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. 4,353 judgments in total from the Balochistan High Court.

• Maulana Abdul Wahid vs Haji Muhammad Umer and another1987 CLC 2143 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• Mashood Ahmad vs Government of Baluchistan and 3 others1987 CLC 20 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Niaz Muhammad vs Provincial Transport Authority and 2 others1987 CLC 2519 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Hasan vs Assistant Commissioner, Quetta1987 CLC 182 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-06-19
  interim injunctionspecial tribunalancillary powerswrit jurisdictionCivil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinancetribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged orders restraining him from excavating a well, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal constituted under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 lacked the legal authority to grant interim injunctions. The core legal question was whether a tribunal created under this special statute possesses the inherent or implied power to grant temporary injunctions despite the absence of an explicit provision in the Ordinance. The Court held that while the Deputy Commissioner, acting as a referring authority, lacks the power to issue an injunction, the Tribunal constituted under the Ordinance possesses such power. The Court reasoned that the terms 'dispute', 'matter', and 'issue' used in the Ordinance are interchangeable and that the term 'matter' is broad enough to encompass ancillary and incidental proceedings, including interim relief. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that the power to grant interim relief is an ancillary and incidental power inherent in the judicial function, even where not expressly conferred by statute, provided the tribunal is exercising adjudicatory functions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Commissioner acting under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 have the power to issue an interim injunction?
  • Does a Tribunal constituted under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 have the jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctions?
  • Is the power to grant interim relief considered an ancillary power inherent in a tribunal's adjudicatory function even if not explicitly conferred by statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Jiand And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1746 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• Jalal Khan vs Habibullah1987 CLC 1345 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• Issa Khan and others vs The State1987 PLD Quetta 174 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Issa Khan And Other vs The State1987 PLD Quetta 174 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Inamul Haque vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Quetta1987 PLC 420 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Yar Muhammad And Another vs Assistant Commissioner and Magistrate First Class, Pishin And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2091 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Sultan Muhammad vs Syed Haji Taj Muhammad and 3 others1987 CLC 187 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-04-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Rustam Shah vs Abdul Sattar and Others1987 PLD Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Rustam Shah vs Abdul Sattar and Other1987 PLD Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Jabbar and others vs Haryana Asbestos Cement1987 CLC 726 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-07
  annual general meetingcompany lawproxy formnotice of meetingmandatory versus directorymaterial defectshareholders
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 161(8) of the Companies Ordinance 1984, seeking a declaration that the annual general meeting (AGM) of Haryana Asbestos Cement Industries held on April 30, 1986, was invalid due to material defects in the notice and gross irregularities in the proceedings. The petitioners argued that the notice was issued without the Board's approval, lacked the required 21-day gap, and failed to include audited accounts and proxy forms. The High Court of Balochistan examined whether the statutory requirements were mandatory or directory. It held that the 21-day notice requirement under Section 158(3) is mandatory but is calculated from the date of sending, not receipt; thus, the 22-day gap was valid. The court further ruled that the requirement to attach proxy forms under Section 161(2) and to circulate balance sheets under the Articles of Association are directory in nature. Since no prejudice was caused and no evidence of irregularities or prevented participation was produced, the court dismissed the petition, establishing that minor directory omissions do not invalidate an AGM.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the twenty-one days notice period for an annual general meeting under Section 158(3) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 is to be computed from the date of sending or the date of receipt?
  • Is the statutory requirement to accompany a meeting notice with a proxy form under Section 161(2) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 mandatory or directory?
  • Can subsequent omissions, such as the failure to supply minutes of a meeting, be used to challenge the validity of an annual general meeting under Section 161(8) of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Does a minor or directory omission in a meeting notice invalidate the proceedings of an annual general meeting if no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the members?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Baluchistan through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Quetta and 2 Others vs Haji Khudai Nazar1987 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• Government of Baluchistan through the Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Quetta and 2 Other vs Haji Khudai Nazar1987 PLD Quetta 61 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Sharif1987 CLC 2439 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-04-18Read full judgment →
• Fazal Elahi vs Chairman,Evacuee Trust Property Board and another1987 CLC 1010 · Balochistan High Court · 1984-08-26
  evacuee trust propertypermanent transfer deedprovisional transfer orderdisplaced personcompensation pooltransfer cancellationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a displaced person, challenged an order cancelling the transfer of an evacuee property previously allotted and transferred to him under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether an urban evacuee trust property, fully paid for and transferred to a displaced person prior to the critical cutoff date, could be lawfully cancelled under Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 based on the date of issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed. The Balochistan High Court held that since the petitioner had made full payment and fulfilled all obligations, and the property had effectively ceased to be evacuee property, the cancellation order was illegal and without lawful authority. The court laid down the principle that where a property is validly transferred and the full price is paid by the transferee, subsequent delays by authorities in issuing formal deeds do not render the transaction vulnerable to cancellation under the Evacuee Trust Property laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an evacuee property fully paid for and transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 can be classified as evacuee trust property under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
  • Does the delayed issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed affect the validity of a property transfer where the entire price has been paid by the transferee?
  • Whether provisions introduced into section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 regarding evacuee trust properties have retrospective effect?
  • Can a constitutional petition be entertained despite the availability of an alternate remedy when the impugned order is patently illegal and without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Hussain vs Muhmoodul Hassan And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1987 Revenue Cases 8 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-26Read full judgment →
• Bahar Khan vs Inspectorgeneral, Frontier Corps at Quetta and 31987 PLD Quetta 13 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
• Anand Ram vs Moti Ram and 3 Others1987 PLD Quetta 230 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• Anand Ram vs Moti Ram And 3 Other1987 PLD Quetta 230 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• Amir Shah and Another vs The State1987 PLD Quetta 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• Amir Jan and 3 Others vs Commissioner, Quetta1987 PLD Quetta 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• Amir Jan and 3 Other vs Commissioner, Quetta Division Cum1987 PLD Quetta 55 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad and 3 others1987 CLC 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs Mst. Ghulam Zohra1987 PLD Quetta 189 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-20
  rejection of plaintlimitationpartition suitco-sharer possessionadverse possessioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an order passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Quetta, which dismissed the defendant's application seeking the dismissal of a partition and possession suit on the ground of limitation. The core legal question was whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on limitation when the determination requires recording evidence and probing factual controversies. The Balochistan High Court held that the power to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) can only be exercised if it appears manifestly from the bare reading of the plaint contents alone, without any further inquiry or evidence, that the suit is barred by law. Where limitation depends on disputed facts—such as the date of accrual of the cause of action or the nature of co-sharer possession—evidence must be recorded by the trial court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that premature interference in such matters is unwarranted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when determining the question of limitation requires recording evidence?
  • Does the word 'appears' in Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restrict the court's consideration strictly to the face of the plaint without a factual probe?
  • Whether the question of limitation can be decided prematurely in revision proceedings when an issue regarding it is already sub judice before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shah vs Haji Abdul Haleem and 4 Others1987 PLD Quetta 223 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shah vs Haji Abdul Haleem And 4 Other1987 PLD Quetta 223 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and another vs Gul Muhammad and 3 Others1987 PLD Quetta 177 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmed And Another vs Gul Muhammad And 3 Other1987 PLD Quetta 177 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• Aftab Hussain vs Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Quetta And 2Others1987 P Cr. L J 1413 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-30
  customs smugglingmisdeclaration of goodsconfiscation of goodsimposition of penaltyconstitutional jurisdictionnotice of seizurevaluation of imported goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by customs authorities regarding the confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions involved whether non-service of notice under section 171 of the Act vitiated proceedings, the competency of customs officers to assess and re-examine misdeclared goods, the constitutional validity of discretionary powers under section 181, and whether the petitioner knowingly attempted to smuggle un-declared goods. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioner was consciously involved in the smuggling attempt through misdeclaration of goods, that concurrent factual findings by departmental forums cannot be re-opened in constitutional jurisdiction, and that procedural irregularities at the investigation stage do not vitiate departmental proceedings where no prejudice is shown. The court laid down that high courts will not interfere with factual determinations of competent tribunals under writ jurisdiction merely because an alternative view is possible, and that discretionary imposition of penalties proportionate to the value of smuggled goods under the Customs Act, 1969 is valid when mala fides or arbitrariness is absent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-service of notice under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 at the time of seizure vitiates subsequent departmental proceedings?
  • Can the High Court re-open disputed questions of fact regarding the valuation and contents of imported goods in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Whether section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969 is ultra vires for conferring unfettered discretion without providing guidelines on giving an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation?
  • Whether confiscation of entire packages and mixed contents is lawful under section 157 of the Customs Act, 1969 when goods are found not to correspond with declarations?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Khan and Another vs Haji Mehr Ali and 7 Others1987 PLD Quetta 65 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman Khan and Another vs Haji Mehr Ali and 7 Other1987 PLD Quetta 65 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and 6 others vs Haji Shakar Khan Barech1987 CLC 1816 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• Zeenat Begum And Another vs Jan Mir Khan And 8 Other1986 CLC 2923 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-23
  temporary injunctionspes successionisheir apparentchallenge to giftlocus standilifetime of ancestorprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous appeal challenges an order of the Additional District Judge dismissing the appellants' application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The appellants, daughters of the first respondent, sought to challenge a power of attorney and subsequent gift mutations executed by their father in favor of a deceased brother's widow during the father's lifetime, alleging fraud, undue influence, and mental incapacity. The core legal question was whether presumptive heirs have a prima facie right during the lifetime of an ancestor to challenge a property transfer or gift made by the ancestor. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Islamic law and established jurisprudence, an heir apparent or presumptive has no interest in praesent or right of spes successionis during the ancestor's lifetime, and thus cannot maintain a suit to challenge such transfers until succession opens upon the ancestor's death. The key principle laid down is that during the lifetime of an ancestor, an heir has no locus standi or prima facie case to challenge gifts or property dispositions made by the ancestor.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an heir apparent or presumptive has a legal right or interest in praesent in the property of an ancestor during the ancestor's lifetime?
  • Can a presumptive legal heir challenge the validity of a gift made by an ancestor during the lifetime of that ancestor?
  • Is an interim injunction granted as a matter of course in a suit seeking permanent injunction?
  • What are the essential ingredients required for the grant of an ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad Alias Nandhoo vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1153 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-26
  retracted confessionpolice custodyvoluntariness of confessioncorroborationcriminal appealjudicial confessionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 304, Part II, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following his trial for murder. The core legal question was whether a retracted judicial confession, recorded after sixteen days of police custody by a Magistrate outside the jurisdiction, could sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroborative evidence. The trial court had acquitted the co-accused after rejecting the ocular evidence but relied solely on the appellant's confession. The High Court held that the confession was involuntary and unreliable, noting the prolonged police custody, the lack of jurisdiction of the recording Magistrate, and the absence of corroborating evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration to be admissible and that prolonged, unexplained police custody casts doubt on the voluntariness of such statements. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant. The judgment emphasizes that confessions obtained under circumstances suggesting coercion or lacking procedural regularity must be excluded from consideration to ensure a fair trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a retracted confession sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does prolonged police custody prior to a confession render it involuntary?
  • Is a confession recorded by a Magistrate outside the jurisdiction of the offence valid?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Wilayat Hussain and others1986 P Cr. L J 2977 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sardar Muhammad Zaman Saleem Khan Durrani-1986 P Cr. L J 1488 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-08Read full judgment →
• The Federation of Pakistan and Another vs Yahya Bakhtiar and 31986 PLD Quetta 138 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Qadir Dad and Another. vs Muhammad Afzal and 25 Others1986 PLD Quetta 179 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
• Subedar Malik Sher Muhammad vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1510 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
• State vs Mir Nabi Bakhsh Khan Khoso And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1130 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-26
  acquittal appealSection 265-K CrPCpremature acquittalcriminal trialprosecution evidenceremand of caseSection 164 statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This acquittal appeal challenged an order by the Sessions Judge, Sibi, discharging respondents under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, before framing charges or recording evidence. The core legal question was whether a trial court can invoke Section 265-K to acquit an accused at the initial stage without providing the prosecution an opportunity to present its case. The High Court held that while Section 265-K empowers a court to acquit an accused at any stage if there is no probability of conviction, this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily to stifle or throttle a legitimate prosecution. The court ruled that the trial judge acted prematurely and failed to consider the material on record, including police statements and statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The key principle laid down is that the power under Section 265-K must be exercised based on the material available on record, not whimsically, and parties must be granted a fair opportunity to present their cases. Consequently, the acquittal order was set aside, and the case was remanded for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court invoke Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused before framing a charge or recording any evidence?
  • Is the power of a court to acquit an accused under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 absolute or subject to the requirement of considering material on record?
  • Can a court use Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to stifle or throttle a prosecution?
  • Are statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 admissible for consideration when deciding an application under Section 265-K?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Fazal Din and 8 Others1986 PLD Quetta 102 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Ahmed vs Muhammad Tariq1986C L C 2103 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
• Secretary Cum Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department Government of Baluchistan, Quetta And 2 Others vs Ghulam Muhammad Khan And Another1986 CLC 2987 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-07-28Read full judgment →
• Saleem Bokhari and 5 Others vs Mst. Sadozai and 6 Others1986 PLD Quetta 284 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
• Saa Dullah vs Secretary, Home Department and ANOTHERs1986 PLD Quetta 270 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-22
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderreview boardstate securityprivilegevagueness of groundsconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a relation of the detenu challenging an order of detention issued under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, on the grounds of involvement in anti-State activities. The core legal questions involved the validity of successive detention orders, the alleged vagueness of the grounds of detention, the competency of the officer signing the communication of grounds, and the scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in light of an approving opinion by the Review Board. The Balochistan High Court held that the proceedings before the Review Board are quasi-judicial and provide an adequate remedy, and that the superior courts will be reluctant to interfere in the absence of compelling reasons, particularly where State security is involved and privilege is bona fide claimed over sensitive material. The Court further held that a claim of privilege regarding State security justifies withholding detailed facts, rendering the furnished grounds sufficiently specific, and that the communication of grounds by a Joint Secretary does not vitiate an order properly passed by the Home Secretary. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court will interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with an opinion of the Review Board justifying preventive detention?
  • Does the claim of privilege on the ground of State security excuse the detaining authority from providing detailed particulars in the grounds of detention?
  • Whether an order of detention is vitiated if the grounds are communicated by a Joint Secretary rather than the Home Secretary himself?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Akhtar Sher vs The State and another1986 MLD 2507 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-16Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah and 2 Others vs Lal Muhammad1986 PLD Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-14
  dismissal in defaultdate of hearingrestoration of suitvoid ab initioinherent powersprocedural lawlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the dismissal of a suit in default and the subsequent rejection of a restoration application. The suit was dismissed on a date fixed solely for the filing of a list of witnesses. The core legal question is whether a date fixed for a procedural step, such as filing a list of witnesses, constitutes a 'date of hearing' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, thereby justifying dismissal in default for non-appearance. The Court held that a 'date of hearing' implies an effective proceeding germane to the progress of the case. Since the date in question was merely for a procedural filing, it did not constitute a 'date of hearing', and the dismissal order was void ab initio. The Court established that where a dismissal order is void, the limitation period for restoration does not apply, and the Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to set aside the illegal order and restore the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a date fixed merely for filing a list of witnesses constitute a 'date of hearing' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court dismiss a suit in default if the parties fail to appear on a date not fixed for an effective hearing?
  • Is an application for restoration of a suit dismissed on a void order subject to the standard limitation period?
  • When can a court invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restore a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Razzak Hussain Shah vs Kazi with Powers of Family Court And Another1986 CLC 1691 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
• Raja Khurshid Ali vs Dr. Abdul Malik And 5 Other1986 CLC 2995 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-09Read full judgment →
• Rahm Din vs Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs and 21986 PLD Quetta 305 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
• Rahim Jan vs Ahmad Jan Andanother1986 P Cr. L J 122 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-18
  review petitioninherent jurisdictioncriminal referencestatutory barcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to review and set aside an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a criminal reference. The petitioner contended that the reference was incompetent because the Sessions Judge had merely forwarded the case file without making a formal reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the High Court's subsequent order without jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the review petition was barred under Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contains an express prohibition against reviewing a signed judgment in criminal matters, which cannot be bypassed by invoking the inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further ruled that the right of review is a substantive statutory right, akin to an appeal, and cannot be exercised unless explicitly conferred by statute.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to review its own signed judgment in a criminal matter despite the express bar in Section 369?
  • Is the right of review in criminal proceedings a substantive right that requires express statutory conferment?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if a Sessions Judge forwards a case file without a formal reference under Section 438?
  Read full judgment →
• Qalandar Khan vs Haji Zareef Khan And 5 Other1986 CLC 939 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
• Province of Baluchistan vs Messrs Tribal Friends Company, Loralai1986 PLD Quetta 321 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-30
  arbitration awardarbitration clauserevisional jurisdictioncoram non judiceterritorial jurisdictioncourt feesmaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal and revision against a trial court's judgment and decree making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of simultaneous appeal and revision proceedings, the applicable court fees, the validity of arbitration proceedings initiated without a written arbitration clause, and the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The court held that while an appeal lies against an order refusing to set aside an award under Section 39(iv) of the Arbitration Act 1940, a revision petition is the appropriate remedy to challenge the resulting decree where an appeal is barred under Section 17. The court ruled that the proceedings were void (coram non judice) because the underlying contract lacked an arbitration clause and the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court established that Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act cannot be invoked simultaneously, and that an award lacking reasoning and appearing to be a stereotype copy of other awards is invalid. The proceedings were set aside for lack of jurisdiction and material irregularity.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal and a revision petition be filed simultaneously against a judgment and decree based on an arbitration award?
  • Are Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 mutually exclusive, or can they be invoked simultaneously?
  • Does a court have jurisdiction to pass a decree based on an arbitration award if the underlying contract lacks an arbitration clause?
  • Is a decree based on an arbitration award appealable under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. Petitioner vs Pakistan1986 PLD Quetta 181 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-28
  electricity tariffbulk supplyindustrial supplymining operationsconstitutional petitionnatural justiceretrospective correction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order issued by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, switching the petitioner Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation from bulk electricity supply Tariff C-2 to industrial supply Tariff B-3, with retrospective effect. The core legal questions involved whether a state-owned mining company qualifies for bulk supply under Tariff C-2, whether mining operations fall within the definition of a 'factory' for industrial supply under Tariff B-3, and whether the retrospective correction of a billing tariff violates natural justice or requires prior notice. The Balochistan High Court held that the petitioner, being a registered company and an industrial organisation rather than a statutory body, does not qualify for Tariff C-2; that the term 'factory' in Tariff B-3 has a broad connotation encompassing mining operations; and that correcting a bona fide billing mistake to apply the correct tariff does not breach natural justice. Furthermore, the court held that tariff disputes are subject to arbitration clauses in the electricity agreement, making a constitutional petition inappropriate. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a state-owned limited company qualify for bulk electricity supply under Tariff C-2 as a semi-government institution?
  • Do mining operations fall within the scope of industrial supply under Tariff B-3 as a factory?
  • Can a utility provider correct a consumer's billing tariff retrospectively without prior notice to rectify a mistake?
  • Is a dispute regarding electricity consumption charges subject to the dispute resolution and arbitration clause in the supply agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Khan vs The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Quetta and 2 Others1986 PLD Quetta 214 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
• Nauroz vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 3019 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Jan And 3 Other vs Muhammad Karim And 14 Other1986 CLC 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-24Read full judgment →
• Mulla Baz Muhammad And Another vs Mst.Bakht Bibi And 31 Other1986 CLC 22 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Director, Federal Employees Benevolent Fund1986 PLD Quetta 212 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The State1986 PLD Quetta 286 · Balochistan High Court
  criminal appealCustoms Actmandatory provisionoathretrialterritorial jurisdictionillegalityCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act by the Special Judge Customs, Quetta, arguing inter alia that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the failure to examine the accused on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendered the trial illegal. The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement to examine an accused on oath is mandatory or directory, and whether its omission constitutes a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the provision of Section 340(2) is mandatory, and the failure to comply with it constitutes an illegality that cannot be cured under Section 537. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial before the court of competent jurisdiction. The key principle established is that the examination of an accused on oath is a mandatory procedural requirement, the omission of which vitiates the trial and necessitates a retrial, rather than being a mere irregularity.

  Questions settled

  • Is the failure to examine an accused on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a curable irregularity?
  • Does the court have a mandatory duty to examine the accused on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court's lack of territorial jurisdiction necessitate the setting aside of a conviction and a retrial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Government of Baluchistan And 2 Others1986 PLC (C.S.) 81 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Toor vs Mian Muhammad Ashraf1986 P Cr. L J 503 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and 3 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue-II and 20 Others1986 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif And Another vs Assistant Commissioner with Powers1986 P Cr. L J 292 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul Kakar vs Province of Baluchistan1986 PLC (C. S.) 560 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dawood vs Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, WAPDA, Quetta And 2 Other1986 CLC 2108 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The State-.1986 P Cr. L J 1150 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zeba And 12 Others vs Member III Board of Revenue Baluchistan And 2 Other1986 CLC 233 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-05
  limitation periodtime-barred suitrevenue record mutationwrit jurisdictionSection 3 Limitation ActSection 14 Limitation ActCivil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance 1968
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, which set aside lower revenue court orders that had dismissed a suit as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed years after the mutation of land, was barred by limitation and whether the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the case for decision on merits. The High Court held that the suit was clearly time-barred. The ratio of the decision is that Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 is mandatory, obliging courts to dismiss time-barred proceedings even if the limitation defense is not pleaded. The Court established that a plaintiff seeking to exclude time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 must explicitly plead the necessary facts in the plaint, including due diligence and good faith. Consequently, the Board of Revenue acted without lawful authority by ignoring the clear limitation bar and remanding the matter, as the lower courts had correctly applied the law in dismissing the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court or tribunal required to dismiss a suit as time-barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1908 even if the defense of limitation is not explicitly raised?
  • Does the mere prosecution of other legal proceedings automatically entitle a plaintiff to the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a revenue authority remand a case to a tribunal when the suit is clearly time-barred on the face of the plaint?
  • What are the pleading requirements for a plaintiff to claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughran Begum and 11 Others vs Haji Mir Qadir Bakhsh and 2 orHERs1986 PLD Quetta 232 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-18
  promissory noteburden of proofrebuttable presumptionattesting witnessnegotiable instrumentconsiderationexecution of document
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for the recovery of money based on a promissory note. The primary legal questions concerned whether the production of an attesting witness is mandatory to prove the execution of a promissory note and the extent of the burden of proof regarding consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872 does not mandate the production of an attesting witness for a promissory note, as such documents are not required by law to be attested. Regarding consideration, the Court affirmed that Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 creates a rebuttable presumption of consideration. However, this burden shifts to the plaintiff once the defendant successfully rebuts the presumption, either by leading independent evidence or by highlighting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's own case. In this instance, the Court found that while the execution of the pronote was established, the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of consideration, and the plaintiff failed to discharge the shifted burden of proof. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory under Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872 to produce an attesting witness to prove the execution of a promissory note?
  • Does the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shift the burden of proof to the defendant?
  • Can a defendant rebut the presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 by relying on the plaintiff's own evidence?
  • Is a court empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872 to compare disputed signatures with admitted ones to determine the genuineness of a document?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zulaikhan vs Noor Muhammad and Another1986 PLD Quetta 290 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Basra vs Abdul Hakim and 2 Others1986 PLD Quetta 298 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mizar And Another vs Commissioner, Sibi And Others1986 P Cr. L J 2917 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mistri Muhammad Hassan vs Haji Said Muhammad And Another1986 CLC 1241 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-27
  ex parte decreerevisional jurisdictionamendment of plaintnullity of decreeprocedural irregularitycivil revisionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges an appellate order that dismissed an appeal against an ex parte decree passed by the trial court in a property declaration suit. The core legal questions concern the validity of an ex parte decree passed without recording evidence, the trial court's authority to ignore existing evidence on record, and the necessity of verifying amended plaints. The High Court held that the ex parte decree was a nullity, as the trial court acted arbitrarily by failing to provide reasons for its decision and ignoring material evidence already present on the record. The court emphasized that while a trial court may proceed ex parte, this discretion must be exercised judicially, ensuring the claim is scrutinized even without fresh evidence. Furthermore, the court established that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 may be invoked to rectify patent illegalities and procedural irregularities that result in a failure of justice, regardless of technical objections regarding limitation or the scope of interference.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court pass an ex parte decree without recording any evidence?
  • Is a trial court permitted to ignore evidence already on record when proceeding ex parte?
  • Does the failure to verify a plaint on oath preclude a court from passing an ex parte decree without evidence?
  • Can the High Court exercise revisional jurisdiction to correct patent illegalities even if the appeal was dismissed on limitation grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Shakila Akhtar Bajwa vs Selection Committee, Medical Colleges, Baluchistan, Quetta and 2 Others1986 PLD Quetta 126 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, Ghulam Dastagir vs Muhammad Yar and 5 oTHERs1986 PLD Quetta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Universal Mining Corporation vs Joint Director, Licensing1986 PLD Quetta 176 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-03-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habibullah Mines Ltd. and 1 0 Others vs Municipal Corporation, Quetta1986 PLD Quetta 225 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Galadari Cement (Gulf) Ltd. vs District Judge Khuzdar And 61986 CLC 10 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dawood Yamaha Ltd. vs Government of Baluchistan and 31986 PLD Quetta 148 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-20
  Octroi taxcurative legislationretrospective validationconstitutional petitionlocal governmentlachesfiscal statutelegislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the levy and recovery of Octroi tax by the Town Committee, Uthal, from the petitioner’s factory. The petitioner argued that the factory was outside the Town Committee's jurisdiction, that the tax rate was excessive and discriminatory, and that the recovery was illegal. The respondents contended that the petition was incompetent, suffered from laches, and that the tax was validly imposed. During the proceedings, the Baluchistan Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985, was promulgated, which retrospectively validated the levy and recovery of such taxes. The Court held that the Validation Ordinance was a curative piece of legislation that effectively rectified any potential defects in the levy or recovery of the tax. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the legislature possesses plenary powers to enact curative legislation with retrospective effect, even to validate actions previously considered illegal or to override judicial findings, provided the legislative intent is clear and unambiguous. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s grievance regarding the tax rate could be addressed through administrative representations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a legislature enact curative legislation to retrospectively validate a tax levy previously challenged in court?
  • Does the definition of 'consumption' in the Baluchistan Local Government Ordinance, 1980, include the conversion of goods for mechanical purposes?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the petitioner is a limited company but the petition is signed by an attorney without a specific board resolution?
  • Can a court dismiss a constitutional petition on the grounds of laches if the petitioner has a recurring cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehrullah Khan Bazai vs Commissioner, Quetta Division /Presiding1986 CLC 3010 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
• Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Sabir Khan vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary,1986 CLC 930 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed Akhtar And Another vs Government of Baluchistan1986 CLC 262 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-08-13Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad vs Mst. Gul Bibi and Another1986 PLD Quetta 185 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-04-16
  dissolution of marriageKhularestitution of conjugal rightscrueltyconstitutional jurisdictionfamily courtjudicial satisfactionincompatibility of temperament
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the judgment of the Family Court granting dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula and dismissing a counter-suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner argued that Khula was neither specifically pleaded in the plaint nor supported by evidence, and that the trial court erred in granting Khula after rejecting the claim of cruelty. The High Court examined the nature and scope of Khula under Islamic law, emphasizing that the right of a wife to seek Khula is not absolute or arbitrary, but subject to judicial scrutiny and the court's satisfaction regarding extreme incompatibility or deep-seated aversion between the spouses. The High Court held that the trial court's finding was unsupported by evidence, as no severe hatred or disharmony was established on record. Consequently, the High Court declared the decree dissolving the marriage on Khula to be invalid and without lawful authority. The dismissal of the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights was set aside, and the matter was remanded for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula when it is not specifically claimed or pleaded by the wife?
  • Is the right of a wife to seek dissolution of marriage through Khula absolute and uncontrolled, or is it dependent upon judicial scrutiny and satisfaction of extreme incompatibility?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be exercised to set aside a Family Court decree that is based on no evidence or arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan And Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2572 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-02-08Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Assistant Commissioner And 8 Other1986 CLC 486 · Balochistan High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah and 21 Others vs Noor.Muhammad and 49 Others1986 PLD Quetta 107 · Balochistan High Court · 1995-10-06
  constitutional petitionsubstituted servicepower-of-attorneyex parte orderpartition suitvoid ordersremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by revenue authorities in a civil suit for declaration and partition of land. The core legal questions involved the legality of rejecting a power-of-attorney, the validity of resorting to substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in proceedings under Ordinance I of 1968, the computation of limitation for an ex parte order, and whether subsequent proceedings fall when a foundational ex parte order is declared void. The Balochistan High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the power-of-attorney and that substituted service was improperly ordered without establishing that defendants were avoiding service. Consequently, the ex parte order and all consequential orders, including the final decree, were held to be without lawful authority and set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh proceedings. The key principle laid down is that where a foundational ex parte order is illegal and void, the entire superstructure of subsequent orders built upon it falls to the ground.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Commissioner acting under Ordinance I of 1968 has the power to order substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a power-of-attorney require attestation by a Magistrate under the law to be admissible in legal proceedings?
  • When does limitation commence for filing an appeal against an ex parte order passed without proper service?
  • What is the legal effect on subsequent orders and decrees when a foundational ex parte order is declared void or illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Rajan Ali vs Superintendent, District Jail, Quetta and another---s1986 P Cr. L J 2928 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-08-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Moosa And Another vs Provincial Government of Baluchistan1986 CLC 2951 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-07-23
  written statementdefault in filing written statementjudgment and decreenullity of judgmentremandlimitation and condonation of delayrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges a judgment of the Majlis-e-Shoora setting aside a trial court decree and remanding the case for recording proceedings on merits. The core legal question was whether a trial court can decree a suit under Order VIII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code without recording evidence, applying judicial mind, or providing reasons, and whether limitation bars an appeal against a null and void decree. The Balochistan High Court held that a trial court acting under Order VIII, Rule 10 must exercise its discretion judicially, satisfy its judicial conscience, and pass a reasoned judgment on the merits rather than decreeing a claim arbitrarily without evidence. The Court laid down that a judgment based on no evidence whatsoever is illegal and a nullity in the eyes of law, against which the bar of limitation does not operate, and that revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code will not be exercised to perpetuate an illegality or set aside a remand order that advances substantial justice on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court decree a suit under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence or assigning reasons?
  • Whether a judgment passed without considering the merits of the case is a nullity in the eyes of law?
  • Does the bar of limitation apply to an appeal filed against a judgment and decree that is a nullity?
  • Can revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to interfere with an appellate remand order that facilitates adjudication on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Karamat Hussain vs Naik Khan Muhammad1986 CLC 6 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-06
  ex parte decreesubstituted serviceterritorial jurisdictioncause of actioncoram non judicesetting aside ex parte decreecivil revisionreturn of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from a suit for money recovery wherein an ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner. The respondent had filed the suit in Quetta based on an agreement executed at Rawalpindi, serving notice via newspaper publication in Quetta while the petitioner resided in England. The petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed on appeal. The High Court addressed two core issues: whether substituted service under Order V Rule 20 was validly ordered without attempting ordinary service, and whether the Quetta court possessed territorial jurisdiction when the agreement was executed in Rawalpindi and the only local nexus was a demand letter sent from Quetta. The High Court held that substituted service ordered without exhausting primary modes is void, and actual knowledge of the suit does not cure defective service. Furthermore, sending a demand letter does not constitute part of the cause of action. The decree was declared coram non judice, the orders were set aside, and the plaint was ordered to be returned.

  Questions settled

  • Whether substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be validly ordered without first exhausting ordinary modes of service?
  • Does a defendant's knowledge of the institution of a suit obtained aliunde dispense with the requirement of proper service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the issuance of a demand letter from a particular location constitute a part of the cause of action to confer territorial jurisdiction on a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Hamal And Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1121 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Dad Khan vs Abdul Rahim and Another1986 PLD Quetta 93 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman vs Labour Appellate Tribunal, Baluchistan--And 41986 PLC 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-21Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Ali Muhammad1986 CLC 1227 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-11-03Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Amanullah1986 CLC 2917 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-17
  ejectmenttentative rent orderstriking off defencewilful defaultrent restrictionbona fide mistakeurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller striking off the defense of the appellant tenant and ordering ejectment for alleged non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order under section 13(6) of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether a technical error, bona fide mistake, or inadvertent omission in depositing rent directly into the landlord's bank account or misstating months in a treasury challan constitutes a 'default' warranting the penal consequence of striking off defense and eviction. The Balochistan High Court held that the term 'default' under the Ordinance imports an element of gross negligence, wilful avoidance, or dishonest withholding, rather than casual omissions, clerical errors, or technical deviations. Setting aside the ejectment order, the Court laid down the principle that an ambiguous rent deposit order or a technical slip unaccompanied by deliberate or intentional non-performance does not amount to a wilful default, and rent laws must be construed to prevent manifest injustice rather than penalize procedural oversights.

  Questions settled

  • Does a technical omission or clerical error in depositing rent constitute a wilful default under section 13(6) of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Can a tenant's defense be struck off for non-compliance when the trial court's rent deposit order is vague or capable of multiple interpretations?
  • Whether payment of rent credited directly into the landlord's bank account instead of court can be equated with deliberate default under rent laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulab Alias Gulla vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 520 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-09-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul and Others vs Khudai Dad and ormnts1986 PLD Quetta 130 · Balochistan High Court · 1985-10-04
  quorumrevisional jurisdictionremand orderconstitutional petitionmandatory provisiontribunal proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional petition challenging an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Balochistan, which set aside concurrent judgments of the lower revenue forums and remanded the case for deciding the point of limitation and the dispute on merits. The core legal questions involved the mandatory nature of the quorum requirement for a tribunal under Ordinance I of 1968, the legality of recording evidence without the prescribed quorum, and the scope of revisional powers of the Board of Revenue. The High Court held that section 7 of Ordinance I of 1968, which mandates the presence of the President and at least two members to conduct proceedings, is mandatory, and any proceedings conducted in violation thereof are coram non judice and void. The Court further held that the Member, Board of Revenue lawfully exercised revisional jurisdiction under section 12 of the said Ordinance to rectify patent illegalities and procedural irregularities. Consequently, the petition against the remand order was dismissed as incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the quorum requirement for a tribunal under section 7 of Ordinance I of 1968 is mandatory or directory?
  • Do proceedings conducted by a tribunal without the prescribed quorum render the action coram non judice?
  • What is the scope of revisional powers of the Member, Board of Revenue under section 12 of Ordinance I of 1968?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of remand passed by a revisional authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State and 3 others-1986 P C r. L J 2913 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →