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.

• Khanan Khan vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar And 2 Other1996 MLD 1428 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
• Jazib Khan And 3 Others vs The State1996 MLD 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Janas Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 958 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Jalil Badshah and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 350 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
• Islam Shah vs The District Council, Charsadda through its Chairman1996 MLD 824 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Islam Shah vs The District Council, Charsadda Through Its Chairman1996 MLD 824 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1811 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-12
  narcoticsrecovery witnessinvestigating officercriminal appealprosecution burdenfair trialSection 103 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the possession of 15 grams of heroin. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the impact of failing to associate independent public witnesses during a recovery in a public place, and the legality of the complainant acting as the investigating officer. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting that the recovery process violated mandatory provisions of law regarding independent witnesses and that the dual role of the complainant as the investigating officer rendered the investigation biased and unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the prosecution must succeed on its own merits rather than the weakness of the defense. The key principles laid down are that the failure to associate independent witnesses in a public recovery violates Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that a complainant cannot legally act as the investigating officer in the same case, as such a practice undermines the fairness of the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent public witnesses during a recovery in a public place violate Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a complainant in a criminal case also act as the investigating officer?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused if the defense plea is not proven?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to produce independent witnesses despite their availability at the scene of the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad and another vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 719 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs Safdar and 7 others1996 MLD 932 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs Safdar And 7 Other1996 MLD 932 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad Khan vs The Commissioner, D.I. Khan and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 212 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ullah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1548 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah Khan vs Abdul Majid and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 1475 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Bilal vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 951 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Hashim Khan and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1849 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Hashim Khan And Another vs The State1996 MLD 1849 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Harifullah vs Fazale Rahim and 5 others1996 MLD 1107 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Harifullah vs Fazale Rahim And 5 Other1996 MLD 1107 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Hamid Gul vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 577 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Zarbadshah and 2 others vs Muhammad Nawaz Khan1996 CLC 1457 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Salim Khan and 2 others vs Commissioner, F.C.R. Kohat Division, Kohat and 2 others1996 CLC 1702 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-16
  Tribal AreaFCRArticle 247territorial jurisdictionmaintainabilityKurram Agencywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged an order of the Commissioner, F.C.R. Kohat Division passed in a revision petition arising from a civil suit regarding sale mutations in Tootici, Kurram Agency. The petitioners contended that the Peshawar High Court possessed jurisdiction to review the impugned order because the Commissioner's office was located in Kohat Division, within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, even though the parties resided in and the disputed land was situated within a Tribal Area. The High Court rejected this contention and dismissed the writ petition in limine for lack of maintainability. The court held that Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 explicitly bars the High Court from exercising jurisdiction in relation to a Tribal Area. The court affirmed that the administrative location of an authority's office within a settled area does not sever the dispute's fundamental connection with the Tribal Area or displace the constitutional exclusion of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to issue writs in relation to disputes concerning property situated in a Tribal Area?
  • Does the location of an administrative authority's office in a settled area confer jurisdiction on the High Court over a dispute originating in a Tribal Area under Article 247(7) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Musa Khan vs Mst. Bakht Mina And Other1996 MLD 1420 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Mumraiz Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P.1996 MLD 1595 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Mumraiz Khan vs Government of N.W. F. P.1996 MLD 1595 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sharif vs Haji Muhammad Yousaf and 4 others1996 MLD 1254 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sharif vs Haji Muhammad Yousaf And 4 Other1996 MLD 1254 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Haji M USA Khan vs Mst. Bakht Mina and others1996 MLD 1420 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Khalil vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1183 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-17
  adulterated drugDrugs Act 1976criminal liability of company directorsGovernment Analyst reportDrug Inspector authoritystatutory interpretationsubstandard drugs
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants, who were directors and managers of a pharmaceutical company, under section 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976, for selling substandard drugs. The core legal questions were whether the presence of particles and fibers in an injection constitutes 'adulteration' under the Act, whether the Government Analyst's report was admissible without proper notification of appointment, whether the Drug Inspector had the authority to inspect the premises, and whether company officials could be convicted without the company itself being impleaded as an accused. The Court held that the presence of particles and fibers, without evidence of being injurious to health or fitting the statutory definition of adulteration, does not constitute an offence. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's case fatally flawed due to the lack of official notifications appointing the Government Analyst and the Drug Inspector. Crucially, the Court held that under section 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976, employees of a company cannot be held criminally liable unless the company itself is impleaded as an accused. The convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of particles and fibers in a drug injection constitute 'adulteration' under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Can employees of a company be held criminally liable under the Drugs Act, 1976, if the company itself is not impleaded as an accused?
  • Is a Government Analyst's report admissible in evidence if no notification of their appointment has been issued under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  • Does a Drug Inspector have the authority to inspect premises if no notification defining their jurisdiction has been issued under the Drugs Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 848 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz vs Gul Bazar and anothers1996 MLD 1406 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Nawaz vs Gul Bazar And Another1996 MLD 1406 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Gujar Khan and 3 others vs Government of N.W.F.P. And 16 others1996 CLC 1447 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Peshawar and 3 others vs Syed Shah Jehan Shah and 23 others1996 CLC 321 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of N.-W.F.P. vs Gohar Ali and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 757 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique vs Collector Land Acquisition and others1996 MLD 1399 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique vs Collector Land Acquisition And Other1996 MLD 1399 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique and others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1996 MLD 1430 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Siddique And Others vs Government of N.W F,P. And Other1996 MLD 1430 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir vs Muhammad Khan and 2 others1996 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Haroon Khan and others1996 CLC 1517 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-07
  pre-emptionrejection of plaintlimitationTalabsnotice of intention to sellregistered sale-deedcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from the dismissal of a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner against a registered sale-deed, where the lower courts rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation. The core legal questions involved the computation of limitation for pre-emption suits, the necessity of public notices under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987, and the mandatory requirements of making pre-emption demands ('Talabs'). The Peshawar High Court held that while the absence of mandatory statutory notices under sections 12 and 32 of the Act generally requires evidence to determine limitation and precludes summary rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, the revision petition must still fail because the plaintiff completely omitted essential factual pleadings regarding the date of knowledge and the proper making of 'Talb-i-Muwathibat' under section 13. The court laid down the principle that failure to plead mandatory pre-emption demands in the plaint renders a remand futile, resulting in the dismissal of the petition while maintaining the lower courts' dismissal on alternative grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a pre-emption suit can be summarily dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when mandatory notices under sections 12 and 32 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1987 have not been issued?
  • Is a pre-emption suit liable to be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to plead the specific date of knowledge and the manner of making Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint?
  • Does the period of limitation for a pre-emption suit challenging a registered sale-deed commence from the date of registration or from the date of knowledge when statutory notices are omitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qasim vs Nazir Ahmad and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 1187 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-11
  judicial discretioncognizance of offencequashment of FIRcivil and criminal proceedingsmagisterial powerspolice investigationSection 169 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal petitions challenging a Magistrate's order dated 24-10-1993, which released an accused under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, upon the submission of a police challan. The core legal questions were whether a Magistrate can mechanically release an accused under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, upon police request without applying judicial mind, and whether an F.I.R. should be quashed solely because civil proceedings are pending between the parties. The Court held that the Magistrate’s order was legally flawed because it lacked judicial scrutiny and merely acted as a 'Yes Man' to the police, failing to apply his mind to the merits of the case. Furthermore, the Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be stifled merely due to the pendency of civil litigation, as there is no legal bar to simultaneous proceedings. The impugned order was quashed, and the case was remitted for proper judicial determination. The principle established is that a Magistrate must exercise independent judicial discretion when taking cognizance of a case and cannot mechanically endorse police requests for release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate release an accused under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, merely upon the request of the police without applying judicial mind?
  • Does the pendency of civil proceedings between the parties constitute a valid ground for the quashment of an F.I.R.?
  • Is it legally permissible for civil and criminal proceedings to continue simultaneously regarding the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Gogin and others1996 P Cr. L J 1560 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Khan vs Abdul Rashid and anothers1996 MLD 367 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Khan vs Abdul Rashid And Another1996 MLD 367 · Peshawar High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohyuddin vs Mst. Firdous Jan and 2 others1996 CLC 272 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hazrat vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1177 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Shah vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 194 · Peshawar High Court · 1990-12-11Read full judgment →
• Ghani-Ur-Rehman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 347 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-21
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) OrderDangerous Drugs Acttransport of Charasrule of lesser punishmentdriver versus owner
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application for post-arrest bail arising from a case registered under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and section 8/14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930, wherein a heavy quantity of Charas was recovered from a truck driven by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether a truck driver accused of transporting narcotics, where the owner/beneficiary has absconded and the offence carries varying punishments across statutes, is entitled to bail. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner, being merely a driver who did not attempt to escape and whose case is distinct from the absconding owner or prime beneficiary, is entitled to the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is charged under two different statutes providing different punishments, the benefit of the statute carrying lesser punishment should be considered for bail, and that paid servants or drivers are generally not at par with the owners of smuggled or illicit goods for the purpose of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged under two different statutes providing different punishments is entitled to have the statute carrying lesser punishment considered for the purpose of bail?
  • Is a truck driver transporting narcotics entitled to bail on the ground that his role is not at par with the absconding owner or beneficiary of the illicit goods?
  • Does the absence of an attempt to escape by a driver during the recovery of narcotics weigh in favour of granting post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Forest Department and others vs Muhammad Jan Khan1996 CLC 1190 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-25
  civil revisionOrder 8 Rule 10 CPCimpleadment of statesection 79 CPCsection 115 CPCcondonation of delayremandmisjoinder of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  Civil revision filed by the Forest Department against the dismissal of its appeal as time-barred. The respondent had filed a declaratory suit regarding 95 Sheesham trees against the Divisional Forest Officer and Executive Engineer rather than the Provincial Government. Due to the failure of the defendants to submit a written statement, the trial court passed a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Subsequent applications and appeals by the department were dismissed due to gross negligence and delay. Upon exercising suo motu powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the High Court held that the suit was bad in law for failing to properly implead the Provincial Government through its respective Secretaries pursuant to Sections 79(b) and 80(b) and Order XXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court set aside the lower courts' decrees and remanded the matter to the trial court for amendment of the plaint and impleadment of the proper state authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil suit claiming government property competent if filed directly against departmental officers rather than the Provincial Government through its competent Secretaries?
  • Can the High Court exercise suo motu revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside decrees passed against improper parties despite procedural delays by the defendant?
  • What is the consequence of failing to comply with Section 79 and Order XXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when suing government entities?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Mst. Amir Jan and 4 others1996 MLD 235 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Mst. Amir Jan And 4 Other1996 MLD 235 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Faizullah Khan vs Wakeel Khan and others1996 MLD 1855 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Faizullah Khan vs Wakeel Khan And Other1996 MLD 1855 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shah vs The State1906 P Cr. L J 1359 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Atta Muhammad Khanzada vs Muhammad Sherin1996 CLC 1440 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Dilbar Khan vs Said Akbar1996 CLC 1178 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Dawa Jan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 704 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-17
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailnarcotics offencemandatory bailtrial delayCode of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1994
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner, charged under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 for transporting narcotics, sought bail after being detained for over one year without the conclusion of his trial. The core legal question was whether the time spent by the accused pursuing successive bail applications should be excluded from the calculation of the statutory period required for mandatory bail due to trial delay. The Court held that the application was premature. It determined that the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1994, specifically the phrase 'in exercise of any right or privilege under any law for the time being in force' within the third proviso, mandates that time consumed by an accused in pursuing bail applications must be deducted from the statutory period. Consequently, the Court established that such delays, being attributable to the accused's exercise of legal rights, do not count toward the statutory detention period.

  Questions settled

  • Does the time spent by an accused in pursuing bail applications count towards the statutory period of detention for the purpose of seeking bail on the grounds of trial delay?
  • How does the phrase 'in exercise of any right or privilege under any law for the time being in force' in the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the calculation of statutory delay?
  • Is an accused entitled to statutory bail if the total period of detention exceeds one year, even if that period includes time spent litigating previous bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad vs Qazi Muhammad Hayat and 11 other1996 CLC 1705 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-03
  constitutional petitionejectment petitionrelationship of landlord and tenantdeposit of rentinterlocutory orderstriking off defenceappellate jurisdictionvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge the order of the Additional District Judge, Peshawar, which had reversed the Rent Controller's order recalling an earlier direction for the petitioner to deposit rent arrears and monthly rent. The core issues were whether the Rent Controller had the power to modify or recall its own invalid interlocutory order when the relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed, and whether such an interlocutory order was appealable before the District Judge. The Peshawar High Court held that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, the Rent Controller must first determine that relationship before ordering the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the N.-W.F.P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. Furthermore, the court held that interlocutory orders of the Rent Controller are not appealable under Section 15 of the Ordinance. Consequently, the appellate order was declared without jurisdiction and void ab initio, and the writ petition was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller order the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the N.-W.F.P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 before determining the disputed relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to modify, alter, or recall its own invalid interlocutory order?
  • Is an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller regarding the deposit of rent appealable under Section 15 of the N.-W.F.P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector, Land Acquisition, Nowshera and others vs Abdur Rashid1996 CLC 1193 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-27
  land acquisitionmarket valuepotential valuecompensation assessmentcompulsory acquisitionevidence of value
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two cross-appeals arising from a judgment of the Acquisition Judge, who had enhanced the compensation for land acquired for the University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar. The core legal question was whether the compensation determined by the Collector was sufficient, or if the potential commercial value of the land justified further enhancement. The Court held that the Acquisition Judge correctly enhanced the compensation based on the potential value of the land, noting that the objectors' evidence regarding the land's location and potential for commercial use remained unrebutted. The Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the lower court's valuation while rejecting the objectors' request for a further increase. The key principles laid down are that compensation for acquired land must account for its 'potential value'—the best use to which the land is reasonably capable of being put in the future—rather than being restricted solely to its current use or the date of the initial notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

  Questions settled

  • Is the determination of market value for acquired land limited to its current use at the time of the Section 4 notification?
  • Can oral testimony be relied upon to establish the market value of acquired land in the absence of documentary evidence?
  • Are the factors listed in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 exhaustive for determining compensation?
  • Does the potential future use of land constitute a relevant factor in assessing its market value for acquisition purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 711 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Bakhtiar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1368 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Bakht Zamin vs Said Majid1996 CLC 1805 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-28
  Marz-ul-Mautgift deedHibarevision petitionburden of proofIslamic law of inheritanceapprehension of death
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had declared a gift deed void on the grounds of Marz-ul-Maut (death-illness). The core legal question was whether the donor, at the time of executing the gift, suffered from a malady inducing an apprehension of death that eventually caused his demise. The High Court held that the gift deed was valid, finding that the lower courts had misread the evidence. The Court established that Marz-ul-Maut is not established merely by old age, prolonged illness, or incontinence; rather, it requires proof that the donor suffered from a specific disease causing a reasonable apprehension of imminent death, which became the immediate cause of death. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that allegations of fraud or undue influence not pleaded in the original plaint cannot be considered. As the plaintiff failed to provide medical or oral evidence to substantiate the claim of Marz-ul-Maut or forgery, the gift deed was upheld, and the suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential criteria to establish the doctrine of Marz-ul-Maut in the context of a gift?
  • Does old age or general illness alone constitute Marz-ul-Maut for the purpose of invalidating a gift?
  • Can a court entertain allegations of fraud or undue influence that were not pleaded in the original plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Bakht Karam and 3 others vs Fazal Karim1996 CLC 1522 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Badar Zaman vs Sultan1996 CLC 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-15
  revision petitionburden of proofleasehold rightspossession suitappreciation of evidenceconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from a judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Abbottabad, which dismissed appeals filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 against a trial court judgment regarding possession and recovery of rent/damages. The core legal question concerned whether the plaintiff had successfully discharged the burden of proof to establish his title and claim over the disputed property based on conflicting and self-contradictory evidence regarding a disputed transaction and leasehold rights. The Peshawar High Court held that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own evidence, and having failed to substantiate his claim through cogent, reliable evidence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff carries the heavy onus to prove all facts constituting their asserted right or liability, and where the evidence is self-contradictory, doubtful, or where a relied-upon deed lacks credibility and proper registration, the suit must fail in favour of the defendant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff succeed on the shortcomings of the defendant's case without discharging the initial burden of proof?
  • What is the legal effect of self-contradictory and uncorroborated oral testimony in establishing a disputed property transaction?
  • Does an unregistered and unadmissible deed carry evidentiary value when the execution itself is doubtful and disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Azizurrehman vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Local1996 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-05
  revisional jurisdictionbar of jurisdictionpublic propertyremoval of encroachmentreturn of plaintlease expirationunauthorized occupant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dismissing the petition in limine against an appellate order which had set aside a trial court decree and ordered the return of plaints for presentation before the proper forum. The core legal question involved whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute concerning public property leases and eviction notices under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977, and the scope of revisional interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Peshawar High Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction is expressly barred by section 11 of the 1977 Act, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the Tribunal constituted thereunder. The ratio decidendi is that where a special statute bars civil court jurisdiction and creates a specialized tribunal for public property disputes, civil suits are not maintainable, and an appellate court acts lawfully by ordering the return of the plaint. Furthermore, section 115 C.P.C. is confined to jurisdictional errors and does not permit interference with mere erroneous decisions of law or fact unless grave injustice or jurisdictional defect is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit a High Court to interfere with erroneous conclusions of fact or law that do not involve a question of jurisdiction?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred in relation to disputes concerning public property leases under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1977?
  • Does a Tribunal constituted under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1977 have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding public property lease determinations?
  Read full judgment →
• Atlas Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2015 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
• Ashraf vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1381 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Arif Hussain vs Abdul Qayyum Khan and others1996 CLC 902 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-26
  pre-emptiongift mutationsham transactionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadsuperior right of pre-emptionco-sharer
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged an appellate court judgment that dismissed the plaintiff’s pre-emption suit regarding land transferred via a gift mutation. The core legal questions were whether the transaction, disguised as a gift, constituted a sale subject to pre-emption, and whether the plaintiff had satisfied the requirements of Talb-i-Muwathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad. The High Court held that the transaction was a sale, noting the lack of relationship between the donor and donee, the donor's ignorance of the transaction, and the absence of physical possession by the donee. The Court ruled that these circumstances, combined with the subsequent rapid alienation of the property, indicated a sham gift intended to defeat pre-emption rights. Furthermore, the Court found the plaintiff’s Talb-i-Muwathibat was timely and valid, as the law requires only an expression of intent to pre-empt, not specific terminology. Consequently, the appellate judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff was restored. The principle established is that courts may look behind the facade of a gift to determine the true nature of a transaction for pre-emption purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transaction labeled as a gift be treated as a sale for the purposes of pre-emption?
  • What constitutes sufficient compliance with the requirement of Talb-i-Muwathibat under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987?
  • Does the lack of physical possession by a donee support the finding that a gift is a sham transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 703 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain and another vs Mst. Shagufta and 2 others1996 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-08-29
  dowerNikahnamapublic documentNikah RegistrarHiba-bil-Ewazcompulsory registrationimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute between a husband and wife regarding the fixation and payment of dower involving both movable and immovable property. The trial and appellate courts concurrently decreed the wife's claim based on the entries in the Nikahnama. The husband challenged these decisions, disputing his signature and arguing that the transfer of immovable property via an unregistered Nikahnama was invalid under the Registration Act. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a Nikahnama is a public document executed by a public officer (the Nikah Registrar) under Section 5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, carrying a presumption of truth. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a Nikahnama recording the transfer of immovable property in lieu of dower does not require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908. Such a transaction is in the nature of Hiba-bil-Ewaz, and the Nikahnama merely acts as a record or acknowledgment of an existing transfer rather than an instrument creating a new title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Nikahnama registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 constitutes a public document?
  • Whether the transfer of immovable property to a wife in lieu of dower via a Nikahnama requires compulsory registration under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Is a Nikah Registrar considered a public officer for the purposes of verifying public documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1833 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Pehlwan1996 MLD 1415 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs Peh Lwan1996 MLD 1415 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-01-21Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 709 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1366 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan vs The State1996 MLD 2023 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• Abdur Raziq vs Saranjam1996 MLD 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1427 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qaddus vs Abdur Rashid and anothers1996 MLD 2021 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qaddus vs Abdur Rashid And Another1996 MLD 2021 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Matin vs Matiurrehman and others1996 MLD 2045 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Matin vs Matiurrehman And Other1996 MLD 2045 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Yousafzai vs Tilla Muhammad and anothers1996 MLD 408 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Yousafzai vs Tilla Muhammad And Another1996 MLD 408 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum and others1996 MLD 1263 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum And Other1996 MLD 1263 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Haji Kamal Hussain and 27 others1995 CLC 1383 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-10
  election appealage disqualificationschool recordnational identity cardprobative valuepublic documentsburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two election appeals arising from a common decision of the Election Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., which had declared the election of the returned candidate, Zulfiqar Ali, void on the ground that he was under the age of 25 years at the time of the election. The core legal question concerned the determination of the candidate's true age and the comparative evidentiary weight and admissibility of competing documents, namely school records versus a National Identity Card. The Peshawar High Court held that while school admission registers and certificates are public documents admissible in evidence under Article 49 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without requiring the author's testimony, they carry low probative value and are susceptible to under-reporting of age by parents to secure future advantages. Conversely, the National Identity Card, issued under statutory authority carrying penal consequences for false statements and lacking any apparent motive for misrepresentation at the time of its issuance, constitutes superior and more reliable evidence of age. The court laid down the principle that entries in school records regarding date of birth are inconclusive and can be successfully rebutted by the higher probative value of a National Identity Card, thereby restoring the returned candidate's election.

  Questions settled

  • Whether school admission registers and certificates qualify as admissible public documents under Article 49 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without producing their author?
  • Does the non-production of the headmaster who originally recorded the date of birth in school registers attract an adverse presumption under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What is the comparative probative value between a date of birth recorded in school registers and that stated in a National Identity Card issued under the National Registration Act 1973?
  • Can entries regarding age in school records be successfully rebutted by a National Identity Card when no motive for misrepresentation existed at the time of obtaining the identity card?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarin Khan vs Haji Amir Sultan1995 CLC 1072 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Zareef Khan vs Sessions Judge, Peshawar and others1995 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-16
  Section 86-A Cr.P.C.Tribal area jurisdictionCivil disputeLiberty of citizenRemoval in custodyCriminal procedureInherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Peshawar, which had directed the transfer of the petitioner to the Political Authorities of the Khyber Agency following his arrest under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate, acting under Section 86-A, correctly refused to transfer the petitioner to the tribal area on the grounds that the underlying dispute was civil in nature rather than a criminal offence. The Peshawar High Court held that the primary object of Section 86-A is to protect the liberty of citizens in settled areas from false involvement in tribal territory matters. The Court determined that the Magistrate is empowered to conduct an inquiry to satisfy himself that there is a strong or probable presumption of an offence before ordering removal. Finding that the original complaint was merely a civil claim for the recovery of money and an attempt to use state machinery to pressure the respondents, the Court set aside the Sessions Judge's order and restored the Magistrate's decision to release the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of the inquiry a Magistrate must conduct under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before ordering the removal of an arrested person to a tribal area?
  • Does a dispute regarding the recovery of money constitute an 'offence' sufficient to justify removal in custody under Section 86-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate in a settled area refuse to transfer an accused to tribal authorities if the underlying complaint is essentially civil in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Zair Wali and others vs Mst. Rangina and others1995 MLD 1606 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Zair Wali And Others vs Mst. Rangina And Other1995 MLD 1606 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Zafar Arbab vs Asim Hayat Kiyani and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1784 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• Zabar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 557 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Khan and another vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1200 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Ayub Khan, Mpa and anothers vs Major (Rtd.) Aftab Ahmad Khan1995 MLD 1179 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Ayub Khan, Mpa And Another vs Major (Rtd.) Aftab Ahmad Khan1995 MLD 1179 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
• WAPDA and others vs Mian Hidayatullah1995 CLC 739 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-12Read full judgment →
• Tiladar vs Mst. Roheeda1995 MLD 1586 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mahbooburrehman1995 P Cr. L J 600 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
• The State through Deputy Attorney General vs Sher Ahmad1995 P Cr. L J 917 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →