 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Baqi vs Haji Ghulam Haider And 3 Other1994 PLD Quetta 38 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-11-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs The State and others1994 SCMR 35 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court whereby the respondent's conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was maintained, but his sentence of death was altered to life imprisonment along with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in altering the normal penalty of death to life imprisonment when ocular evidence was relied upon, on the ground that material evidence supporting the prosecution's motive was not produced. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning regarding the absence of motive evidence justified withholding the capital sentence, and affirmed the principle that the apex court is generally reluctant to interfere with a sentence passed by a competent court unless a significant principle of law is involved. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in altering the sentence of death to life imprisonment when the prosecution fails to produce material evidence to support the alleged motive?
- Is the Supreme Court reluctant to interfere with a legal sentence passed by a trial or appellate court in the absence of a connected principle of law?
- Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Rafiq Qureshi1994 PLD Karachi 474 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated civil revision applications challenging concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed the applicant's suits for specific performance and for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a disputed plot of land. The applicant claimed ownership based on an alleged Agreement of Sale, while the respondent denied the document as a forgery. The core legal question was whether the applicant had sufficiently discharged the burden of proof regarding the execution of the disputed document and whether the trial court's unilateral comparison of signatures was legally sustainable. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, ruling that the applicant failed to prove the document's execution through standard evidentiary modes, such as expert testimony or evidence from persons acquainted with the signature. The Court held that merely presenting witnesses who claim a document was executed is insufficient when the signature itself is disputed. Consequently, the burden of proof never shifted to the respondent. The Court affirmed that while courts may compare signatures under the law, such exercises are secondary to the primary burden of proof resting on the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Does the testimony of attesting witnesses alone constitute sufficient proof of a disputed signature?
- What are the standard modes of proving a disputed signature or writing under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- Can a court's unilateral comparison of signatures be considered a valid substitute for expert evidence when the plaintiff has failed to discharge the initial burden of proof?
- Abdul Aziz vs M.B.R. And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 179 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Malik vs Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1134 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a retired ex-PCS Officer who served as a Member of the Punjab Service Tribunal in BS-20, challenged the denial of his claim for "Secretariat Allowance" and "Orderly Allowance" during his tenure. The respondents argued that the Tribunal, although a "Special Institution" under the Punjab Government Rules of Business 1974, did not form part of the Secretariat and thus its officers were ineligible. The Tribunal observed that after the abolition of service classes by the Punjab Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature of Service and Abolition of Classes) Rules 1974, creating a distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat employees for allowances was discriminatory. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal noted that other "Special Institutions" like the High Court and Public Service Commission were granted these allowances. Furthermore, the Tribunal lacked independent administrative status and remained under the exclusive administrative control of the S&GAD, effectively making it an integral part of the Secretariat. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was declared entitled to the allowances.
Questions settled- Whether denying Secretariat and Orderly allowances to employees of a designated Special Institution while granting them to other similar Special Institutions constitutes unlawful discrimination?
- Does the abolition of service classes under the Punjab Civil Servants (Change in Nomenclature of Service and Abolition of Classes) Rules 1974 preclude the creation of a distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat employees for the purpose of allowances?
- Can an institution that lacks independent administrative control and is fully controlled by the S&GAD be treated as an integral part of the Secretariat for the purpose of service benefits?
- Abdul Aziz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 100 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz and anothers vs Abdul Rehman and others1994 SCMR 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition arises from a judgment dismissing a civil appeal concerning a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The petitioners sought review of the Supreme Court's decision, which had affirmed the lower courts' findings that the petitioners failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioners' actions, such as visiting the Registrar's office, constituted sufficient proof of readiness to perform, and whether the alleged consent of one defendant in a written statement necessitated a decree. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to establish readiness and willingness, noting that the evidence had been properly appreciated by the lower courts. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that specific performance is a discretionary relief that may be refused even if the agreement's execution is proven. Finding no error in the previous judgment and emphasizing that a review petition cannot be used for the re-appraisal of evidence, the Court dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Can a review petition be used to seek a fresh appraisal of evidence already considered by the court?
- Is the grant of specific performance of an agreement a mandatory right or a discretionary relief?
- Can specific performance be refused even if the execution of the agreement is proven?
- Abdul Aziz and 14 others vs Additional District Judge, Kasur and 41994 MLD 1925 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
- Abdui, Ghani vs Muhammad Ahmad1994 MLD 1117 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-10Read full judgment →
- Abbass vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 402 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
- Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 504 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
- Abbas Soomro, MembersROSHAN Ali vs The Additional I.-G. Police, Sindh1994 PLC (C.S.) 1004 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
- Abbas Qasim vs Chief Justice, Sindh High Court And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1181 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
- Abbas Ali Mansab vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1537 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-09-18Read full judgment →
- Abbas Ali Alias Bhakhu And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 113 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
- Abbas Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home1994 MLD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
- Aansa Naheed vs Mukhtar Ahmad and 2 others1994 MLD 661 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
- Aaliya Ihsan vs Mrs. Bushra Mateen And Other1994 CLC 1739 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
- Aaliya Ihsan vs (Mrs.) Bushra Mateen EtcK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-07Read full judgment →
- A.B. Parikh vs Income-Tax Officer1994 PTD 915 · Gujarat High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
- A. Rashid Khan Sherwani vs Government of Sindh Through Chief1994 PLC (C.S.) 1023 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-02-14Read full judgment →
- 7 Up Manufacturers vs Federation of Pakistan And Other1994 CLC 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
- (Syed) Muhammad Taqi Shah vs Sadaqat Ali Khan(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 142) · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Muhammad Hanif Awan And 3 Other vs The Secretary toK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 508 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Chas a Mendoza vs Syed Tausif Ahmed Zaidi And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 273 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zohran And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 70 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-23Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zainab Bibi vs Rehmat Ali And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 113 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-11Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zahida Sultana vs SHOK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 259 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-03Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Yasmeen vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 50) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-22Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shazia Kausar vs Mansab KhanK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 197 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sharifan vs S.H.O.P.S. FerozewalaK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 382 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sharifan Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 518 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-29Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shaheen Kausar vs Allah DittaK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 198 · Lahore High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shah Begum vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 586 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shabana Nazli vs Aftaf AhmadK.LR. 1994 Civil Cases 421 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Shabana Chaudhry And Other vs SHO P.S. Akbari Gate Lahore And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 386 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-04Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sabohi Sarfraz vs Chairman Arbitration CouncilK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 115 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Sabir Jana vs Haji Ayub Khan(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 3) · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Razia Begum vs Town Committee and Dadan Khan And OtherK.L.R 1994 Civil Cases 389 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Rashida Bibi Etc vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 99) · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Rasham Bibi vs Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation)(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 95) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Rasham Bibi vs Member Board of Revenue (Consolidation) Punjab(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 126) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Parveen Bibi vs S.H.O, Rajanna(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 88) · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nusrat Khanum vs Liaqat AliK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 528 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nieela vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 135 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-07Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nazeeran vs Muhammad Sharif(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 63) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nasrin Akhtar vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 144) · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-05-09Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Nasira Parveen vs Muhammad Mahboob AhmadK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 352 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Munir Fatima Alias Rani And Other vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 53) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-28Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Mumtaz Bibi Alias Taj Bibi vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 46) · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Kishwar Zohra vs Guardian Juge Gujrat And 3 OtherK.LR. 1994 Civil Cases 411 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Khursh1d Bibi vs The StateK.L.K. 1994 Criminal Cases 342 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Khalida Parveen vs Ghulam RasulK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 292 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Jiwai vs Rehman AndshahuK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 353 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-07Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Ghaus Bibi vs Government of Punjab, through Member(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 89) · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Farzana Begum vs Muhammad Haroon ButtK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 326 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Farrukh Naheed Hashmi vs Syed Shah Abrar Qadri And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 287 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Bashiran Bibi vs S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Dipalpur, DistrictK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 246 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-08Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Barkat Bibi vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 36) · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Barht-E-Raw1da vs Ghulam Habib And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 202 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Alif Noor And Other vs Azad Government of the State of Jammue(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 11) · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-11-25Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Parveen Akhtar vs Sultan Ahmad WattooK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 235 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Karam Begum Etc. vs D.S.C. Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 337 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
- (Mrs.) Rashida And Other vs (Mrs.) Shahzad Khanum Malick And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 498 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-26Read full judgment →
- (Mrs.) Aneesa Begum And Other vs (Mrs.) Aminuddin And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 493 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
- (Miss) Karim Hamid vs Govt. of Punjab Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 387 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-01Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Habibullah vs Addl, Sessions Judge EtcK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 132 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
- (DR.) Muhammad Nasim Khan And Another vs Fida Muhammad Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 30 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- (DR.) Khalid Ranjha Etc. vs Deputy Land Commissioner Sargodha Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 383 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
- (CH.) Pervaiz Elahi vs Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo and OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 3 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
- (Ch.) Noor Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 134 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-04Read full judgment →
- (Ch.) Muhammad Younas vs Province of Punjab Etc.(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases I6) · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
- (Ch.) Muhammad Shafi, Advocate vs Province of Punjab through Collector, Multan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 212 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →