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. 4,353 judgments in total from the Balochistan High Court.
- Shamsuddin and 10 others vs Speaker, Balochistan Provincial1994 MLD 2500 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, employees of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat, challenged a notification promoting a Superintendent to the post of Assistant Secretary (Grade-17), arguing it violated established recruitment rules and ignored the quota system. The core legal questions were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review the Speaker's administrative actions, whether Assembly Secretariat employees were 'civil servants' subject to the Service Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, and whether the promotion was validly made. The Court held that while internal parliamentary proceedings are immune from judicial review, the Speaker's administrative actions, such as staff recruitment, are subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. It further held that Assembly Secretariat employees are not 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act, 1974, as they are not appointed by the Government, thus the High Court retains jurisdiction. The Court set aside the promotion, ruling that in the absence of specific internal quotas, the Speaker must follow the Balochistan Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1982, and directed the Speaker to properly allocate promotion quotas.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Provincial Assembly Secretariat considered 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to review administrative actions taken by the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly?
- Can the High Court issue a writ to set aside a promotion made in violation of recruitment rules and quota allocations?
- Are the employees of the Provincial Assembly Secretariat subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Shams-Ud-Din And Other vs Speaker Balochistan Provincial Assembly, Quetta And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 575 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Semco Salvage Pte. Ltd vs M.V. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan Through Person1994 PLD Quetta 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Sanaullah Kiian vs Province of Baloch1stan through SecretaryK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 152 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Sajjad Ahmad vs Government of Balochistan Through Secretary1994 PLD Quetta 64 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
- Sabro vs The State And Another1994 PLD Quetta 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Islam And 7 Other vs Quetta Municipal Corporation1994 PLD Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-05-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal And 7 Other vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Balochistan And 7 Others1994 PLC 735 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khairunissa And 2 Other vs Hakim Abdul Samad And Another1994 PLD Quetta 71 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aisha Khan vs Muhammad Yusuf And Another1994 PLD Quetta 97 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-05-30Read full judgment →
- Miss Mehreen Magsi vs Chairman, Balochistan Board of Intermediate1994 CLC 909 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Nawaz Marri, J Malik Gul Hasan & Co. through Managing1994 MLD 2302 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
- M.V. Kapta1n Yousuf Kalkavan Turkish Flag And Other vs SemcoK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases I00 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khuda-E-Dad vs Bibi Naziran And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 515 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-11-18Read full judgment →
- Javed Iqbal, J United Bank Ltd. vs Haji Muhammad Rahim Khan1994 MLD 2312 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-06-16Read full judgment →
- Gopi Chand And Other vs Pehlaj Rai And Other(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 35) · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Azizullah Memon Advocate And Another vs Pakistan through ItsK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 527 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Asstt Collector Customs (Preventive) Collectorate Ofcustoms vs SHO Sariab And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 175 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 449 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Hussain And Other vs Muhammad Ramzan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 523 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Jan vs District and Sessions Judge And Another1994 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in two separate trials on the same date for possession of unlicensed ammunition and narcotics, receiving terms under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The jail authorities treated the sentences as consecutive, whereas the petitioner contended they should run concurrently because both judgments were pronounced on the same day without specifying priority. The core legal question was whether sentences awarded in separate trials on the same day without a concurrent direction should run consecutively or concurrently by default. The Balochistan High Court held that unless a court exercises its discretion to explicitly order sentences to run concurrently, sentences of imprisonment awarded in different cases or trials, even if announced on the same day, must be deemed and treated as running consecutively pursuant to the principles in sections 35 and 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court established that one judgment necessarily precedes the other in time, making the subsequent sentence subject to consecutive execution unless expressly ordered otherwise.
Questions settled- Whether sentences of imprisonment awarded in separate trials decided on the same date run concurrently or consecutively in the absence of an explicit judicial order?
- Does the High Court have inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to direct separate sentences to run concurrently?
- When a person is convicted in multiple cases on the same day, is a subsequent sentence deemed to commence after the expiration of the previous one under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Agriauto Progressive Labour Union, (C.Ba.), Karachi vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Balochistan at Quetta And Another1994 PLC 182 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs Additional District Judge I, Quetta And 5 Other1994 PLD Quetta 89 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses whether the amendments introduced to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by Section 10 of the Civil Laws (Reforms) Ordinance 1993, which omitted subsections (2), (3), and (4) and thereby stripped District Courts of revisional powers, operate retrospectively or prospectively. The core legal question was whether pending revision petitions before District Judges abated upon the enactment of the Ordinance. The Court held that the Civil Laws (Reforms) Ordinance 1993 does not operate retrospectively, as there is no legislative intent to that effect in the statute. The Court ruled that filing a revision petition is a procedural privilege rather than a substantive vested right, and pursuant to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897, pending proceedings are governed by the law prevailing at the time the action commenced, preserving the revisional jurisdiction of District Judges over pending matters. The key principle laid down is that procedural amendments removing a forum do not affect pending proceedings or accrued privileges unless the legislature explicitly manifests a clear intention for retrospective operation.
Questions settled- Whether the amendment introduced in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Ordinance 1993 operates retrospectively?
- Does the filing of a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 create a vested right or a mere privilege?
- How does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 affect pending legal proceedings upon the repeal or amendment of a procedural statute?
- Can a factual controversy regarding the acceptance of costs be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 without convincing material?
- Abdul Razzaq vs Selection Committee Through Chairman_Chairman, Public Service Commission1994 PLD Quetta 34 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Province of Balochistan through Secretary, Law(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 101) · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Baqi vs Haji Ghulam Haider And 3 Other1994 PLD Quetta 38 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-11-18Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs Government of Balochistan, Education Department1993 PLD Queeta 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Zubeda Bibi vs Selection Committee for Bolan Medical College, Quetta1993 PLD Queeta 14 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the rejection of the petitioner's application for admission to the first-year MBBS/BDS course at Bolan Medical College, Quetta, by the Selection Committee. The core legal question was whether a candidate could claim admission against a reserved seat for a specific district based on a domicile certificate issued for a combined district prior to its bifurcation, or whether the mandatory provision of the college prospectus requiring a specific district domicile certificate must be strictly satisfied. The Court held that the Selection Committee acted within its jurisdiction in rejecting the application. The prospectus of the educational institution constitutes a statutory instrument, and its requirements, specifically the production of a valid domicile certificate from the relevant district, are mandatory. The Court affirmed that administrative authorities must strictly adhere to the conditions stipulated in the prospectus, and past instances of leniency toward other family members do not create a vested right or legal precedent for the petitioner to bypass mandatory admission requirements.
Questions settled- Is the prospectus of an educational institution considered a statutory instrument for the purpose of regulating admissions?
- Can a candidate claim a reserved seat for a specific district based on a domicile certificate issued for a combined district prior to its bifurcation?
- Does the failure of a Selection Committee to enforce admission criteria in previous cases create a vested right for a current applicant to bypass those same criteria?
- Is the production of a domicile certificate from the specific district of the reserved seat a mandatory requirement for admission to Bolan Medical College?
- Zubeda Bai vs Syed Faqir Shah1993 PLD Queeta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Yahya Bakhtiar vs The Federation of Pakistan and 4 others1993 PLD Queeta 78 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-13Read full judgment →
- Waqar Ilias and anothers vs The State through Federal Investigating1993 PLD Queeta 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of twenty-six criminal revision petitions challenging the orders of the Special Court passed under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, whereby process was issued to summon the petitioners—who were bank officers placed in Column No. 2 of the police challan as persons not sent up for trial—to face charges of fraud, cheating, and criminal breach of trust in connection with sanctioned bank loans secured by severely undervalued properties. The core legal questions addressed whether a Special Judge is competent to issue process against accused persons placed in Column No. 2 of a challan without recording prior evidence or assigning detailed reasons, and whether such action constitutes impermissible suo motu cognizance. The Balochistan High Court held that a trial court is not bound by the opinion of the investigating agency, is fully empowered to summon accused persons whose names appear in Column No. 2 based on the record, and is not legally required to record evidence, issue a show-cause notice, or write detailed reasons when issuing process at this stage. The petitions were consequently dismissed, with the observation that the petitioners could seek remedy under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Questions settled- Whether a Special Judge is competent to issue process against an accused person whose name appears in Column No. 2 of the police challan?
- Does a trial court take cognizance of the offence or of the offender?
- Is a trial court legally bound to record evidence or assign reasons when issuing process against persons placed in Column No. 2 of a challan?
- Whether a show-cause notice is required to be issued to an accused before summoning him from Column No. 2 of the challan?
- The State vs Abdul Aziz1993 P Cr. L J 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-08-02Read full judgment →
- Sultan Muhammad vs Commandant Pishin Scouts, Chaman.PTCL 1993 CL. 182 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
- Sardar Imam Bakhsh and 3 others vs Mir Yar Muhammad Khan Rind and another1993 CLC 1556 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
- Sabz Ali and 3 others vs The State1993 PLD Queeta 66 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application was moved by four petitioners facing trial for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions were whether a second bail application is maintainable following the dismissal of an earlier one without fresh material, and whether an accused suffering from chronic illness is entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the application, holding that a second bail application is only competent if based on new developments or fresh material, and that the mere submission of a challan does not constitute such a ground. Regarding the medical plea, the Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the accused's condition could not be adequately managed within jail or local hospital facilities. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is only available if it is established that the accused suffers from a disease incurable within jail or hospital premises.
Questions settled- Is the mere submission of a challan a sufficient ground to maintain a second bail application after the dismissal of a previous one?
- Under what circumstances can an accused be released on bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the filing of a second bail application require the existence of fresh material or new developments not available at the time of the first application?
- Can a confessional statement recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be used as circumstantial evidence against a co-accused in the same trial?
- Rustom Cawasji Irani vs Meherwan Cawasji Irani1993 PLD Queeta 108 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-07-17Read full judgment →
- Riaz Muhammad vs Government of Balochistan, through Secretary1993 PLD Queeta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-08-19Read full judgment →
- Noubat vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases. 76 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddiq vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others vs Mst. Masooda Hasan and 2 others1993 PLD Queeta 88 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves regular first appeals arising from civil suits for possession, cancellation of documents, and injunction, which were initially decreed by the trial court, subsequently appealed before the District Judge, and later returned for presentation before the High Court due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate court. The core legal questions relate to whether the time spent pursuing an appeal before a wrong forum can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether a bona fide mistake or ill-advice of counsel constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Balochistan High Court held that section 14 does not apply to appeal proceedings and time spent before a wrong appellate forum cannot be condoned thereunder, and further reiterated that a bona fide mistake or wrong legal advice by a counsel does not constitute a sufficient ground for condoning delay under section 5. The key principles laid down are that section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 is restricted to suits and cannot be utilized for appeals, and that ignorance of law or counsel's negligence does not excuse delay, while failure to explain each day's delay or to pay requisite court fees renders an appeal time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 can be invoked in appeal cases for excluding the period spent pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum?
- Does a bona fide mistake or ill-advice by a counsel constitute a sufficient ground to condone delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Whether an appeal filed without the requisite court-fee can be deemed to have been validly instituted within the period of limitation?
- Is it mandatory for an applicant seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 to explain the delay of each and every day?
- Muhammad Anwar Mengal, Manager Accounts and 13 others vs Privatisation Commission, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1993 PLD Queeta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by employees of Chiltan Ghee Mills against the Privatisation Commission and a private transferee organization challenging their termination from service prior to the expiry of the twelve-month protection period stipulated in the privatisation agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the transferee organization was under a legal obligation to retain the employees for a minimum period of twelve months, and whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against a private limited company for the alleged breach of employment terms. The Balochistan High Court held that although the transferee organization was bound by the contract and statutory provisions to retain the employees for twelve months, a writ petition under Article 199 cannot be maintained against a private limited company or to remedy a breach of contract governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, the High Court declined the writ, leaving the petitioners to seek their remedy before a forum of competent jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether a transferee organization of a privatized industrial unit is legally obligated to retain existing employees for the mandated minimum period?
- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 be maintained against a private limited company?
- Does the principle of master and servant bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction for remedying wrongful termination of employment?
- Muhammad Amin alias Sher Agha vs Haji Muhammad Din1993 PLD Queeta 105 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an eviction order passed by the Civil Judge/Controller, Quetta, directing the appellant to vacate a shop on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal use. The appellant contested the eviction, denying the respondent's ownership while admitting to paying rent to the respondent on behalf of a third party. The core legal question was whether the appellant's denial of the respondent's ownership in the written statement constituted a denial of the landlord-tenant relationship, thereby justifying immediate eviction. The High Court held that the appellant did not deny the liability to pay rent or the respondent's status as a landlord for rent collection purposes, but merely sought clarification regarding ownership. Relying on the principle that a tenant's denial of a landlord's title is not malicious if the tenant admits the liability to pay rent with an explanation, the Court found the Controller's findings on the relationship issue unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the eviction order set aside, and the case remanded for a decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's denial of a landlord's ownership in a written statement automatically constitute a denial of the landlord-tenant relationship?
- Under what circumstances does a tenant's denial of a landlord's title not constitute a malicious act warranting eviction?
- Is a tenant liable for immediate dispossession if they admit the liability to pay rent while questioning the landlord's ownership?
- Mst. Mumtaz Begum vs Allauddin and 2 others1993 PLD Queeta 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
- Miss Shazia Tabassum vs Selection Committee Constituted for Selection of Candidates for Bolan Medical College, Quetta and 3 others1993 PLD Queeta 9 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Nasir Traders through its Proprietor and 3 others vs Habib Bank1993 PLD Queeta 94 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Balochistan High Court addresses High Court Appeals Nos.13 to 16 of 1992, arising from separate orders and decrees passed by the Chairman/Judge Banking Tribunal in recovery suits filed by Habib Bank Limited against the appellants. The core legal question was whether an appeal against a decree passed by a Banking Tribunal could be entertained by the High Court under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, without the appellant depositing the claimed suit amount or decretal amount, and whether mortgaged properties could be treated as security to exempt the appellants from this deposit. The Court dismissed the appeals in limine, holding that the requirement under Section 9 to deposit the suit or decretal amount is mandatory, plenary, and a strict condition precedent for the entertainment of an appeal. The key principle laid down is that statutes providing for the expeditious recovery of money by financial institutions must be interpreted literally according to their plain and ordinary meaning, precluding any equitable construction or relaxation of the deposit requirement based on pre-existing mortgages.
Questions settled- Can an appeal against a decree of a Banking Tribunal be entertained without depositing the suit amount or decretal amount as mandated by Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to accept mortgaged property as security in lieu of the mandatory cash deposit required for filing an appeal under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984?
- What is the scope of interpretation for fiscal statutes enacted for the expeditious recovery of money due to financial institutions?
- Messrs Malik Muhammad Azeem & Bros vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Pakistan P.W.D., Islamabad and another1993 PLD Queeta 99 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-05-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Industrial. Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Sarela1993 CLC 1540 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a winding-up petition filed by the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan against Messrs Sarela under section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking to wind up the respondent-company on grounds of commercial insolvency and inability to pay outstanding loan dues. The core legal questions relate to the necessity of strict compliance regarding statutory notice service at a registered office, whether ex parte or summary proceedings permit winding up without supporting evidence, and the tests for determining commercial insolvency under the 'just and equitable' clause. The Balochistan High Court held that statutory notice requirements must be strictly fulfilled and proved with convincing evidence, and courts cannot issue a winding-up order mechanically in ex parte proceedings without active judicial evaluation and concrete proof of insolvency or closure. The court established that winding up requires clear evidence demonstrating that a company's substratum is gone, liabilities exceed assets, and no reasonable prospect of profitable business remains, dismissing the petition due to insufficient evidence and failure to properly serve the statutory notice.
Questions settled- Whether a judicial order for winding up a company can be passed in summary or ex parte proceedings without recording evidence or strictly establishing the claims?
- Is strict compliance with the service of statutory notice at a company's registered office mandatory before a winding-up petition can proceed?
- What tests are to be applied to determine whether a company is commercially insolvent and whether it is just and equitable to order its winding up?
- Whether a court is under a legal obligation to grant relief in ex parte proceedings merely on the basis of the pleadings and affidavits provided by the petitioner?
- Master Majeed vs (Mst.) Mulmah And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 41 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
- Malik Nazar Muhammad vs Haji Abdul Rauf And AnotherK.L.R 1993 Revenue Cases 68 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
- Malik Khan Muhammad alias Khanay vs Moulvi Luqman and 3 others1993 CLC 1552 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition before the Balochistan High Court arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by respondent Moulvi Luqman claiming a 1/3rd share in landed property based on a Will executed by late Muhammad Rasool. During the trial, the petitioner offered to have the suit decreed if the respondent's witness, Feroz, swore on the Holy Qur'an, which the witness did, leading the trial court to decree the suit and the Majlis-e-Shoora to dismiss the subsequent appeal. The core legal questions involved the applicability of sections 211 and 213 of the Succession Act, 1925 to Muslim Wills, and the binding nature of an oath taken pursuant to a party's offer under section 9 of the Oaths Act, 1873. The Balochistan High Court held that sections 211 and 213 of the Succession Act, 1925 do not apply to Wills executed by Mohammadans, as Muslim Wills are governed by Muslim Personal Law and do not require probate or letters of administration. The Court further held that a party cannot resile from an unequivocal evidentiary offer made during trial once accepted and acted upon by the opposing party. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether sections 211 and 213 of the Succession Act 1925 apply to Wills executed by Muslims?
- Is it necessary for a Muslim to obtain a probate or letters of administration in respect of a Will under the Succession Act 1925?
- Can a party be permitted to back out from an unequivocal offer made during trial to be bound by the statement of a witness on oath?
- Whether a witness statement made on oath pursuant to a party's offer is treated as conclusive evidence under the Oaths Act 1873?
- Kishore Kumar and 3 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-08-05Read full judgment →
- Jawad Ali vs State1993 P Cr. L J 255 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Imam Bakhsh vs Government of Balochistan, through Secretary1993 PLD Queeta 24 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, J.Shabbir Ahmad vs Chairman, District1993 MLD 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-08-20Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R 1993 Criminal Cases 178 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- Haji Behram Khan vs Akhtar Muhammad and 7 others1993 P Cr. L J 71 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition arose from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge III, Quetta, which rejected the petitioner's application for the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent. The subordinate court had rejected the application on the threshold assumption that private parties could not move applications for the cancellation of bail, relying on precedent to discourage private grudges. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether an aggrieved private party has the locus standi to seek the cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the respondent's bail should be cancelled on merits. The Balochistan High Court held that Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not place any embargo on private persons pointing out grave improprieties committed by subordinate courts. Outright exclusion of an aggrieved person would be detrimental to the administration of justice, especially where public prosecutors show indifference. However, on the merits, the Court found the case fell under further inquiry under Section 497(2) and declined to interfere with the bail grant.
Questions settled- Does Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a private complainant or aggrieved party from moving an application for the cancellation of bail?
- Can the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked to cancel bail in the absence of patent improprieties or glaring irregularities that vitiate the subordinate court's decision?
- Whether an outright exclusion of an aggrieved private person from pointing out gross illegalities in bail orders is detrimental to the effective administration of justice?
- Habib Ullah vs Malik Muhammad Hashim and another1993 PLD Queeta 113 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad Shah and another vs Shahak Dad1993 CLC 1547 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged orders by the Qazi and Majlis-e-Shoora, which had dismissed an appeal as time-barred and decreed a partition suit without following proper procedure. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellate court correctly refused to condone the delay in filing an appeal under the Limitation Act, and whether the trial court's decree, passed without following civil procedure, was sustainable. The High Court held that the appeal was indeed time-barred and the delay was not sufficiently explained, as the petitioners failed to provide a plausible justification for the delay. However, the Court exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction to set aside the trial court's order. The key principle laid down is that while a party seeking condonation of delay must explain each day of delay, the court retains suo motu revisional power to correct material illegalities or irregularities that cause a miscarriage of justice, even if the petition itself is technically flawed. Furthermore, trial courts must adhere to established civil procedure, including framing issues and recording evidence, rather than passing decrees in haste.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a respondent to file a reply to an application for condonation of delay automatically entitle the applicant to condonation?
- Can a court exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to set aside an order even if the underlying appeal was time-barred?
- Is a decree passed by a trial court without framing issues or recording evidence sustainable in law?
- What constitutes sufficient cause for the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Deputy Commissioner, Pishin vs Abdul Salam and others1993 PLD Queeta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of several civil revision petitions filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pishin, challenging concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts in favour of respondents who claimed to be allottees of plots situated at Pishin Bazar. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the revision petitions on the point of limitation under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 following its amendment by Act XI of 1992, the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 to such revisions, the legal effect of orders alleged to be void, and the validity of the concurrent findings regarding the allotments. The Balochistan High Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to revision petitions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by virtue of section 29 of the Limitation Act 1908, that limitation runs against illegal or so-called void orders if known to the affected party, and that official negligence does not constitute a valid ground for condoning statutory delay. However, exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction to rectify material irregularities, the Court examined the merits and found that decrees in favour of certain respondents were passed without evidence or proper consideration of lease cancellations, leading to the allowance of most petitions and setting aside of the impugned orders, while dismissing others.
Questions settled- Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to revision petitions filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does limitation run against an order alleged to be void or without jurisdiction when it is within the knowledge of the adversely affected party?
- Can the High Court exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a revision petition filed by a party is barred by time?
- Does length of departmental procedure and official negligence furnish sufficient ground for condoning statutory delay on behalf of government functionaries?
- Chaudhry Mengh Raj vs Lal Chand and another1993 PLD Queeta 45 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit for the recovery of money filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The trial court had referred the dispute to a Panchayat/Hindu Tribunal under Section 11 of the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat, which subsequently recommended a decree in favor of the petitioner without recording evidence. The primary legal question was whether a simple money suit between members of the Hindu community necessitates a mandatory reference to a Panchayat/Tribunal under the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat, and whether such a tribunal can issue recommendations without evidence. The Court held that Section 11 of the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat, is limited to cases involving the interpretation of usage, custom, personal law, or complex community affairs. Simple money suits, governed by the ordinary law of the land, do not require such reference. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that any adjudication must be based on tangible material and evidence. Consequently, the reference was deemed improper, the proceedings were declared defective, and the case was remanded to the Qazi for trial under normal law.
Questions settled- Does a simple money suit between members of the Hindu community require a mandatory reference to a Panchayat or Tribunal under Section 11 of the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat?
- Can a Panchayat or Tribunal validly recommend a decree without recording evidence?
- Under what circumstances must a civil dispute involving Hindu parties be referred to a Panchayat or Jirga under the Dastoorul Amal Diwani, Kalat?
- Does a Qazi have the jurisdiction to pass a final decree based on recommendations from a Panchayat or Jirga, or must the matter be referred to the High Court?
- Allah Dad vs Sarfraz Khan and 5 others1993 PLD Queeta 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Baqi vs Malik Ibrahim Khan and 9 others1993 PLD Queeta 57 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
- Water and Sanitation Authority,Quetta Through Managing Director And Another vs Niaz Muhammad And 7 Other1992 PLD Quetta 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected regular first appeals arise from a judgment of the District Judge (Ad hoc), Quetta, modifying a land acquisition award and fixing compensation for acquired land at Rs. 3 per square foot. The land measuring over 203 acres was acquired in Tehsil and District Quetta for establishing a waste water treatment plant through notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land owners sought higher compensation, while the Water and Sanitation Authority (WASA) contended that the market value was much lower. The core legal question concerned the correct determination of the market and potential value of the large tract of acquired land based on evidence of comparable sales and relevant plus and minus factors. The High Court held that the trial court's assessment was arbitrary and based on guesswork without proper reasoning. Re-evaluating the evidence, the Court determined that the compensation awarded by the trial court was excessive while the Collector's award was inadequate, and modified the judgment to fix the compensation at Rs. 1,12,000 per acre along with admissible compulsory acquisition charges, laying down that compensation must be anchored in tangible documentary evidence of market transactions rather than conjecture.
Questions settled- How is the market value of a large tract of acquired land determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- What impact do plus and minus factors such as size, frontage, and remoteness have on the assessment of land compensation?
- Can a court determine land compensation through arbitrary estimation without relying on the documentary evidence and sale exemplars brought on record?
- Are small-piece sale transactions directly applicable for fixing the market value of a vast acreage of acquired land?
- Wahid Bux And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 187 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-09Read full judgment →
- Swe-Pak Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Registrar, Trade Unions, Balochistan and another1992 PLC 405 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by SWE-PAK Pharmaceuticals Ltd. challenging the registration of its employees' trade union and the issuance of a Collective Bargaining Agent certificate, arguing that as a subsidiary of the Shaheen Foundation established to benefit persons connected with the Pakistan Air Force, it was exempt from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under Section 1(3)(a). The core legal question was whether the employees of the petitioner's organization performed functions connected with or incidental to the Defence Services of Pakistan or the administration of the State. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and marketing intravenous solutions primarily for commercial gain and general public use with Swedish collaboration, lacked any direct or incidental nexus with the Armed Forces or State administration. The court ruled that mere association of armed forces personnel as directors or beneficiaries does not warrant statutory exemption. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, establishing that commercial industrial concerns whose products are not exclusively or directly tied to military operations remain fully subject to the labor laws.
Questions settled- Whether an industrial concern established as a subsidiary of the Shaheen Foundation for commercial manufacturing is exempt from the operation of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under Section 1(3)(a)?
- Does the mere designation of Armed Forces officers as chairmen or directors of a commercial company bring its employees within the scope of services connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces?
- What is the proper test for determining whether an organization's employees perform functions connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces or the administration of the State under Section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Swe-Pak Pharamaceuticals Ltd vs Registrar Trade UnionsK.L.R 1992 Labour & Service Cases 96 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Salahuddin vs Ratitm Baktish1992 PLD Quetta 59 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two civil revision petitions arising from interlocutory orders regarding the appointment of a receiver in a suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction, and rendition of accounts concerning commercial shops and a stationery business. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in declining to appoint a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that the appointment of a receiver rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court, requiring the plaintiff to establish a strong prima facie case and demonstrate that it is just and convenient to safeguard the property from mismanagement or mischief. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for dispossession of the defendant who was in long-standing possession and paying rent to the landlord. Consequently, the revision petition seeking the appointment of a receiver was dismissed, while clarifying observations affecting the defendant in the other petition. The key principles laid down relate to the exercise of judicial discretion in appointing receivers, the necessity of proving a strong prima facie case, and the interpretation of 'just and convenient' under Order XL, Rule 1.
Questions settled- Whether the appointment of a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires the plaintiff to establish a strong prima facie case?
- What criteria constitute 'just and convenient' for the appointment of a receiver in a commercial property dispute?
- Can a court remove a person from long-standing possession of property by appointing a receiver without sufficient apprehension of mismanagement or mischief?
- President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Mir Nabi BakhshK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 52 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Railway vs Shahid Farooq1992 CLC 128 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-08-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naz Bibi vs Khuda Bukhsh and another1992 CLC 104 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Yousuf vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 273 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad and 43 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Chagai and 1041992 CLC 114 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Master Majeed vs Mst. Mulmah and 2 others1992 CLC 13 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmed Lehri, Ex-Mayor, Municipal . Corporation, Quetta vs _Government of Balochistan Through Secretary LocalPL D 1992 Quetta 47 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Malik Abdur Rahim And Another vs Anayatullah Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 251 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
- m.v. Kaptan Yousuf Kalkavan vs Semco Salvage PTD Ltd.1992 CLC 143 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court allowing applications for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in an admiralty suit filed for the recovery of salvage remuneration. The core legal questions involve whether a plaintiff can amend a plaint to substitute the original basis of the claim with a subsequent arbitration award obtained during the pendency of the suit, and whether such amendments change the cause of action and prejudice the defendants. The Balochistan High Court held that while arbitration awards can be used as a piece of evidence to substantiate a claim during the trial, an amendment cannot be allowed if it introduces a new cause of action, alters the fundamental complexion of the suit, substitutes the basis of the claim entirely with an arbitration award, or enhances the claim based on fluctuating foreign exchange rates. The key principle laid down is that amendments to pleadings which change the cause of action, introduce a new case, or prejudice the opposing party by relying on an intervening arbitration award as the sole basis of the suit cannot be permitted under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can amend a plaint during the pendency of a civil suit to substitute the original claim with a subsequent arbitration award?
- Does an amendment that introduces an arbitration award as the primary basis of the suit change the cause of action and prejudice the defendant?
- Can a plaintiff enhance the claimed monetary amount in a suit by altering the foreign exchange conversion rate based on an intervening arbitration award?
- What are the governing principles and limitations for allowing amendments to pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Latif And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 116 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-19Read full judgment →
- Inayatullah And Another vs Principal Baloch1stan AgricultureK.L.R.1992 Civil Cases 82 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji Abdullah Jan vs The State Through F.I.A.1992 PLD Quetta 67 · Balochistan High Court · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Abdul Majeed vs Muhammad Y Ounis1992 MLD 82 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-08-18Read full judgment →
- Faramoz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 119 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-01Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 431 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 201 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-10-01Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Hussain and 6 others vs Muhammad Ramzan and 3 others1992 CLC 108 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 212 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-09-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 309 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Manna N vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 406 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-06-19Read full judgment →
- Taqi vs The State1991 PLD Quetta 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction under the Customs Act, 1969, before the Balochistan High Court. During the appeal, it was discovered that two containers produced as evidence by a prosecution witness were never opened during the trial, creating a mystery regarding whether they contained cartridges or bullets. The core legal question was whether the appellate court possessed the jurisdiction and power to direct the opening of such containers and summon additional evidence to ascertain the truth and secure the ends of justice. The court held that appellate forums possess wide, plenary, and limitless powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—exercisable through provisions such as sections 428, 540, and 561-A—to rectify trial omissions and call for additional evidence. The ratio laid down is that an appellate court has the duty and suo motu power to bring on record essential evidence to prevent a miscarriage of justice, provided the accused is not denied a fair trial, and distinguishing between filling a substantive gap in prosecution evidence and removing ambiguities to discover the truth.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have the power to summon additional evidence or direct the opening of unopened exhibits from the trial?
- Can an appellate court exercise powers under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rectify omissions made by the prosecution during trial?
- What is the distinction between filling a lacuna in prosecution evidence and resolving discrepancies for the purpose of securing the ends of justice?
- Are the discretionary powers of a criminal appellate court controlled by rules of estoppel or waiver arising from the conduct of counsel?
- Tahira Tabassum vs Additional District Judgeii and 2 others1991 MLD 759 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Syed Asmat Ullah vs Aman Ullah Khan and 2 others1991 MLD 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against the appellant. The central legal question concerns whether co-owners of a property, who were not signatories to a specific lease agreement, qualify as 'landlords' under the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether the personal bona fide requirement of one such co-owner constitutes valid grounds for eviction. The Court held that upon the death of the original landlord, all successors-in-interest become landlords by operation of law. The execution of a lease agreement by a single co-owner does not deprive other co-owners of their legal status as landlords or their right to seek eviction for personal use. The Court established that the definition of 'landlord' includes all persons entitled to receive rent, and the personal bona fide requirement of one co-owner is sufficient to maintain an eviction application. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 13-A of the Ordinance does not bar eviction claims based on personal need. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant six months to vacate.
Questions settled- Does the execution of a lease agreement by one co-owner exclude other co-owners from the definition of 'landlord' under the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can an eviction application be maintained for the personal bona fide requirement of a co-owner who is not a signatory to the lease agreement?
- Does the failure to serve notice under Section 13-A of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 invalidate an eviction claim based on personal bona fide requirement?
- Syed Abdul Hakeem vs Abdul WahidK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 609 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Syed Abdul Hakeem vs Abdul Wahid1991 MLD 762 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
- Sultan Muhammad vs Commandant Pishin Scouts, Chaman1991 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution Petition concerns the authority of seizing agencies to retain property after a competent Customs authority has ordered its release. The petitioner sought the return of a tractor and trolley seized by the Pishin Scouts, which the Deputy Collector of Customs had ordered to be released following adjudication. The core legal question was whether a seizing agency, authorized under Section 6 of the Customs Act, 1969, possesses the jurisdiction to withhold property after the competent Customs authority has adjudicated the matter and ordered its release. The Court held that agencies authorized to act as Customs officers are legally obligated to transmit seized goods to Customs authorities and must comply with the adjudication orders issued by those authorities. The Court ruled that the respondent had no lawful authority to disregard or frustrate the adjudication order. The key principle laid down is that seizing agencies act under the scheme of the Customs Act and are bound by the decisions of the competent adjudicating authorities, as they enjoy no immunity from the law and cannot unilaterally withhold property once an adjudication order for its release has been passed.
Questions settled- Does a seizing agency authorized under Section 6 of the Customs Act 1969 have the jurisdiction to withhold property after a competent Customs authority has ordered its release?
- Are agencies acting as Customs officers bound by the adjudication orders of Customs authorities regarding the disposal of seized goods and conveyances?
- Does the mere filing of a review petition against a Customs adjudication order automatically operate as a stay of the order?
- S. Akhtar Sher vs The State and another1991 MLD 1977 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge summoning the petitioner to face trial after he had been discharged during investigation under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session has the jurisdiction to summon an accused person who was earlier discharged without recording substantive evidence at trial. The Balochistan High Court held that while a Court of Session possesses plenary jurisdiction to summon an additional accused if reasonable material is brought on record during the trial, it cannot do so hastily at a preliminary stage without proper evidence having been recorded. The court laid down the principle that a Sessions Court cannot summon a discharged accused without the commencement of a proper trial and the recording of legally admissible evidence, and doing so prematurely constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashment under section 561-A.
Questions settled- Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is barred in cases involving Hudood Ordinances?
- Can a Court of Session summon a previously discharged accused person without recording evidence at trial?
- At what stage of proceedings is a Court of Session legally competent to summon an accused person who was not sent up to face trial in the final report?
- Raza Muhammad and 2 others vs Jumma Khan and 2 others1991 MLD 261 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
- President of the Islamic Republic of PAKISTANReference Authority vs Mir1991 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
- Noubat Khan vs The State1991 MLD 186 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah vs Mrs. Fatima Begum1991 CLC 2018 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jamil Khan vs Selection Committee for Engineering1991 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1990-04-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Election Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad and 71991 PLD Quetta 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Election Commission of Pakistan directing partial re-polling at specific polling stations in constituency PB-38 Turbat-II following allegations of rigging and irregularities during the 1990 General Elections. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission, when exercising powers under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, possesses the authority to order partial re-polling, or if it is statutorily bound to declare the election of the entire constituency void. The Court held that the Election Commission’s order for partial re-polling was legally defective. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court determined that Section 103-AA empowers the Commission to declare the poll in a constituency void in its entirety and call for a fresh election under Section 108, but does not authorize partial re-polling. The Court established the principle that statutory powers to declare an election void under Section 103-AA do not include the lesser power of ordering partial re-polling; the Commission must set aside the election for the entire constituency if it finds sufficient grounds for intervention.
Questions settled- Does the Election Commission of Pakistan have the authority to order partial re-polling under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Is the High Court barred from entertaining a constitutional petition regarding election disputes where an alternate remedy is provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Does the power of the Election Commission to declare an election void under Section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, include the power to order a fresh election in the entire constituency?
- Can the Election Commission of Pakistan rely on Section 103 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, to order re-polling after the conclusion of the polling process?