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.

• Faiz Muhammad and 2 Others vs Muhammad Sharif and 7 Others1976 PLD Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-10Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad and 2 Other vs Muhammad Sharif and 7 Other1976 PLD Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Sadiq vs Mumtaz Ali and Another1976 PLD Quetta 53 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-04-29Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad and 2 Others vs Tim Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan at Quetta and Another1976 PLD Quetta 28 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-12Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad and 2 Other vs The Member, Board Op Revenue, Baluchistan at Quetta and Another1976 PLD Quetta 28 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-12Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs Baz Muhammad and Others1976 PLD Quetta 90 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-05-31Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs Baz Muhammad and Other1976 PLD Quetta 90 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-06-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Mst. Rabia Bibi and 2 Others1976 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Mst. Rabia Bibi and 2 Other1976 PLD Quetta 31 · Balochistan High Court · 1976-03-15Read full judgment →
• Fateh Khan Khajjak vs Government of Baluchistan Services and General1975 PLC [C.S.T.] 40 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State through the Advocate-General, Province Of Baluchistan, Quetta vs Jamil Iqbal1974 PLD Quetta 28 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-07-31
  admissibility of evidencepolice custodyconfessionfact discoveredjudicial inspectionunlicensed armacquittal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent, who was initially convicted under Section 13(e) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, for possessing an unlicensed knife. The core legal questions concerned the admissibility of a statement made by the accused while in police custody, which led to the recovery of the weapon, and the procedural validity of a judicial inspection conducted by the trial magistrate. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. The court held that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872, only the portion of a statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible; a statement admitting the concealment of an object constitutes a full confession of possession and is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act 1872. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial inspections under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the mandatory recording of a memorandum of relevant facts, the absence of which renders such observations invalid. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery was from the accused's exclusive possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statement by an accused in police custody admitting to the concealment of an incriminating object constitute an inadmissible confession under the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Is a judicial inspection conducted under Section 539-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid if no memorandum of relevant facts is recorded?
  • Can a statement made to the police be partially admitted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872 if it contains both a discovery of a fact and a confession of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Sk. Abdul Majid vs Akhtar Mohammad and 2 Other1974 PLD Quetta 13 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-10-09
  eviction applicationstatutory noticechange of ownershipinheritancelandlord and tenanttransfer of propertyrent control
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal concerns an eviction application where the core legal question is whether a landlord must serve a statutory notice of transfer of ownership to a tenant under Section 13-A when the change in ownership arises from the death of a co-owner. The Court held that the death of a co-owner constitutes a change in ownership, thereby triggering the statutory obligation to provide notice to the tenant. The Court rejected the argument that such notice is only required for complete transfers of title, emphasizing that the provision applies to any transfer of interest, including inheritance. The Court established that Section 13-A is a remedial provision intended to assist tenants in identifying the person to whom rent is due and must be construed liberally. Consequently, the obligation to notify the tenant arises whenever there is a change in the title or interest of the property, regardless of whether the transfer is partial or total, ensuring the tenant is not prejudiced in their rent payment obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of a co-owner constitute a change in ownership requiring notice to the tenant under Section 13-A?
  • Is the obligation to provide notice of transfer of ownership applicable to the transfer of an interest in property, or only to a complete transfer of title?
  • Should remedial provisions regarding notice of ownership change be construed liberally?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdarali vs Mohammadali1974 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-10-05
  Summary & questions settled

  The provided judgment text is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to provide a summary of the nature of the matter, the core legal questions, the court's decision, or the key principles laid down. The judgment text is required to extract the necessary information for the requested metadata fields.

  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zarif Khan vs Muhammad Hussain1974 PLD Quetta 21 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Issa and 10 Other vs Karam Khan and 7 Other1974 PLD Quetta 46 · Balochistan High Court · 1974-04-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Bahawood-Deen vs B. G. DE'souza1974 PLD Quetta 36 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-12-18
  specific performancetime of the essencesale of immovable propertybreach of contractdamagesearnest moneyvacant possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Quetta, awarding damages of Rs. 20,000 to the respondent in lieu of specific performance for an agreement of sale of a shop. The core legal questions involved whether time was of the essence of the contract for the sale of immovable property coupled with vacant possession, whether the appellant committed a breach, and the assessment of damages under section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Balochistan High Court held that while the general presumption in sales of immovable property is that time is not of the essence, this presumption is rebuttable and stands excluded where commercial premises are sold with vacant possession for immediate use by the buyer, or where a subsequent reasonable notice makes time of the essence. The Court found the appellant in breach for failing to deliver vacant possession and clear title documents within the stipulated time, and upheld the award of damages, adjusting the earnest money refund. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Is time of the essence in a contract for the sale of commercial premises with vacant possession?
  • Can a subsequent reasonable notice make time of the essence when it was not originally so stipulated in a contract for the sale of land?
  • What is the effect of an unjustified demand for litigation costs attached to an offer of performance by a vendor?
  • How are damages assessed under section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872 in the absence of proof of special damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Raziq and 19 Other Abdul Raziq and Other Mst. Said Bibi and 41974 PLD Quetta 18 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-10-03Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R., Quetta vs Mian Muhammad1973P L C 337 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-04-05Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali and 20 Other vs The Manager, P.I.D.C. Collieries, Quetta and Another1973 PLC 399 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
• DR. Abdul Sami vs The Director, Health Services, Baluchistan1973 PLC 331 · Balochistan High Court · 1973-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi vs Government of West Pakistan Trough Chiff Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and Anothers1973 PLC 75 · Balochistan High Court · 1972-02-09Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R., Quetta vs Mian Muhammad1972 PLC 18 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs Mir Abdullah Khan And Another1972 P Cr. L J 2 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-06-17Read full judgment →
• The Divisional Superintendent, P. W. Railway, Quetta vs Mian1971 PLD Quetta 23 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-10-05Read full judgment →
• Sh. Din Mohammad vs Jan Mohammad and Another1971 PLD Quetta 30 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-08-31
  arbitration awardlimitation periodstatutory noticerevision applicationsetting aside awardarbitration agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges a civil court judgment that decreed an arbitration award against the applicant. The core legal questions involved whether an application challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement falls under section 30 or section 33 of the Arbitration Act, the applicable period of limitation for such objections, and whether limitation for filing objections to an arbitration award begins to run without the formal statutory notice of the filing of the award being served by the court under section 14. The High Court held that an objection challenging the reference to arbitration amounts to an application to set aside an award governed by section 30 and Article 158 of the Limitation Act, requiring a thirty-day limitation period. However, the court held that the mandatory statutory requirement of notice under section 14 of the Arbitration Act must be strictly fulfilled, and limitation does not commence until such proper notice is served, regardless of the party's informal knowledge of the award. The revision was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court to issue formal notices and proceed according to law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an application challenging the existence or validity of a reference to arbitration amount to an application to set aside an award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Whether the period of limitation prescribed under Article 158 of the Limitation Act applies to objections raised against an arbitration award under section 33 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Can limitation for filing objections to an arbitration award commence against a party who has not been served with the formal statutory notice of the filing of the award under section 14 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Does knowledge of the filing of an award acquired otherwise than through the formal statutory notice dispense with the requirement of service of notice under section 14 of the Arbitration Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Rais Dur Muhammad and Another vs Takari Abdul Hamid and 8 Others1971 PLD Quetta 93 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-29Read full judgment →
• Mulla Sayed Ali vs Mulla Asmi1971 PLD Quetta 113 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-06-14Read full judgment →
• Motabar and 14 Others vs Messrs S. M. Rehman & Co., Quetta and Another1971 PLC 321 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-01-27Read full judgment →
• Mir Jaffar Khan Jam Ali and Another., Mir Jaffar Khan Jamali vs The State and 3 Others., Dilmurad and Another1971 PLD Quetta 84 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-04-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saadullah Khan & Bros. and Another vs The Province of West1971 PLD Quetta 101 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-29
  writ jurisdictionlocus standijudicial reviewgovernment contractspublic policyaggrieved partydiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This was a writ petition filed under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1962, challenging the Provincial Government's policy change regarding the allocation of public works contracts in the Quetta and Kalat regions. The core legal question was whether the government's decision to shift from an open tender system to a system of nomination for awarding contracts was subject to judicial review, and whether the petitioners possessed a legal right or standing to challenge this executive action. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the government has the discretion to formulate its own policy for awarding contracts. The Court found that no specific law mandated the use of open tenders, and the petitioners had no vested right to be awarded contracts. The key principle laid down is that executive decisions regarding the discretionary allocation of public resources, such as government contracts, are not subject to judicial review in the absence of a specific legal duty or an infringement of a vested legal right. A petitioner must demonstrate a 'legal grievance' to establish locus standi.

  Questions settled

  • Is the government's policy for awarding public works contracts subject to judicial review?
  • Does a government contractor have a vested right to demand the continuation of an open tender system?
  • What constitutes a 'person aggrieved' for the purpose of maintaining a writ petition under Article 98 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962?
  • Can an executive policy decision regarding the allocation of contracts be challenged if it lacks a specific statutory basis?
  Read full judgment →
• Ma Gul and 2 Others vs Haji Fatak and 3 Others1971 PLD Quetta 127 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-05-26Read full judgment →
• Lahore and Another vs Malik Aman1971 PLD Quetta 117 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-06-14Read full judgment →
• Kamal Khan and Another vs Abdul Khaliq and Another1971 PLD Quetta 121 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-05-29Read full judgment →
• K. S. Abdul Latif vs The Republic of Pakistan and 2 Others1971 PLD Quetta 77 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-04-06
  restoration applicationdismissal for defaultinherent powerslimitation periodappearance of counselcivil procedureresiduary article
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of a civil suit and the subsequent rejection of a restoration application as time-barred. The core legal questions were whether the dismissal of the suit, occurring in the presence of the plaintiff's counsel, constituted a dismissal for default under Order IX, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the restoration application was governed by the 30-day limitation period under Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 or the residuary Article 181. The Court held that since the plaintiff's counsel was present, the dismissal could not be categorized as a default under Order IX, Rule 8, and thus the specific limitation period of Article 163 did not apply. The Court affirmed that when a suit is dismissed in circumstances not covered by the specific provisions of Order IX, the court retains inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to entertain a restoration application. Consequently, the application was governed by the three-year limitation period under Article 181, rendering it timely. The case was remanded for a decision on the merits of the restoration application.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a party's counsel in court prevent the dismissal of a suit for default under Order IX, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • When a suit is dismissed in circumstances not covered by Order IX, under which provision can a restoration application be filed?
  • Is a restoration application filed under the inherent powers of the court governed by the limitation period prescribed in Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a court proceed under Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the case was not adjourned at the instance of the party in default?
  Read full judgment →
• Hazar Khan and Another vs Mst. Shahnaz1971 PLD Quetta 39 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-11-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Dad Shah and Another vs Muhammad Fazal and 2 Others1971 PLD Quetta 69 · Balochistan High Court · 1971-04-05
  revision applicationabatementlegal representativeslimitationsufficient causepre-emption suitcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants filed a revision application in the High Court against the dismissal of their pre-emption suit. During the pendency of the revision, one of the respondents, Asfandyar, died. The applicants failed to bring his legal heirs on record within the period prescribed by law, and their applications under Order XXII, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 were filed with unexplained delays. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to revision applications in the High Court, and whether revision proceedings abate upon the death of a necessary party if legal representatives are not impleaded in time. The Court held that by virtue of section 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the provisions of the Code apply to all civil proceedings in the High Court, including revisions, unless specially excepted, and that Order XXII is fully applicable to revision petitions. The Court laid down that failure to timely implead the legal heirs of a deceased respondent in a revision application results in the total abatement of the revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to revision applications filed in the High Court?
  • Does section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply by its own force to applications under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the effect of failing to bring the legal representatives of a deceased necessary party on record within time in a revision application?
  • Whether section 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extends the application of the Code to all civil proceedings in the High Court other than those specially excepted?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs The Province of West Pakistan and 15 Others1971 PLD Quetta 57 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-08-26
  service lawsenioritypromotionpolice servicesupersessionspecific reliefjudicial reviewadverse remarks
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a service dispute where the appellant, a police officer, challenged his repeated supersession by junior officers for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s supersession was justified under the Baluchistan Police, Promotion and Appointment Rules, 1952, and whether he was entitled to a declaration of seniority and a permanent injunction. The court held that the appellant was illegally superseded due to the respondents' erroneous interpretation that his membership in the Prosecution Branch rendered him ineligible for executive promotion. Furthermore, the court found that the adverse remarks in his service record were not communicated as required by law and were insufficient to justify supersession. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court affirmed that government servants are entitled to judicial relief for violations of service rules. Consequently, the court set aside the remand order, restored the trial court’s declaratory decree, and granted a permanent injunction directing the respondents to fix the appellant's seniority in accordance with the rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant seek judicial relief for the violation of service rules regarding seniority?
  • Does the Establishment of West Pakistan Act 1955 protect the existing terms and conditions of service of government employees?
  • Is an officer's supersession valid if based on an erroneous interpretation of cadre eligibility?
  • Can adverse remarks in a service record justify supersession if they were not communicated to the officer as required by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Mohammad vs Haji Maula Dad1971 PLD Quetta 10 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-08-04
  sub-tenant evictionurban rent restrictionstatutory noticedisplaced personsexecution proceedingsappealable ordernecessary partyacceptance of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arises out of execution proceedings where a landlord sought to evict a sub-tenant following an ejectment order against the principal tenant. The core legal questions involved whether an order passed by an executing court in such circumstances is appealable, whether a sub-tenant must be impleaded in an ejectment application under the Ordinance when sub-letting is prohibited, whether an unauthorized sub-tenant is entitled to statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether the withdrawal of rent deposited in court creates a tenancy. The Balochistan High Court held that the executing court's order fell under Section 47 read with Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and was appealable; that an unauthorized sub-tenant is not a necessary party in an ejectment application under the Ordinance prohibiting sub-letting; that an illegal sub-tenant is not entitled to Section 30 notice; and that mere withdrawal of deposited rent without animus to create a lease does not establish a tenancy. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by an executing court regarding the execution of an eviction order against a sub-tenant is appealable under Section 47 read with Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a sub-tenant a necessary party in an ejectment application filed by a landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 where sub-letting is prohibited?
  • Whether an unauthorized sub-tenant in possession of evacuee property is entitled to a statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Does the withdrawal by a landlord of rent deposited in court by an occupant automatically operate to create a tenancy or revive a lease without the requisite intention?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan vs Haji Karam Ellahi and Another1971 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-07-22
  rent restrictionejectmentretrospective operationprospective operationlandlord and tenantreconstructionsubstantive law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns an ejectment order issued against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal question was whether the amendments introduced by the West Pakistan Ordinance XXI of 1965 to Section 13(2)(vi) of the Ordinance, which imposed stricter requirements on landlords seeking possession for reconstruction, applied retrospectively to pending applications. The Court held that the amendments were prospective, not retrospective. It reasoned that the amendments conferred new substantive rights upon tenants and imposed additional restrictions on landlords, rather than merely altering procedural mechanisms. Consequently, the rights of the parties were governed by the law as it stood when the ejectment application was filed. The Court affirmed the fundamental legal principle that statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless clear legislative intent or necessary implication dictates otherwise, particularly when substantive rights are affected. As the landlord had satisfied the requirements of the law applicable at the time of filing, the ejectment order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Are the amendments to Section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, introduced by West Pakistan Ordinance XXI of 1965, retrospective in operation?
  • Does a change in the requirements for a landlord to obtain possession for reconstruction constitute a change in substantive law or procedural law?
  • Is a landlord's right to eject a tenant for reconstruction governed by the law in force at the time of filing the application or the law in force at the time of the decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim and Others vs Fateh Muhammad and Others1971 PLD Quetta 138 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-10-05Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The Commissioner, Quetta Division, Quetta1970 PLD Quetta 76 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-18Read full judgment →
• Wadera Dalel Khan and 7 Other- vs Province of West Pakistan and 61970 PLD Quetta 79 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-11
  dismissal for non-prosecutionOrder XVII Rule 3 CPCcivil procedurerestoration of suitdismissal on meritsadjournment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the plaintiffs' absence and failure to produce witnesses, despite no evidence having been recorded. The core legal question was whether a court can invoke Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to dismiss a suit on merits when no evidence is available on record. The Court held that the trial court's order was illegal and untenable. It established that Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, requires existing evidence on record that fails to substantiate a claim; without such evidence, the court must proceed under Order XVII, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or Order IX, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court emphasized that litigation should ideally be decided on merits, and extreme measures like dismissal under Rule 3 should only be taken when a party's conduct makes trial impossible. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court dismiss a suit under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when no evidence has been recorded?
  • What is the distinction between Order XVII, Rule 2 and Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the dismissal of a suit?
  • Under what circumstances is it appropriate for a court to dismiss a suit for non-prosecution rather than on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Said Muhammad and Another vs The Quetta Municipal Committee1970 PLD Quetta 1 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-11-07Read full judgment →
• State vs Syed Mir Ahmed Shah and Another1970 PLD Quetta 49 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-10-29
  jurisdictionspecial lawimplied repealcriminal procedurescheduled offencesplitting of offencesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The State challenged an order by a Special Judge who declined jurisdiction over a criminal case involving offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, transferring the matter to a Deputy Commissioner under the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question concerned the conflict between the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, and the Ordinance, specifically regarding the proper forum for trial when offences fall under both statutes. The Court held that both statutes are special laws; however, the Ordinance, being later and specific to certain localities, prevails over the Act regarding Pakistan Penal Code offences. Crucially, offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, are not scheduled under the Ordinance and remain exclusively triable by the Special Judge. The Court established that where a case involves both scheduled and non-scheduled offences, the proceedings must be split: the Special Judge retains jurisdiction over the corruption offence, while the Deputy Commissioner handles the scheduled offences. The principle laid down is that courts must reconcile overlapping statutes by splitting jurisdiction where possible, rather than assuming total repeal of one by the other.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968, impliedly repeal the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958, in its entirety?
  • Can a court split a criminal case involving both scheduled and non-scheduled offences to be tried by different forums?
  • Does the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, fall under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal created by the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968?
  • When two special statutes are inconsistent, which principles of interpretation determine their application?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali and 20 Other vs The Manager, P. I. D. C. Collieries, Quetta and Another1970 PLD Quetta 85 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-05-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Azim and 5 Others vs The State and 5 Other1970 PLD Quetta 27 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-10-28
  cognizance of offenceretrospective operationnatural justiceremand orderssubstantive lawprocedural lawcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged orders directing the registration of a criminal case under the Quetta-Kalat Ordinance II of 1968, arguing that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prior to the Ordinance's promulgation. The core legal question was whether the new Ordinance could be applied retrospectively to pending proceedings where cognizance had already been taken, and whether the failure to provide a hearing to the accused violated natural justice. The Court held that the impugned orders were without lawful authority. It determined that the Magistrate’s previous remand orders constituted taking cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Ordinance II of 1968 was substantive law, not merely procedural, and thus could not be applied retrospectively to pending cases. Additionally, the failure to grant the accused a hearing before transferring the case to the special jurisdiction violated fundamental principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders, affirming that pending proceedings under the ordinary law remain protected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the granting of remand orders by a Magistrate constitute taking cognizance of an offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the Quetta-Kalat Ordinance II of 1968 considered substantive law or merely procedural law for the purpose of retrospective application?
  • Does the failure to provide a hearing to an accused before transferring a case to a special jurisdiction violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a District Magistrate delegate powers to an Extra Assistant Commissioner and subsequently retain jurisdiction to pass orders on the same matter without a formal transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Kajir and 2 Other vs Baran Shah1970 PLD Quetta 19 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-10-08
  land revenuerecord of rightsdeclaratory suitfrontier crimes regulationstatutory interpretationpermissive provisionjurisdiction of civil court
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of four appeals involving an identical question of law regarding the maintainability of declaratory suits for rectification of record-of-rights under section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1867, as applicable to Baluchistan, in the absence of prior permission from the Collector. The trial court had dismissed the suits for lack of prior permission, but the District Judge reversed the decision, holding that the relevant provisions had become inoperative upon the withdrawal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. The core legal question was whether section 45(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1867 is mandatory, requiring a litigant to obtain prior permission from the Collector before filing a declaratory suit in a civil court. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the appeals and held that section 45(1) was merely an enabling and permissive provision rather than a mandatory one, meaning that the absence of prior permission did not render the suits incompetent or not maintainable. The court laid down the principle that the word 'may' in section 45(1) confers a discretionary privilege for the benefit of the aggrieved party rather than imposing an imperative obligation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 45(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1867 is a mandatory provision requiring prior permission from the Collector before filing a declaratory suit?
  • Does the withdrawal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 affect the interpretation of section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1867?
  • Whether the word 'may' in section 45(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1867 should be construed as 'must'?
  • Are suits for declaration and rectification of record-of-rights filed without prior recourse to the Collector under section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1867 maintainable in a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jafar Ali Akhtar Yousafzai vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another1970 PLD Quetta 115 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-29
  civil servicereversion in rankofficiating appointmentattached departmentwrit jurisdictionconstitutional protectionarbitrary termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order reverting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Accounts Officer to a lower position in his parent department. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner’s initial appointment by transfer was irregular due to alleged non-compliance with service requirements regarding 'Attached Departments' and lack of Public Service Commission approval, and whether his 'officiating' status permitted the government to revert him arbitrarily. The Court held that the petitioner’s previous service in the Intelligence Directorate and Directorate of General Defence Purchase qualified as service in 'Attached Departments,' rendering his appointment regular. Furthermore, the Court held that the label 'officiating' or 'until further orders' does not confer upon the government an arbitrary power to revert a civil servant when the appointment was otherwise valid and the post was permanent. The Court emphasized that constitutional protections against arbitrary reduction in rank cannot be defeated by the mere use of 'officiating' terminology. Consequently, the reversion order was set aside as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the label 'officiating' in an appointment order grant the government arbitrary power to revert a civil servant?
  • Can a court look behind the designation of an appointment as 'officiating' to determine its true nature?
  • Does the definition of 'Attached Department' in the Rules of Business 1962 apply retrospectively to determine the status of service rendered prior to its promulgation?
  • Is an appointment to a permanent post valid even if the order uses the phrase 'until further orders'?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector, Quetta-Pishin, Quetta vs Habibullah and 14 Other1970 PLD Quetta 35 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-11-07
  land acquisitionmarket valuepotential building sitecompulsory acquisition allowancenotice under section 9reference to courtcourt fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the Government under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 against an award of compensation made by the District Judge, Quetta. The Collector had initially valued the acquired land purely as agricultural, whereas the District Judge determined its market value based on its potential as a building site, while also awarding compensation for a tube-well and a brick kiln to a lessee. The core legal questions involved whether the land ought to be assessed based on its potentiality as a building site rather than its present agricultural use, whether an interested person who was not served notice under Section 9 of the Act could seek compensation before the District Judge under Section 18 without being barred by Section 25(2), and the correct computation of court-fees on appeal under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act 1870. The High Court modified the District Judge's award, holding that market value under Section 23 must account for reasonable future potential use. It further held that failure to serve notice under Section 9 prevents the operation of the statutory penalty under Section 25(2).

  Questions settled

  • Whether the market value of acquired land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 should be assessed based on its potential future use as a building site or strictly according to its present use?
  • Can the penal provisions of Section 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be invoked to bar a claimant's enhanced compensation claim if the Collector failed to serve him mandatory notice under Section 9?
  • Does an additional ad valorem fee under statutory amendments applicable to the institution of suits apply to a memorandum of appeal under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act 1870?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat vs Haji Ghulam Muhammad and Another1970 PLD Quetta 10 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-10-11Read full judgment →
• Amin Shah- vs Abdul Rauf and Another1970 PLD Quetta 82 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-09
  dissolution of partnershiprendition of accountscivil revisionsecond appealcourt-feeconversion of petitionad valorem court-fee
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, resulting in a preliminary decree followed by a final decree by the trial court, which was upheld in first appeal. Instead of filing a second appeal, the petitioner filed a civil revision petition in the High Court, and subsequently sought to convert the revision into a second appeal while requesting discretionary powers to make up a deficiency in court-fee under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a revision petition filed intentionally to avoid ad valorem court-fee on the decretal amount in a suit for rendition of accounts could be permitted to be converted into a second appeal with an extension of time for paying the court-fee. The court held that no bona fide mistake or legal misconception existed, as a second appeal was clearly competent and the revision had been filed intentionally to evade proper court fees. Consequently, the court refused to allow the conversion or grant indulgence for making up the deficiency in court-fee, and dismissed the revision petition as incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil revision petition be converted into a second appeal where a second appeal was clearly competent under the law?
  • Whether the court can exercise its discretionary powers under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to allow a deficiency in court-fee to be made up when a revision is filed under a deliberate attempt to evade proper court fees?
  • What court-fee is required to be paid when a defendant challenges a decree in a suit for rendition of accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan and 5 Other vs Commissioner, F. C. R., Quetta Division and 71970 PLD Quetta 93 · Balochistan High Court · 1970-06-05
  Frontier Crimes Regulationlimitation of suitscustomary lawstatutory rulecivil referenceCouncil-of-Elderspossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal challenges a judgment of the High Court arising from a civil dispute over land, water, and trees located in Tehsil Chaman, decided under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901. The core legal question was whether there is any period of limitation for claims concerning the possession of land in the area of Tehsil Chaman, specifically examining whether executive instructions issued in 1882 (Serial No. 52 of the Green Book) had the statutory force of a rule under Section 62 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901, and whether the Limitation Act 1908 applied to proceedings before Council-of-Elders. The Court held that the 1882 instructions were merely departmental guidance, lacked the characteristics and statutory validity of a rule, and had fallen obsolete or inoperative, and further that the Limitation Act did not apply to authorities functioning under the Frontier Crimes Regulation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether departmental instructions issued in 1882 regarding land claims have the force of a statutory rule under Section 62 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901?
  • Does the Limitation Act 1908 apply of its own force or via Section 29 to proceedings and authorities functioning under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901?
  • Whether the right to property is extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act 1908 in the absence of a prescribed period of limitation or ordinary courts for instituting a suit?
  • Whether authorities acting under the Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 constitute courts for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Gafoor Khan Durrani vs Abdul Hameed and Another1970 PLD Quetta 14 · Balochistan High Court · 1969-07-09Read full judgment →