Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.
- Abdul Sattar vs The Additional Secretary to the1998 P Cr. L J 280 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik vs The State and another1998 MLD 1307 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jalil Khan vs State1998 MLD 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq vs Ali Akbar and 12 others1998 CLC 129 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case arises from a civil revision petition filed before the Peshawar High Court by a mortgagee challenging concurrent judgments of the lower courts which decreed a redemption suit filed by the mortgagors and set aside contradictory revenue court orders. The core legal question concerned whether the mortgagee had acquired a prescriptive title over the mortgaged property through the lapse of sixty years, and whether the revenue authorities acted without jurisdiction in ignoring a final civil court decree. The High Court held that decisions of a civil court of universal jurisdiction regarding title are final and binding, precluding revenue forums from holding otherwise. The Court further held that subsequent mutations, changes in parties, and the nature of the usufructuary mortgage constituted a novation of contract, and that under section 20(2) of the Limitation Act, the mortgagee's receipt of rent or produce amounted to a continuous acknowledgement of the debt, preventing limitation from running against the mortgagors. The petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a final decision of a civil court regarding title operate as binding upon revenue courts?
- Whether the receipt of rent or produce by a mortgagee in possession constitutes an acknowledgement of debt under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does a change in the parties and mortgage amount through subsequent mutations amount to a novation of contract?
- Can a usufructuary mortgage become time-barred after sixty years when produce is continuously received by the mortgagee?
- Abdul Hamid vs Abdul Qayyum and others1998 MLD 994 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakeem Khan and another vs The State and another1998 MLD 1147 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
- Abbas Khan and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 714 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
- Zilehussain Shah and anothers vs Asif Jan and 2 others1997 PLD Peshawar 180 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
- Zarfroosh vs Sikandar Aziz and 5 others1997 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves multiple writ petitions challenging interim orders issued by the Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantt, which rejected applications contesting the Controller's jurisdiction under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The core legal question was whether interim orders, for which the right of appeal is expressly barred by Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, can be challenged through the High Court’s Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that such writ petitions are incompetent and unmaintainable. The ratio decidendi establishes that where a statute specifically excludes the right of appeal against interlocutory or interim orders, a party cannot bypass this legislative intent by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction to challenge those same orders. The Court emphasized that remedies not directly available under the special law cannot be sought indirectly through constitutional means, as this would defeat the manifest intention of the legislature to ensure summary and speedy disposal of rent cases. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners’ conduct demonstrated an attempt to delay proceedings through piecemeal litigation, which the Court strongly condemned.
Questions settled- Can interim orders of a Rent Controller be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction when the governing statute specifically bars appeals against such orders?
- Does the exclusion of a right of appeal in a special statute prevent a party from invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction to challenge interlocutory orders?
- Is it permissible to bypass the statutory appellate process by filing a constitutional petition against an interim order?
- Zardad Khan vs Muhammad Ayaz Khan1997 CLC 1825 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-09Read full judgment →
- Zaib Ullah vs Sultan Sikandar alias Wazir Khan and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1951 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
- Zahid Akhtar vs The State1997 MLD 1238 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
- Yadgar Flour Mills vs Government of N.W.F.P. Through Secretary Food1997 MLD 729 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
- Wilayat Shah vs District Judge, Kohat And 4 Other1997 CLC 1796 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a tenant against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the District Judge, Kohat, ordering his eviction from a commercial shop on the ground of personal and bona fide need of the landlord. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the concurrent findings regarding the landlord's bona fide personal requirement could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and whether a retired landlord's testimony regarding his intent to run a business with the help of his sons sufficiently establishes good faith. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that factual controversies and concurrent findings of fact cannot be reopened or gone into under constitutional writ jurisdiction, and that the sole testimony of a landlord, when unshaken in cross-examination, is sufficient to establish bona fide personal requirement under rent laws. The key principle laid down is that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reappraise evidence in rent matters, and a landlord's established personal need for setting up a business—even with the assistance of family members—justifies eviction.
Questions settled- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need recorded by the Rent Controller and the appellate court be interfered with in constitutional writ jurisdiction?
- Is the sole testimony of a landlord sufficient to establish a bona fide and personal requirement for a rented premises?
- Does the old age of a landlord render him legally incapable of establishing a good faith requirement to run a small business with the assistance of his sons?
- Wahid Bakhsh vs Abdul Qayum And Another1997 MLD 2945 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These writ petitions challenge the orders of the District Judge, which dismissed the petitioners' pre-emption suits due to their failure to deposit one-third of the pre-emption money (Zar-e-Soam) within the time fixed by the trial court. The core legal questions were whether the trial court possessed the discretion to extend the time for such deposits under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987, whether Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 could override the Act, and the mandatory nature of Section 24(2) of the Act. The Court held that the trial court lacks the authority to extend the time for depositing pre-emption money once fixed. It determined that the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 is a special law that prevails over the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the Court ruled that the word "shall" in Section 24(2) is obligatory, and failure to comply with the deposit deadline necessitates the dismissal of the suit. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that pre-emption is a feeble right requiring strict adherence to statutory procedural requirements.
Questions settled- Does the trial court have the power to extend the time for depositing the one-third pre-emption money under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987?
- Does Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override the provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 regarding the deposit of pre-emption money?
- Is the requirement to deposit one-third of the pre-emption money within the fixed time under Section 24(2) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 mandatory?
- Unclassified vs Malik Shamas Khan And Other1997 MLD 717 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-22Read full judgment →
- Umar Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Collector And 3 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 746 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
- Umar Farooq Shah And Others vs Mst. Shagufta Nasreen And 4 Other1997 CLC 1846 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter arose from an application for the issuance of a succession certificate filed by the widow and minor daughters of a deceased person before the Senior Civil Judge Abbottabad exercising powers of a Guardian Judge. The trial court partly granted relief, bringing legal heirs of a deceased respondent on record and addressing objections regarding omitted assets, while noting that disputes over other assets could be agitated through separate suits. The respondents initially appealed to the District Judge, who returned the memorandum of appeal holding that the appeal lay before the High Court. The appellants then approached the Peshawar High Court, seeking condonation of delay under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. The core legal question centered on the correct appellate forum for orders passed by a court inferior to the District Judge regarding succession certificates under the Succession Act, 1925. The Court held that section 388 of the Succession Act operates as an exception to section 384, meaning that appeals against orders of an inferior court specifically invested with jurisdiction lie to the District Judge and not the High Court. Consequently, the High Court directed that the appeal be presented before the District Judge for a decision on merits, while granting the benefit of good faith for the limitation period.
Questions settled- What is the correct appellate forum against an order passed by a court inferior to the District Judge in proceedings for a succession certificate under the Succession Act, 1925?
- Whether section 388 of the Succession Act, 1925 acts as an exception to section 384 regarding the forum of appeal?
- Can time spent bona fide in pursuing an appeal before a wrong forum be excluded under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act?
- Tilla Muhammad vs Muhammad Jan And Other1997 MLD 2363 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
- Taj Wali Khan vs Noor Afzal And Another1997 MLD 2266 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
- Syed Mehr Ali Shah vs The District Magistrate, Mansehra1997 MLD 1612 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-13Read full judgment →
- Syed Luqman Shah And 6 Others vs District Judge, Haripur And 3 Other1997 CLC 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
- Sultan And Others vs M.B.R. And Other1997 MLD 198 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
- Shiraz vs Muhammad Ayub1997 MLD 115 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Khalid Mehmood vs Banking Tribunal, N. W.F.P., Peshawar And Another1997 CLC 1812 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Banking Tribunal, which decreed the recovery of a loan against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the Banking Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Federal Ombudsman had previously ordered the rescheduling of the loan, arguing that under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, the Ombudsman's orders override other laws and bar the jurisdiction of courts. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984, being a special law enacted later in time than the 1983 Presidential Order, prevails in matters of loan recovery. The Court further held that the bar of jurisdiction under the 1983 Order does not apply to a suit for loan recovery filed before a specialized tribunal. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984, and had approached the Court with unclean hands by concealing material facts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy.
Questions settled- Does the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 override the jurisdiction of the Banking Tribunal established under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance 1984?
- Can a petitioner invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution when a statutory right of appeal exists?
- Does the bar of jurisdiction under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 apply to a suit for the recovery of a loan filed before a Banking Tribunal?
- Shehr Yar vs Bacha And 4 Other1997 MLD 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Zaman Khan And Others vs Karam Din1997 CLC 423 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
- Shakirullah vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan Kundi Through Legal Heirs vs Government of N.-W.F.P.1997 PLC (C. S.) 892 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
- Shah Mazai And Others vs Muhammad Afzal And Other1997 CLC 818 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-22Read full judgment →
- Shah Alam Khan vs Zubair Ahmed Khan1997 PLD Peshawar 58 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1920 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdur Rashid Through Legal Heirs vs Ehsanullah And 5 Other1997 MLD 2996 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
- Sarfraz Khan and another vs The State and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1937 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
- Sardar And 149 Others vs Government of N. W.F.P.Through Collector, Haripur And 3 Other1997 CLC 812 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-12-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by 150 landowners challenging the compulsory acquisition of land in Tehsil and District Haripur for a cement factory project by Best Way Cement Ltd. The core legal questions involved the validity of corrigendums to notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, the invocation of emergency powers under section 17, and whether affected landowners have a right to be associated with an inquiry under section 40 of the Act. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that corrigendums do not vitiate proceedings where landowners suffered no prejudice and had actual notice, that the subjective assessment of urgency by the Commissioner under section 17 is not open to interference given the foreign investment and national economic interests involved, and that section 40 does not mandate a notice or hearing to landowners during an inquiry for a company. Furthermore, the court held that the petitioners had disentitled themselves to equitable relief through their conduct by participating in award proceedings and withdrawing compensation.
Questions settled- Whether each corrigendum to a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 requires fresh publication of the entire acquisition procedure?
- Is the subjective assessment of urgency by the Commissioner for invoking emergency powers under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 open to judicial review?
- Do landowners have a statutory right to notice and a hearing during an inquiry conducted by the Commissioner under section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Does the withdrawal of compensation and participation in award proceedings by landowners disentitle them to discretionary constitutional relief?
- Sanaullah Khan Gandapur vs Advocategeneral, N.W.F.P./Returning1997 PLD Peshawar 80 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge an order passed by the Returning Officer accepting nomination papers for the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council elections allegedly beyond the prescribed period. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, can interfere at an intermediate stage with orders passed during the process of bar council elections. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, holding that intermediary orders and disputes arising out of the election process are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court established the principle that all election disputes and irregularities affecting the election process must be postponed until the elections are concluded and raised subsequently through an election petition before the designated Election Tribunal, in line with constitutional provisions and established jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by a Returning Officer during the process of a bar council election is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Can a dispute regarding the acceptance or rejection of nomination papers be brought before the High Court at an intermediate stage of the election process?
- Where must disputes arising out of or in connection with an election process be raised under the law?
- Sahib Khan vs Khan Sardar And 2 Other1997 MLD 1832 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Saddar Khan vs Muhammad Jan And Other1997 CLC 361 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
- Sabz Ali Khan vs Bismillah Khan And Other1997 MLD 675 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
- Riasat Khan vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 908 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-16Read full judgment →
- Rehmat Ullah vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar And Another1997 CLC 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 arises from a judgment and decree of the Family Court at Mansehra, which dissolved a marriage on the basis of khula between subjects of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The core legal question was whether a Family Court in Pakistan has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage filed by a subject of Azad Jammu & Kashmir who had already litigated the same matter up to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and failed, and whether the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 applied to afford them citizen status for such relief. The Peshawar High Court held that since the parties are subjects of Azad Jammu & Kashmir and not citizens of Pakistan under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and given that the matter had already been adjudicated by competent courts in Azad Kashmir, the Family Court at Mansehra lacked territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent suit. The impugned decree was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court in Pakistan has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for dissolution of marriage brought by subjects of Azad Jammu & Kashmir who are not citizens of Pakistan under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951?
- Does a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court lie in appeal when it is based on reasons other than those specified in clause (d) of item (viii) of section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939?
- Can a party relitigate a suit for dissolution of marriage in Pakistan after the highest judicial forum of Azad Jammu & Kashmir has already dismissed a similar claim between the same spouses?
- Raja Jawaid and 4 others vs Collector, Land Acquisition, Khanpur Dam, Haripur1997 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-01-18Read full judgment →
- Raees Khan And Others vs Samar Ali Shah And Other1997 CLC 349 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Bannu, which set aside the trial court's judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's declaratory suit and perpetual injunction concerning a right of passage through certain Khasra numbers. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had established a continuous, uninterrupted right of way or easement over the disputed property and whether the land constituted a public thoroughfare or a private path. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous, open enjoyment of the path or that the land was a public thoroughfare, noting that current revenue records contradicted the claim and prior litigation rendered the matter res judicata. The court laid down the principles distinguishing between a public thoroughfare (Shamilat) and a private path, affirming that an owner of a private path retains rights of use and conversion, and that claims based on easement require strict proof of continuous enjoyment within the period prescribed by limitation law.
Questions settled- What is the distinction between a public thoroughfare and a private path in revenue records?
- Whether a plaintiff claiming a right of way based on easement must prove continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment for the statutory period?
- Does a previous withdrawn suit affect the limitation period for a fresh suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether entries in the current Jamabandi unchallenged in the plaint are presumed to be correct?
- Rabbani Gul vs Government of N.-W.F.P. And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
- Qazi Muhammad Ayaz vs Ghulam Mustafa And 4 Other1997 MLD 1148 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-14Read full judgment →
- Qazi Muhammad Ariq vs Muhammad Jan And 6 Other1997 MLD 3062 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
- Qayyum Nawaz Khan and another vs The Regional Manager, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Dera Ismail Khan and 4 others1997 PLD Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two cross-appeals arising from a single order passed by a Civil Judge regarding a dispute over loan recovery and a subsequent claim for damages for defamation. The appellants filed a declaratory suit against the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, seeking to invalidate a recovery notice and claiming damages for mental torture and defamation. The trial court returned the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 ousted the civil court's jurisdiction regarding the loan recovery, but it retained jurisdiction over the defamation claim, ordering the plaint to be amended. The High Court held that the trial court correctly identified the lack of jurisdiction over the loan recovery matter, which falls exclusively under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. Furthermore, the Court held that the claim for damages for defamation, being an off-shoot of the main loan dispute, could not be severed to maintain civil court jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire plaint must be returned for presentation before the proper forum.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages for defamation if the claim arises from a loan recovery dispute subject to the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a trial court return a plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for part of the suit while retaining jurisdiction over another part?
- Does the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters related to loan recovery by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan?
- Premier Paper Mills Ltd. vs N. W.F.P. Textbook Board1997 CLC 1288 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Peshawar High Court through a writ petition seeking directions to the respondent, the N.W.F.P. Textbook Board, to amend a tender notice, invite fresh tenders from both importers and local manufacturers on specific terms, equalize security deposits, open all tenders simultaneously, and delete certain conditions from the tender inquiry form. The core legal questions involved whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to enforce contractual obligations, compel a public body to alter tender conditions as desired by a bidder, or enforce a tender notice of the petitioner's own choice in the absence of a clear legal right and a corresponding statutory duty. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce contractual obligations or dictate the performance of executive functions where the petitioner lacks a clear legal right and the respondent is not bound by any statutory duty to act in the manner suggested. Furthermore, the Court noted that another writ petition involving the same subject-matter was already pending adjudication, rendering the second petition not legally maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the issuance of a writ of mandamus requires a clear legal right in the petitioner and a manifestly defined statutory or public duty imposed upon the respondent, and it cannot be invoked to enforce contractual terms or dictate administrative choices.
Questions settled- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to enforce contractual obligations or compel a party to alter tender conditions according to a bidder's wishes?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when another writ petition in respect of the same subject-matter is already pending adjudication in the court?
- What are the essential prerequisites regarding legal rights and statutory duties for the issuance of a writ of mandamus?
- Pakistan Railways And 5 Others vs Haji Malik Din Through Legal Heirs1997 CLC 1785 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Flour Mills Association (N.W.F.P. Branch) through Authorised1997 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
- Noor Ali vs Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P. And Other1997 MLD 672 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
- Nek Amal Jan vs Province of N.-W.F.P.through Secretary Health, Peshawar1997 PLC (C.S.) 380 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nek Amal Jan vs Province of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Health, Peshawar And 1 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 380 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nazar Muhammad vs Mujahid and 4 others1997 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah vs The State1997 MLD 1430 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal petition under section 439 read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge directing that the petitioner, who had been released by the police under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whose name was not sent up in the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be placed in column No. 2 of the challan for trial. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session can take cognizance against a person released under section 169 who is not mentioned in the challan report submitted under section 173. The Peshawar High Court held that a Court of Session cannot take cognizance or of its own array an accused whose name is not mentioned in the report under section 173 either in column 2 or column 3 because he was released under section 169. The Court laid down the principle that while a Court of Session may exercise judicial discretion to summon persons mentioned in columns 2 or 3 of a section 173 report, it lacks jurisdiction to summon or take cognizance of an accused released under section 169 whose case was never sent up for trial, leaving the aggrieved party to pursue remedies under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can a Court of Session take cognizance against an accused released under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whose name is not included in the report under section 173?
- Does a Trial Court have the jurisdiction to of its own accord array a person as an accused who was released by the police during investigation?
- What is the remedy available to a complainant when an accused is released under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and not sent up for trial?
- Nasrullah Khan vs Mst. Bas Khandana And Another1997 MLD 2071 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
- Nardullah Khan vs Haji Zarif Khan And 3 Other1997 CLC 428 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-14Read full judgment →
- M/s. WIL'y Foods (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry1997 P.C.T.L.R. 117 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Saif Textile Mills vs Assistant Collector Etc. Ltd.PTCL 1997 CL. 174 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mustaqeem vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1732 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs M/s. Adamjee Paper & Board Mills1997 CLC 1046 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob Shah vs Maulana Hafizurrehman and others1997 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Umar Gul vs Ikram Ullah Khan1997 MLD 1917 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-12-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Taj alias Kala vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1043 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shafi And Others vs Additional District Judge And Other1997 MLD 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Safdar and 3 others vs Government of N.W.F.P. through District Collector, Haripur and 2 others1997 PLD Peshawar 90 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz and 19 others vs Provincial Government and 41997 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nasim vs District Magistrate, Mansehra And 2 Other1997 MLD 1236 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Naeem and another vs Muhammad Ismail and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1446 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mahroof vs Mst. Mahanoori And 2 Other1997 CLC 1291 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Khursheed Khan vs Returning Officer and 4 others1997 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Jan And Others vs D.S.P., Rural Mardan And Other1997 MLD 1219 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ijaz vs Sher Shah And Other1997 MLD 969 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hamayun And Others vs Member Board of Revenue And Other1997 CLC 363 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions challenging a judgment of the Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., which restored partition mutations previously cancelled by the Additional Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, to interfere with the findings of a Revenue Tribunal. The High Court held that its writ jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, and is reserved for extraordinary circumstances where a tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or failed to exercise jurisdiction. The Court found that the Additional Commissioner had acted in excess of jurisdiction by entertaining appeals that were hopelessly time-barred without condoning the delay. Consequently, the Member, Board of Revenue correctly set aside the Additional Commissioner's order. The Court affirmed that it will not review findings of fact by inferior tribunals merely because they may be erroneous, provided the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and observed principles of natural justice. The writ petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the authority to review findings of fact made by an inferior tribunal under its writ jurisdiction?
- Can an appellate authority entertain an appeal that is time-barred without formally condoning the delay?
- Is the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 appellate or supervisory in nature?
- Muhammad Din vs Government of N.-W.F.P. And 4 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 1086 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs Station House Officer, Police Station Lora And 21997 MLD 2294 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arshad Khan and 3 others vs The State and anothers1997 PLD Peshawar 177 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram And Others vs Arsalla Khan And Other1997 MLD 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rukhsana vs Mst. Gul Narges And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 1002 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rambail Bibi vs Mir Alam and anothers1997 PLD Peshawar 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application for cancellation of bail was filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakki Marwat, which granted bail to the respondent accused of murder under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had granted bail primarily citing the co-accused's alibi, the police's failure to submit the challan within the prescribed period, and doubts regarding the dying declaration. The High Court held that the trial court erred by failing to issue notice to the complainant, a mandatory requirement under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1992. Furthermore, the Court found that the respondent was arrested in hot pursuit with the crime weapon, and the dying declaration was corroborated by an eye-witness, establishing a prima facie case. The Court clarified that police delays in submitting a challan under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, do not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially when strong evidence exists. Consequently, the bail order was set aside, and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.
Questions settled- Is the complainant entitled to notice in a bail petition following the enforcement of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1992?
- Does a delay in the submission of a challan by the police under section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted in a capital case where the accused was arrested in hot pursuit with the crime weapon?
- Mst. Duri And 2 Others vs Said Akbar Through His Legal Heirs And Other1997 MLD 754 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
- Miss Gul Sanga vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Peshawar1997 MLD 747 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mir Salam Jan And Others vs The State1997 MLD 956 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-31Read full judgment →
- Mir Ahmad And Others vs Dilawar Khan And Other1997 MLD 720 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mian Tahir Shah And Another vs Laiq Zaman And Other1997 MLD 3201 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mian Saleem Ur Rehman vs N. W.F.P. Through Deputy Commissioner Bannu1997 CLC 420 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mian Nisar Ahmad vs Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad And 5 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 396 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Wil'y Foods (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 6 others1997 PTD 63 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged a government notification, SRO 561(1)/94, which restricted a prior sales tax exemption granted under SRO 580(1)/91. The petitioner, having established an industrial unit in reliance on the initial exemption, argued that the withdrawal of this benefit after they had incurred significant liabilities—including land leasing and machinery procurement—was unlawful. The core legal question was whether the government could rescind a tax exemption notification once a party had acted upon it, thereby acquiring a vested right. The Court held that the subsequent notification was ineffective against the petitioner. Relying on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Court ruled that an authority cannot withdraw an exemption once it has taken legal effect and induced a party to make binding commitments. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that denying such benefits to the petitioner while granting them to similar competitors constituted discriminatory treatment, violating the constitutional right to equality. Consequently, the petitioner was held entitled to the original tax exemption, as the withdrawal notification could not prejudice rights that had already accrued.
Questions settled- Can the government withdraw a tax exemption notification after a party has acted upon it and incurred binding commitments?
- Does the principle of promissory estoppel prevent the government from rescinding an exemption once it has taken legal effect?
- Does the denial of tax exemptions to one industrial concern while granting them to similar competitors violate the constitutional right to equality?
- Can an authority exercise its power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to withdraw an order after rights have accrued to a third party?
- Mst. Taiba Bibi vs Abdul Latif and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1957 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rehmania Hospital vs Government of Pakistan and 5 others1997 PTD 1805 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rehamnia Hospital vs Government of Pakistan and 5 others1997 PTD 1845 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs National Adhesive Tapes (Pvt), Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan1997 PLD Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Khyber Plastic & Polymer Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government1997 PTD 1872 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Asif Flour Mills vs Government of N.W.F.P.1997 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Peshawar High Court deals with three writ petitions filed by flour mills—Yadgar, Kunhar, and Asif Flour Mills—challenging the refusal of the Provincial Government and food authorities to issue them a regular wheat quota. The core legal question was whether the authorities could deny wheat quota to duly approved flour mills under the guise of a cabinet ban, while selectively granting quotas to other unapproved mills. The court held that a cabinet decision imposing a ban without statutory backing (an Act or Ordinance) amounts merely to an internal working arrangement and cannot override lawful rights or be applied discriminatorily. The court ruled that denying quotas to the petitioners while favoring nine unapproved mills constituted clear discrimination violating fundamental rights. The petitions were accepted, and respondents were directed to release the wheat quota to the petitioner mills.
Questions settled- Does a cabinet decision imposing a ban on wheat quotas have the force of law without being translated into an Act or Ordinance?
- Can the government deny a wheat quota to duly approved flour mills while selectively granting quotas to unapproved mills?
- Does the refusal to issue a wheat quota to certain approved flour mills while favoring rival concerns violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Whether a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against discriminatory executive action regarding the issuance of a wheat quota?
- Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs High Class Electric Co.1997 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-15Read full judgment →
- Mazullah Khan vs The State and anothers1997 PLD Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from a bail petition filed by Mazullah Khan in a case registered under Section 337-D read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner hurled a stone at the complainant following an altercation over previous court testimony, while a co-accused struck him with an axe. The core legal questions before the High Court were the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, the primary statutory penalty applicable, and the criteria for granting bail in hurt cases where the primary penalty is Daman. The High Court observed that the specific seat and locale of the injury attributed to the petitioner was unspecified, placing the hurt under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the primary and mandatory punishment under Section 337-F(v) is Daman, whereas imprisonment as Ta'zir is discretionary, governed by Section 337-N(2). Consequently, pursuant to the scheme of Section 337-Y(2), bail was granted subject to bail bonds and the deposit of tentative Daman.
Questions settled- Whether the primary punishment prescribed under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is mandatory Daman or discretionary imprisonment as Ta'zir?
- Under what circumstances can Ta'zir imprisonment be awarded in hurt cases under Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused charged with an offence under Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be granted bail upon furnishing security or depositing the tentative amount of Daman under the principles of Section 337-Y(2)?
- Mass Nawaz vs Mst. Kai Pari1997 MLD 727 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
- Masood Ur Rehman And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1245 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mashal Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Chief Secretary, N.-1997 PLC (C.S.) 1155 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
- Masal Khan vs District Magistrate, Peshawar and 3 others1997 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order of preventive detention issued by the District Magistrate, Peshawar under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 against the petitioner's cousin. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a writ petition when a representation remedy exists, the definition and scope of 'public order', and whether past criminal acts or pending/decided substantive criminal cases can form the legal basis for preventive detention. The Peshawar High Court held that the constitutional petition is fully maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 as the alternative remedy of representation is not 'adequate' regarding personal liberty. The Court set aside the detention order, ruling that preventive detention cannot be used to punish past actions, nor can it be based on allegations forming the subject of substantive criminal trials where the accused has been released on bail, since an act must affect the public-at-large to prejudice 'public order'.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against an order of preventive detention despite the availability of making a representation to the Provincial Government?
- Can past criminal acts or stale convictions from years prior form a valid legal basis for an order of preventive detention?
- Whether an individual facing substantive criminal charges or already released on bail by a competent court can simultaneously be subjected to preventive detention for the same allegations?
- What constitutes an activity prejudicial to 'public order' under section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960?