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. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Maroof Shah vs Mst. Tasleem Jan and others1997 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-14
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadproof of talbscivil revisionpleadings and evidencediscrepancy in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Mansehra, which had reversed the trial court's dismissal of a pre-emption suit regarding 25 Kanals 17 Marlas of land and granted a decree for possession through pre-emption in favour of the pre-emptor. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad are independent legal requirements that must be separately proved, and whether material discrepancies between the pre-emptor's pleadings and oral evidence concerning the date of knowledge and demand of Talb-i-Muwathibat were fatal to the suit. The High Court held that under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, Talb-i-Muwathibat is a distinct, indispensable condition precedent that cannot be inferred merely from a written notice of Talb-i-Ishhad. Observing significant contradictions between the pre-emptor's pleadings and the testimony of his witnesses regarding when knowledge of the sale was acquired and when the demand was made, the court held that the pre-emptor had failed to establish Talb-i-Muwathibat. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision and set aside the appellate decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad are independent statutory requirements that must be separately and individually proved in a pre-emption suit?
  • Can the performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat be inferred or bypassed merely by producing a notice of Talb-i-Ishhad?
  • Whether material contradictions between the pleadings and oral evidence regarding the date of knowledge and making of Talb-i-Muwathibat render the pre-emption claim fatal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maroof And 3 Others vs Chulam Muhammad And 6 Other1997 CLC 809 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
• Madad Khan vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• M. Moazam Butt vs Razia Bibi and 4 others1997 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-30Read full judgment →
• Libab Khan vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Latifullah and anothers vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 940 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh And 4 Others vs Dr. Peer Muhammad Khan And Another "'1997CLC1114 , · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• Khan Zaman vs The State And Another1997 MLD 2073 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Khalif Dad vs Muhammad Gul And 2 Other1997 CLC 1684 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
• Khalid Aziz vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment1997 PLC (C.S.) 783 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-09Read full judgment →
• Jamshid vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1328 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Jamila Begum and others vs Abdullah Jan and others1997 PLD Peshawar 55 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-25
  dismissal in defaultrestoration of suitlimitation perioddate of hearingcivil revisioncourt readernon-prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a dispute regarding the restoration of a suit for possession by partition, which had been dismissed in default by the trial court. The trial court initially rejected the restoration application as time-barred, but the appellate court set aside this order, allowing restoration upon payment of costs. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the application was governed by Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 and was filed beyond the 30-day limitation period without a formal condonation application. The respondents contended that because the dismissal date was set by the Court Reader rather than the Presiding Officer, it was not a valid date of hearing, thus invoking the three-year limitation period under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court held that a date fixed by a Reader is not a valid date of hearing under Order 9, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the dismissal was a nullity, and the application was timely. The Court affirmed that an act of court shall prejudice no one, dismissing the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a date fixed by the Reader of the Court be treated as a valid date of hearing for the purpose of dismissing a suit for non-prosecution?
  • Does the dismissal of a suit on a date not fixed by the Presiding Officer constitute a nullity in law?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to an application for restoration of a suit dismissed on a date not fixed by the Presiding Officer?
  • Is a formal application for condonation of delay required when the delay is caused by an act of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihsanullah Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 575 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
• Iftakhar Haider And Others vs Muhammad Ismail And Other1997 MLD 712 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Khan vs Khalid Khan And Other1997 CLC 1765 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz and anothers vs Sher Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1090 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sharif Khan vs S.D. M. And 7 Other1997 MLD 152 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Gula Khan vs Special Officer, Income-Tax and others1997 PTD 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Gula Khan vs Special Officer, Income-Tax And OtherPTCL 1997 CL. 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Fateh Khan and others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1997 PLD Peshawar 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-29
  land acquisitionmarket value assessmentsection 4 notificationone year averagecompulsory acquisition chargesWAPDApublic purposedefinition of companyenhancement of compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple regular first appeals and cross-objections arising out of Land Acquisition Award No. 213 of 1993 regarding land acquired for the remodeling of Narai Drain under the Mardan Scarp Project. The owners sought enhancement of compensation, while the Government and WAPDA challenged the enhanced rate and compulsory acquisition charges awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge. The Peshawar High Court addressed two primary questions: whether the market value of the land should be assessed as of the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 or the declaration under Section 6; and whether compulsory acquisition charges should be 15% or 25% under Section 23(2) when land is acquired for WAPDA. The Court held that under Section 23(1) of the Act, market value must strictly be determined as of the date of the Section 4 notification using the preceding one-year average, rather than the Section 6 declaration date. Furthermore, although WAPDA is a body corporate and constitutes a 'company' under Section 3(e), acquisition for WAPDA is deemed a public purpose under Section 13(3) of the WAPDA Act 1958; thus, compulsory acquisition charges were fixed at 15% rather than 25%.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the market value of acquired land must be assessed as of the date of notification under Section 4(1) or declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Whether the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) constitutes a company under Section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • What rate of compulsory acquisition charges under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 applies when land is acquired for a statutory body where the acquisition serves a public purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdur Rehman Khan vs Returning Officer And 6 Other1997 CLC 1123 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdur Rafique vs Inayatullah and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 1946 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
• Gul Wali Khan vs Safdar Salim And 10 Other1997 MLD 3075 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-04
  pre-emption suitrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingsfactum of saleTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-e-IshhadCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's pre-emption suit regarding the sale of land. The core legal question was whether the trial court committed a material irregularity by failing to issue separate findings on every framed issue, specifically regarding Talabs and market value, and whether the appellate court misread evidence. The High Court held that while Order 20, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandates findings on each issue, courts possess the discretion to consolidate issues for convenience, particularly when secondary issues become redundant due to the failure to establish the primary factum of sale. The court affirmed that in the absence of proof of the sale transaction, the secondary issues were rightly not prioritized. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is limited and precludes interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are arbitrary, fanciful, or based on no evidence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as no jurisdictional defect was demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to discuss each issue separately constitute a material irregularity under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court consolidate multiple issues for decision if they are secondary to the primary factum of sale?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Janna T and 2 others vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1020 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan And Others vs Sarkar And Other1997 CLC 434 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary of Forest, Food and Agricultural1997 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. and others vs Mst. Jamshed Bibi and anothers1997 PLD Peshawar 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-06
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuepotentiality of landLocal Commissionerreference courtrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Peshawar High Court resolves a batch of regular first appeals (R.F.A. Nos. 27, 28, and 36 of 1994) arising from land acquisition proceedings in Mansehra. The Provincial Government had acquired land classified in the revenue record as 'Dhaka Darakhatan' for public offices and a circuit house, and the Collector awarded compensation at Rs. 21,253.60 per Kanal. Dissatisfied reference courts under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 adopted conflicting approaches, with one dismissing the objection petition and the other slightly enhancing the compensation. The core legal questions involved the proper criteria for determining land compensation versus market price, the evidentiary value of a Local Commissioner's report, and the relevance of a property's potentiality and location. The High Court held that compensation is distinct from and inherently higher than mere price, that reference courts must act neutrally like arbitrators, and that undisputed Local Commissioner reports and high-potential location features (such as proximity to highways, municipal limits, and commercial/residential buildings) cannot be ignored. The Court set aside the impugned judgments, dismissed the Government's appeal, accepted the landowners' appeals, and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,00,000 per Kanal along with statutory charges and interest.

  Questions settled

  • Is the amount to be paid to an owner under the land acquisition law considered a price or compensation, and are they legally distinct?
  • Does a reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 act as an ordinary civil court bound by technicalities or more like an arbitrator?
  • Can a court legally brush aside an undisputed report submitted by an appointed Local Commissioner regarding the value and potentiality of acquired land?
  • To what extent are building site potentiality and location near highways and municipal limits relevant in determining fair compensation for acquired land?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir and another vs Syed Munawar Hussain Shah and 31997 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mehmood vs The State1997 MLD 2402 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mehmood vs Hukam Khan And Other.1997 CLC 822 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-22Read full judgment →
• Ghilaf Gul vs Commissioner of Income Tax_Wealth Tax, Zone-B, Peshawar and 4 others1997 PTD 849 · Peshawar High Court
  income taxwithholding taxtribal areaArticle 247writ petitiontax deductionbank account
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the legality of income tax deduction under sections 50(2-A) and 50(2-B) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 from the petitioner's bank account situated in a tribal area. The core legal question was whether provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 could be lawfully applied to deduct withholding tax from bank branches located in tribal areas without a directive issued under Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Peshawar High Court held that the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 had not been extended to the tribal areas in accordance with Article 247 of the Constitution, making the impugned tax deductions unconstitutional and without lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared the deductions illegal. The court also noted that the respondent bank had reversed the withholding tax entries and re-credited the deducted amounts to the petitioner's account.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of section 50 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 applicable to bank branches located in tribal areas without an extension under Article 247 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether income tax can be lawfully deducted from bank accounts maintained within tribal areas where the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 has not been extended?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghani Ur Rehman vs Pir Haider Ali Shah And 4 Other1997 CLC 1092 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-22
  election disputevote recountfunctus officioelection commissiongazette notificationreturned candidateconstitutional petitionillegalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court challenged an order of the Election Commission of Pakistan directing a recount of votes under section 39(6)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, following the official notification of the returned candidate. The core legal question was whether the Election Commission retains jurisdiction to order a vote recount after the issuance of the Gazette Notification declaring a candidate returned, or whether it becomes functus officio save for powers under section 103-AA to declare an election void upon proof of grave illegalities. The Court held that once a candidate is officially notified as returned, the Election Commission's general power to order a recount ceases, and it becomes functus officio with respect to mere recounting applications; such matters must thereafter be agitated through an election petition before an Election Tribunal. The Court established that an application merely seeking a recount does not attract the stringent pre-conditions of section 103-AA, which requires a finding of grave illegalities and a declaration that the election is void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Election Commission can order a recount of votes after the issuance of the official Gazette Notification declaring a returned candidate?
  • Does an application seeking merely a recount of votes fall within the ambit of section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a candidate aggrieved by vote counting after the notification of the returned candidate has been published?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Khan And Others vs Niamatullah1997 CLC 477 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
• Faqir Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1453 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-28
  dying declarationcriminal appealmurderappreciation of evidencebenefit of doubtocular testimonychance witnessabscondence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life sentence imposed on the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, specifically the dying declaration and the testimony of the sole eyewitness. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found the dying declaration unreliable, as medical evidence indicated the deceased was in a state of shock and semi-unconscious at the time the statement was allegedly recorded, rendering him incapable of coherent communication. Furthermore, the court identified the eyewitness as a chance witness whose testimony lacked corroboration and contradicted medical findings regarding the number of shots fired. The court reaffirmed that while motive and abscondence are relevant, they serve only as corroborative evidence and cannot sustain a conviction absent reliable primary proof. It emphasized that procedural safeguards for recording dying declarations, though not strictly mandatory, are essential to prevent fabrication. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration form the sole basis of conviction if the declarant's medical condition renders them incapable of making a coherent statement?
  • Does the failure to follow procedural rules for recording a dying declaration render the statement unreliable?
  • Can motive and abscondence sustain a criminal conviction in the absence of reliable primary evidence?
  • Is the testimony of a related witness who lacks a plausible explanation for their presence at the scene sufficient to support a conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad and others vs Mehrab Shah and others1997 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-29
  right of appealacquittal appealprivate complainantSpecial CourtSuppression of Terrorist Activities Actstatutory interpretationsubstantive rightcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a consolidated batch of appeals filed by private complainants against orders of acquittal passed by Special Courts under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The core legal question addressed by the Peshawar High Court is whether a private complainant has a right to file an appeal against an acquittal under section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, in pari materia with section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that a right of appeal is a creature of statute and a substantive right, which cannot be presumed or read into a special enactment through judicial interpretation when it is not expressly provided. Since section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 explicitly limits the right of appeal to the convict or the Provincial Government, private complainants possess no such right. Consequently, all appeals by private complainants were dismissed as not maintainable, while the Court recommended legislative amendment to align the special statute with Islamic principles and general criminal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private complainant has a right of appeal against an acquittal under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975?
  • Is a right of appeal considered a matter of procedure or a substantive right created by statute?
  • Can courts read a right of appeal into a special enactment by interpretation when it is expressly omitted by the Legislature?
  • Do the words 'passed by any Court' in section 417(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include Special Courts created under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Employees Old Age Benefit Institution And 2 Others vs Javed Iqbal And 14 Other1997 CLC 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-09
  specific performancerejection of plaintland acquisitionconstitutional petitionestoppelcivil procedurewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the rejection of a plaint in a suit for specific performance filed by the Employees' Old-Age Benefit Institution. The respondents successfully moved the Senior Civil Judge to reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the Institution had initiated parallel land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Simultaneously, the respondents persuaded the Commissioner to halt those acquisition proceedings, citing the pending civil litigation. The High Court addressed whether a plaint could be rejected when the defendant creates a situation where both forums refuse to hear the plaintiff. The Court held that the rejection of the plaint and the stay of acquisition proceedings were illegal, as the respondents adopted contradictory positions to frustrate the litigation. The Court emphasized that a plaint should not be rejected in haste without factual investigation, and that statutory acquisition proceedings cannot be arbitrarily suspended. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, directed the restoration of the civil suit, and ordered the resumption of acquisition proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the defendant has successfully caused the suspension of parallel proceedings?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance automatically invalidate land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is a party estopped from seeking the rejection of a plaint on the grounds of pending acquisition proceedings if they have simultaneously caused those acquisition proceedings to be stayed?
  • Under what circumstances should a court refrain from rejecting a plaint in haste under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zafar Ali Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Chairman,Central1997 PTD 1829 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-23
  writ jurisdictionalternative remedyincome tax assessmentunexplained investmentreopening of assessmentshow-cause noticetax evasion
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, regarding an alleged unexplained investment in property. The petitioner contended that the reopening of the assessment was based merely on a change of opinion and that the investment was justified by the sale of another asset. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash tax assessment proceedings when the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available, and whether the department was justified in reopening the assessment. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedies of appeal, revision, and reference provided under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The Court affirmed the principle that High Courts should generally refrain from interfering in tax assessment proceedings via writ jurisdiction when adequate alternative remedies are available under the governing statute, particularly where factual disputes regarding unexplained income and the validity of financial transactions require administrative adjudication rather than judicial intervention at the preliminary stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction to quash tax assessment proceedings when alternative statutory remedies are available?
  • Does the reopening of an income tax assessment based on newly disclosed information constitute a mere change of opinion?
  • Is an unexplained investment in property considered taxable income under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sher Muhammad vs Director-General, Health Services, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 940 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sher Muhammad vs Director-General, Health Services, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar And 2 Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 940 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
• Dr. Karim Shah, S.M.O. School, Health Services, D.I. Khan And Another vs Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Collector, D.I. Khan And 8 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 242 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aurangzeb and others vs Government of N.-W.F.P. and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 9 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aurangzeb And Other vs Government of N.-W.F.P. And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 9 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Waheed And Others vs Commissioner/Settlement1997 MLD 2955 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-09Read full judgment →
• Chain Muhammad And Another vs Collector, Land Acquisition Ghazi1997 MLD 3192 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Barat Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1228 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
• Baqir Ali And Others vs The State And Another1997 MLD 1615 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan And Another vs Mst. Yasmeen Begum1997 MLD 1830 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Bakht Modin vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• Bakhatzada vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 871 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Bahishti Khan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1316 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khan vs The STATEsPLD-1997 Peshawar 13 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-28Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan vs Arsala Khan And Other1997 CLC 431 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs Muhammad Iqbal And 2 Other1997 MLD 1226 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-02Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1927 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-07-02
  bail bond forfeituresurety liabilityquantum of penaltyabscondence of accusedcriminal revisionjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan, which directed the petitioners to forfeit their bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 each due to the abscondence of the accused, for whom they stood surety. The petitioners argued that the forfeiture amount was excessively harsh, noting that they acted out of humanitarian grounds and familial relationship rather than financial gain, and that the accused's absence was not due to their connivance. The core legal question was the appropriate quantum of forfeiture for bail bonds when the accused absconds. The Court held that while the sureties were liable for the forfeiture, the trial court had acted with undue severity. Relying on the principle established in Dildar v. The State, the Court emphasized that a balance must be struck between undue leniency and undue severity, considering factors such as the surety's financial status, lack of connivance, and the absence of financial interest. Consequently, the Court reduced the forfeiture amount to 1/10th of the original bond amount, setting it at Rs. 10,000 for each petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • What factors should a court consider when determining the quantum of forfeiture for a bail bond?
  • Is a surety liable for the full amount of a bail bond if the accused absconds without the surety's connivance?
  • Does a familial relationship between the surety and the accused mitigate the penalty for bond forfeiture?
  • Must a court balance the principles of leniency and severity when ordering the forfeiture of bail bonds?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Anjum Shah vs Sar Anjum1997 CLC 425 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Anjam Shah vs Sar Anjam1997 MLD 3000 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
• Akmal vs The State1997 MLD 1257 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zaman and anothers vs Bilqiaz Khan and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1957 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-19Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao vs Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari and others1997 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-01-30
  dissolution of provincial assemblyhorse-tradingArticle 112(2)(b)constitutional machinerymala fidede facto doctrineprovincial autonomyjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns two writ petitions challenging the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly of the North-West Frontier Province by the Governor under Article 112(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The petitioners alleged that the dissolution was mala fide, lacked sufficient material, and that the Governor had not properly entered office. The core legal questions were whether the Governor’s opinion regarding the breakdown of constitutional machinery was objectively formed and whether the grounds cited, particularly "horse-trading," justified the dissolution. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the dissolution was constitutionally valid. The Court ruled that "horse-trading" is a pernicious practice that destroys the representative character of an assembly and is, by itself, a sufficient ground for dissolution. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Governor’s opinion, based on material showing corruption, nepotism, and administrative breakdown, was not subject to judicial interference regarding the adequacy of time or material, provided a nexus existed. The judgment reinforces the principle that the judiciary will not substitute its opinion for the Governor's when constitutional preconditions are met.

  Questions settled

  • Is 'horse-trading' a sufficient ground for the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly under Article 112(2)(b) of the Constitution?
  • Does a Chief Justice acting as Governor cease to be the Chief Justice, thereby requiring a fresh oath of office?
  • Can the validity of a Governor's action be challenged on the basis of the time taken to form an opinion regarding the dissolution of an assembly?
  • Are allegations of corruption and nepotism independently sufficient to warrant the dissolution of a Provincial Assembly?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Polypropylene Products Limited. vs The Federation Of Pakistan, Through Its Secretary Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad And OtherPTCL 1997 CL. 56 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1274 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-02
  dying declarationretracted confessionmurder convictionevidentiary corroborationdeath sentenceabscondencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on a dying declaration and a retracted judicial confession. The core legal questions concerned the evidentiary value of these pieces of evidence in the absence of independent corroboration and the impact of doubtful identification. The Peshawar High Court held that the dying declaration was unreliable, noting the dark conditions of the occurrence, the lack of identification evidence, and the medical evidence suggesting the deceased was in shock or coma, rendering him incapable of making a coherent statement. Regarding the retracted confession, the Court held that it lacked material corroboration, and the investigating officer failed to verify the alleged motive. The Court affirmed the principle that a retracted confession requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction and that abscondence, per se, is insufficient for conviction without other strong evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, declined to confirm the death sentence, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dying declaration sufficient to sustain a conviction if there is doubt regarding the identity of the assailant and the physical condition of the deceased?
  • Can a conviction be based on a retracted confession without independent corroboration in material particulars?
  • Does the failure to record a memorandum under Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically invalidate a confession?
  • Is the fact of abscondence sufficient, by itself, to sustain a conviction for murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Jan Khan vs Saifur Rehman Khan and 6 others1997 P Cr. L J 973 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sabir Alias Sabir vs The State1997 MLD 2297 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P., Peshawar And 2 Others1997 PLC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 2 others1997 PLC 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• Asif vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 135 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Government of N.W.F.P.1997 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Government of N.-W.F.P.1997 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Badshah vs Deputy Commissioner and anothers1997 PLD Peshawar 132 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-31
  Constitutional jurisdictionTribal AreasRewajFundamental rightsHigh Court jurisdictionArticle 247FATA
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a resident of the Federally Administered Tribal Area, challenged a local custom ('Rewaj') that permitted the sale of his land to satisfy a relative's debt. He sought to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973, arguing that fundamental rights should prevail over the exclusionary provisions of Article 247(7). The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute involving immovable property situated within the Tribal Area where both parties are residents of that area. The Court dismissed the petition, holding it not maintainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Qaum Bangash v. Qaum Tori, the Court affirmed that Article 247(7) of the Constitution of 1973 explicitly excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters 'in relation to a tribal area.' Since the property and parties were within the Tribal Area, the matter fell squarely within this exclusion. The Court clarified that the petitioner's reliance on Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan was misplaced, as that case involved distinct circumstances and the later Qaum Bangash ruling established the binding precedent regarding jurisdictional bars in Tribal Areas.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 to adjudicate disputes concerning immovable property situated in the Tribal Areas?
  • Does Article 247(7) of the Constitution of 1973 exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters relating to the Tribal Areas where the parties are residents of such areas?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court in relation to Tribal Areas controlled by the exclusionary provisions of Article 247(7) of the Constitution of 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zawar Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1175 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P.1996 MLD 833 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs Government of N.W. F. P.1996 MLD 833 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs Government of N.-W.F.P. , .1996 PLC (C.S.) 776 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zar Wali vs Muhammad Ilyas1996 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
• Zamin Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 924 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1190 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Peshawar 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 606 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah and 11 others vs Ali Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1423 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah And 11 Others vs Ali Khan And Another1996 MLD 1423 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Zahid Saleem vs Zainulabideen and another1995 P Cr. L J 955 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-27Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Jan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1466 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Yar Baz Khan vs Lal Nawaz1996 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-01
  general power of attorneygift deedsale deeddelivery of possessionfraudulent alienationburden of proofcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioners' suit for a declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners sought to invalidate a general power of attorney, a registered gift deed in favour of the attorney's wife, and a registered sale-deed in favour of another respondent, alleging fraud, lack of consideration, and absence of delivery of possession. The core legal questions involved whether an attorney can execute a gift or sale of the principal's property in favour of his own family or third parties without explicit authority, consideration, and delivery of possession, and whether concealment of such transactions until after the principal's death vitiates them. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts committed material irregularity and non-reading of evidence by ignoring that gifts and sales executed by an attorney must be proved by the beneficiary, accompanied by delivery of possession, and supported by valid consideration, and that an attorney cannot gift property based on self-assumed love and affection. The revision petition was accepted and the suit decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an attorney can execute a gift of the principal's property in favour of his own wife based on love and affection?
  • Is delivery of possession a mandatory prerequisite for the validity of a gift under property law?
  • What are the essential legal requirements for a valid sale of immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does the registration of a deed by itself constitute sufficient proof of consideration and genuine transfer when challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• XEN, Highway Division, Abbottabad and anothers vs Habiburrahman1996 CLC 279 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-18
  temporary injunctioncontract cancellationirreparable lossbalance of conveniencepublic dutiesrevision jurisdictiondiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent-plaintiff, a contractor, was awarded a contract for road construction by the Highway Division. Following the cancellation of the contract by the petitioners due to non-completion within the stipulated time, the respondent filed a suit and sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Department from re-tendering the work. While the Trial Court dismissed the injunction application, the Additional District Judge granted the relief on appeal. The petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the appellate court erred in granting the injunction. The Court reasoned that the contract was rescinded prior to the suit, and the respondent's potential loss was purely monetary, thus failing the test of irreparable loss. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that restraining a government department from performing public duties is barred under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Trial Court's dismissal of the injunction, holding that discretionary relief cannot be granted where the balance of convenience does not favor the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction to restrain a government department from re-tendering a contract after the original contract has been rescinded?
  • Does the potential for monetary compensation for work done constitute irreparable loss justifying an injunction?
  • Is a court permitted to restrain a government department from performing its public duties under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Zaman vs The State and anothers1996 P Cr. L J 722 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-25Read full judgment →
• Wareshmin Khan vs Umar Daraz Khan and others1996 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-20
  amendment of pleadingswritten statementcivil revisionsubstantial justiceadverse possessionestoppelmultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a dispute over water irrigation rights. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit, and while the defendant's appeal was pending, the defendant sought to amend their written statement to include pleas of adverse possession and estoppel. The lower appellate court rejected this application, citing that the defendant was attempting to introduce a new case and that the pleas were inconsistent with prior pleadings. The Peshawar High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, examined the scope of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the power to allow amendments is discretionary but must be exercised liberally to advance substantial justice, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and preserve the rights of litigants, provided the application is not mala fide. The Court determined that the amendment should be allowed to ensure the real controversy is adjudicated, subject to the plaintiffs' right to file a replication and lead further evidence. Consequently, the revision was accepted, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be permitted to amend their written statement at the appellate stage?
  • What are the judicial principles governing the court's discretion to allow the amendment of pleadings?
  • Should an amendment to a written statement be refused solely because it introduces a new plea of adverse possession or estoppel?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Zulqadar and 13 others1996 PLD Peshawar 11 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 835 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• University of Peshawar through ViceChancellor, University of Peshawar1996 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Umer Ali vs The State and others1996 P Cr. L J 1831 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Khan and others1996 P Cr. L J 1555 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mst. Zuhra Bibi and another1996 P Cr. L J 546 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-28Read full judgment →
• Tawiz Khan vs Malang Khan and 6 others1996 P Cr. L J 224 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Tariq Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1580 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Mst. Zaitooney1996 MLD 1270 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Khan vs Yaqoob and 5 others1996 MLD 1671 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Khan vs Yaqoob And 5 Other1996 MLD 1671 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Shah Jehan Shah and 22 others vs Fazalurrehman and 45 others1996 CLC 1572 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-06
  temporary injunctioncivil revisionprocedural lawretrospective operationstatutory limitationstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition concerns the validity of a temporary injunction order following the enactment of the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act, 1994. The plaintiffs had obtained a temporary injunction regarding land compensation and alienation in 1993, which was partially upheld on appeal. The petitioners argued that under the newly introduced Rule 2(b) of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the injunction had lapsed due to the expiration of the six-month statutory limit without extension. The Peshawar High Court held that the amendment to the procedural law was retrospective in nature. Consequently, the temporary injunction granted in 1993 ceased to exist by operation of law upon the expiration of the specified period without a formal extension. The Court established that under Order 39, Rule 2(b), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, trial courts possess the power, either suo motu or upon application, to extend injunctions, provided they hear the parties and record reasons. The petition was accepted, and the trial court was directed to rehear the parties regarding the injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to Order 39, Rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the duration of temporary injunctions apply retrospectively?
  • Does a temporary injunction automatically cease to exist if it exceeds the six-month period without a formal extension by the court?
  • Can a trial court exercise the power to extend a temporary injunction suo motu under Order 39, Rule 2(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Rehman Shah and 25 others vs Station House Officer, Police Station City, Mansehra and another1996 P Cr. L J 483 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-26
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionabuse of processcognizance of offencewritten complaintSection 144 Cr.P.C.Section 188 P.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners, part of a religious procession, were charged by the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) under Sections 427, 341, 188, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly violating an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and causing property damage. The core legal question was whether a court could take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a police report without a formal written complaint from the public servant who issued the prohibitory order. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process because Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates that cognizance of such offences requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant. The Court established that despite amendments making Section 188 cognizable by police, the procedural requirement for a written complaint under Section 195 remains mandatory, rendering the current proceedings invalid and subject to quashment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based solely on a police report?
  • Does the amendment making Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a cognizable offence override the requirement for a written complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it permissible for a police officer who is the complainant in a case to also act as the investigating officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Eraj Zaman Khan and another vs The Collector, Land1996 CLC 287 · Peshawar High Court
  land acquisitionmarket valuesuperstructure compensationlocal commissioner reportcompulsory acquisitionvaluation of propertyreferee court
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal challenged a judgment of the District Judge/Judge Land Acquisition, which partially enhanced compensation for acquired land but rejected the appellants' claim regarding the valuation of the superstructure. The core legal question was whether the compensation for the acquired building should be determined based on rigid departmental schedule rates or by assessing the true market value as mandated by the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that the assessing authority is not bound by departmental schedule rates but must determine the market value that a willing vendor would expect from a willing purchaser. It found that the report of the court-appointed Local Commissioners, who conducted a detailed, item-wise assessment of the building, was more reliable than the partial estimates provided by the acquiring department. The Court established that 'land' under the Act includes superstructures and fixtures, and compensation must reflect the actual market value of the property, which can be determined through expert valuation, comparable transactions, or reproduction cost minus depreciation, rather than arbitrary departmental rates.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'land' under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 include superstructures and fixtures attached to the earth?
  • Is the assessing authority under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 bound by departmental schedule rates when determining the market value of acquired property?
  • What are the recognized methods for determining the market value of acquired property when direct comparable transactions are not available?
  • Can the valuation report of a court-appointed Local Commissioner be disregarded in favor of estimates prepared by the acquiring department?
  Read full judgment →