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.

• The General Manager, Pakistan Telecommunication Northern Zone, Peshawar and another vs The Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1995 PLC 709 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• Taus Khan vs The State and 2 others1995 MLD 1775 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Taus Khan vs The State And 2 Other1995 MLD 1775 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-11Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Mst. Zaitooney and another1995 PLD Peshawar 135 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02
  revisional jurisdictionrejection of plaintbar of suitdiscretionary reliefjurisdictional errorspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from the rejection of the petitioner's plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court had rejected the plaint on the ground that the petitioner's subsequent suit for recovery of money was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as his earlier suit for specific performance of a marriage contract, based on the same cause of action, had already been dismissed. The lower appellate court upheld this rejection. The Peshawar High Court examined the scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction is strictly confined to matters involving the illegal assumption, non-exercise, or irregular exercise of jurisdiction, and cannot be invoked to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact that do not affect jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised unless grave injustice or hardship is shown. Finding no jurisdictional error or grave injustice, the Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked solely to correct erroneous conclusions of law or fact?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court exercise its discretionary revisional jurisdiction to correct an irregularity?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute a jurisdictional error reviewable in revision if the lower courts had the authority to decide the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Ayub and another1995 CLC 899 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Sabir Hussain Shah and anothers vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah1995 MLD 563 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Sabir Hussain Shah And Another vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah And Another1995 MLD 563 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Murad Ali Shah vs The Chief Election Commissioner of PAKISTANAnd 15 Other1995 MLD 1326 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Murad Ali Shah vs The Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan1995 MLD 1326 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan and others vs M.B.R. and others1997 MLD 198 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
• State vs Qaiser1995 MLD 535 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar vs Aslam Khan1995 MLD 557 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
• State Through Advocate General, N. W.F.P., Peshawar vs Aslam Khan1995 MLD 557 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan through Chief Manager vs Pervez Iqbal Bhatti, Proprietor, Former Bhatti Trading Company, Peshawar and another1995 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sher Mehmood Khan vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 5 others1995 PLC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali KHAN/Defendant vs Miram Shah and 26 others/Plaintiffs1995 MLD 308 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Khan vs Miram Shah And 26 Other/Plaintiffs1995 MLD 308 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Khan and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 508 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Khan And Another vs The State1995 MLD 508 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• SH Iraz vs Muhammad Ayub1997 MLD 115 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sardaraz Khan and 36 others vs Amirullah Khan and 34 others1995 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-28
  limitationcondonation of delaydue diligencegood faithpecuniary jurisdictionreturn of plaintgross negligence of counsel
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Peshawar High Court deals with an appeal arising from a dismissed partition suit and addresses the crucial question of whether the time spent prosecuting an appeal before a forum lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court held that where a party and its counsel act with gross negligence and fail to exercise due diligence and good faith—such as ignoring clear statutory provisions regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and the valuation of the subject-matter—the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The court also clarified the meaning of the phrase 'unable to entertain it' under section 14, establishing that it does not impose a duty on the court to return a memorandum of appeal at the very initial hearing and that the time taken by the appellate court to determine its lack of jurisdiction cannot be shifted to blame the court. Furthermore, the court held that a memorandum of appeal returned for presentation to the proper forum is a public document that cannot be substantially altered or amended upon refiling. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as time-barred and not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time spent pursuing an appeal before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction can be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act where the appellant's counsel showed gross negligence?
  • Does the phrase 'unable to entertain it' under section 14 of the Limitation Act require a court to return a memorandum of appeal at the very first or second hearing?
  • Can a memorandum of appeal returned for presentation to the proper forum be substantially amended or altered before being refiled?
  • Does the negligence of a senior counsel in calculating the valuation and court-fee constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Sain vs Baz and 5 others1995 CLC 550 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Saif Nadeem Electro Limited through its Chairman vs Collector of Customs and Central Excise_Commissioner Sales Tax, Peshawar and 3 others1995 PTD 1424 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Said Badshah vs Government of N.W.F.P.1995 PLD Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
• Said Bacha vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1005 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan vs Khan Sardar and 2 others1997 MLD 1832 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sadbar Khan vs Amir Hussain and another1995 PLD Peshawar 14 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-29
  guardians and wardslunatic guardianappellate jurisdictiontribal areasPATAlunacy act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a first appeal filed under section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, against the order of the Guardian Judge, Chitral, appointing a respondent as the guardian of the person and property of a lunatic. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the appeal before the High Court in view of an amendment routing such appeals to the District Court, and whether the Guardians and Wards Act applies to the appointment of a guardian for a lunatic over fifty years of age. The Peshawar High Court held that since the amendment altering appellate jurisdiction had not been extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) pursuant to Article 247(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the appeal was competent before the High Court. On the merits, the Court held that the Guardians and Wards Act applies strictly to minors, whereas the appointment of a guardian and manager for the estate and person of a lunatic falls under section 71 of the Lunacy Act, 1912. The impugned order of the Guardian Judge was consequently set aside as without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does an amendment to a federal statute apply to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas without a specific notification under Article 247(3) of the Constitution?
  • Can a Guardian Judge appoint a guardian for a lunatic under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Which court has the jurisdiction to appoint a manager and guardian for the estate and person of a lunatic under the Lunacy Act, 1912?
  Read full judgment →
• Sabz Ali vs The State1995 MLD 526 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Road Transport Board, N.anothersW.F.P. and others vs Mst. Gul Zarina1995 CLC 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-15
  fatal accidentdamagesres ipsa loquiturnegligencetortAct of Godpecuniary recompense
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for damages filed by the legal heirs of a deceased victim against the Road Transport Board following a fatal bus accident. The core legal questions were whether the accident, caused by a bus running over the deceased, constituted an 'Act of God' and whether the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied to establish negligence. The Court held that the defendants failed to prove the accident was an 'Act of God' or that the bus was driven with due caution. Applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court inferred negligence from the circumstances of the accident. The Court clarified that damages in tort cases are pecuniary recompense for immediate dependents, not an inheritance, and thus restricted the award to the deceased's wife and minor daughters. The key principles laid down are that a road accident involving a public vehicle is not an 'Act of God' but a matter of negligence, and that the rule of res ipsa loquitur allows for an inference of negligence where the cause is unknown.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to road accidents where the specific cause of the incident is not directly proven?
  • Can a fatal road accident involving a public transport vehicle be legally classified as an 'Act of God'?
  • Are damages awarded in a tortious fatal accident claim considered an inheritance or pecuniary recompense for dependents?
  • Is the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut the presumption of negligence once an accident is proven?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad vs Maftoolan Jan1995 CLC 403 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
• Raja Shazad Kayani vs Senior Superintendent, Police, Abbottabad and 21995 P Cr. L J 1384 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Raja Sabeel Ahmed vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Collector, D.I. Khan1995 PLD Peshwar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Raees Azam and 2 others vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 541 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-11
  post-arrest bailsodomynon-compoundable offencemedical reportcompromisebail cancellationreasonable grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, charged under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sought bail after the Sessions Court cancelled the bail initially granted to them by the Ilaqa Magistrate. The core legal questions involved whether an accused can be granted bail based on a compromise in a non-compoundable offence, and whether bail should be granted on merits when the medical report contradicts the allegations. The Peshawar High Court held that an offence under Section 377 Pakistan Penal Code is not compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore bail cannot be granted merely on the basis of a compromise between the parties. However, the Court ruled on merits that the medical report, which showed no external or internal signs of trauma or tears, contradicted the complainant's version and established reasonable grounds that the petitioners were not connected with the crime. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioners to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be released on bail on the basis of a compromise between the parties in a non-compoundable offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Does a medical report showing an absence of injuries and tears around the anus provide reasonable grounds for granting post-arrest bail in a sodomy case?
  Read full judgment →
• Provincial Urban Development Board through its Managing Director vs Mumtaz Khan and 3 others1995 CLC 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Provincial Urban Development Board through its Managing Director vs Mst. Shireena and 2 others1995 CLC 1606 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Oghi vs Mir Afzal1995 CLC 525 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-15
  civil revisionrejection of plaintjurisdiction of civil courtservice matterinterlocutory ordermaterial irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the petitioner and other education department officials. The petitioner sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action, was barred by the Specific Relief Act 1877, and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction over service matters. The trial court rejected the application, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that the trial court possessed the jurisdiction to decide the application and had committed no illegality or material irregularity in its order. Furthermore, the Court noted that the issues raised by the petitioner were already framed as issues in the suit, and partial evidence had been recorded. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, ruling that the matter should proceed to a decision on merits after full evidence is recorded, rather than being disposed of at the interlocutory stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 confer a substantive right to a petitioner?
  • Under what conditions can the High Court interfere in a revision petition against an order of a subordinate court?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order rejecting an application for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Pirzada Noor-Ul-Habib vs Cantonment Board, Nowshera and 4 others1995 CLC 1491 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
• Pasham Khan vs The State And Another1995 MLD 1210 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Noor Badshah vs Dr. Rana Arif Ali1995 CLC 1830 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-28
  limitation periodcondonation of delaycourt holidayscertified copiescomputation of timecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three civil revision petitions challenging the dismissal of appeals by the appellate court on the grounds of limitation. The trial court judgments were delivered on 23-2-1993, and the limitation period for filing appeals expired on 25-3-1993. Due to public holidays and the closure of courts and offices from 23-3-1993 to 27-3-1993, the petitioner could not apply for certified copies until the courts reopened on 28-3-1993, filing the appeals the following day. The appellate court held the appeals time-barred, prompting these revisions. The core legal question was whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal is extended when the court and offices are closed during the limitation period, preventing the filing of both the application for copies and the appeal itself. The High Court held that the appeals were within time, ruling that when the limitation period expires during court closures, the act may be performed on the next opening day. The court affirmed that a litigant should not be prejudiced by the closure of courts or offices beyond their control, applying Section 4 of the Limitation Act and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the closure of courts and offices during the limitation period entitle a litigant to file an appeal on the next opening day?
  • Can the period requisite for obtaining certified copies be excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the application is filed on the first opening day after court holidays?
  • Does Section 10 of the General Clauses Act 1897 provide a broader protection than Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 regarding acts performed in courts or offices during holidays?
  Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan and others vs Additional District Judge and others1995 MLD 838 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan And Others vs Additional District Judge And Other1995 MLD 838 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-28Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah vs The State1995 MLD 515 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Khan vs Mst. Bas Khandana and anothers1997 MLD 2071 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
• Nabi Sarwar and 2 others vs Zaman Khan and 7 others1995 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
• M/s. Kohat Cement Company Limited. vs Pakistan, through SecretaryPTCL 1995 CL. 355 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Khyber Agro (Pvt) Limited vs Assistant Collector Customs,1995 CLC 1853 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-20
  regulatory dutycustoms dutytax exemptionGadoon Amazai Industrial Estatefiscal concessionstatutory notificationrefund of duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of writ petitions filed by industrial units operating in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate, challenging the imposition of regulatory duty on imported raw materials. The petitioners, who were granted tax and duty exemptions by the government to incentivize investment in a former poppy-cultivating region, argued that regulatory duty constitutes a form of customs duty and is therefore covered by the exemption granted under Notification No. S.R.O. 517(i)/89. The core legal question was whether regulatory duty falls within the ambit of customs duty and thus qualifies for the exemption provided by the notification. Relying on established precedent from this Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the High Court held that regulatory duty is essentially customs duty. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners are exempt from paying regulatory duty for the period during which the exemption notification remained effective. The respondents were directed to refund any amounts collected as regulatory duty during that specific period, while the parties were left to bear their own costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does regulatory duty constitute a form of customs duty for the purpose of tax exemptions?
  • Are industrial units entitled to a refund of regulatory duty collected during the period an exemption notification was in force?
  • Is the exemption from customs duty applicable to regulatory duty under Notification No. S.R.O. 517(i)/89?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Diamond Indus. (Pvt.), Ltd. vs Govt of Pakistan and othersPTCL 1995 CL. 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Shah and anothers vs Mir Sarwar Khan and others1995 PLD Peshawar 96 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muslim Shah and anothers vs Abdul Qayum1995 MLD 746 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muslim Shah And Another vs Abdul Qayum1995 MLD 746 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, D.I. Khan vs Habibur Rehman1995 CLC 500 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Abbottabad Through Chairman_ Administrator, Municipal Committee, Abbottabad And Another vs Sohban Bail1995 MLD 1338 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Abbottabad through Chairman Administrator, Municipal Committee, Abbottabad and anothers vs Sohban Baig1995 MLD 1338 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Bibi and others vs Ghulam Akbar1995 PLD Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02
  fraudulent decreesection 12(2) CPCconcealment of factsservice of summonsex parte decreelimitation periodrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an order of the trial court dismissing an application under section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the petitioners to set aside a judgment and decree obtained by the respondent through alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of facts. The core legal questions involved whether the ex parte decree was secured through fraud and clandestine service, and whether the application under section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was barred by limitation. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondent deliberately concealed the defendant's abscondance and criminal proceedings, avoided normal service of summons by resorting to publication in a distant newspaper of limited circulation, and withheld himself from the witness box to evade cross-examination, thereby obtaining the decree fraudulently. The Court further held that the application was within time under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, computed from the date of knowledge. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the original suit was remanded to the trial court for retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment and decree obtained through the concealment of material facts and evasion of proper service can be set aside under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the applicable period of limitation for filing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure of a decree-holder to appear as a witness to be subjected to cross-examination raise a presumption of fraud in proceedings challenged under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali vs Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar1995 PLC 738 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-19
  individual grievanceindustrial relationsstanding ordersjurisdiction of labour courtmaster and servantdismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three connected writ petitions filed by employees of the National Radio TeleCommunication Corporation, Haripur, challenging the concurrent dismissal of their grievance petitions by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether employees of an establishment excluded from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under section 1(3)(a) can invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court for the redress of individual grievances under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Peshawar High Court held that notwithstanding the exclusion of the establishment from the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a workman aggrieved by dismissal or removal can seek remedy before the Labour Court by virtue of Standing Order 12(3) read with section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as the Labour Court is competent to exercise powers conferred by other laws. The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the Labour Court for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employees of an establishment excluded under section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the bar contained in section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 prohibit a workman from seeking redress of individual grievances under Standing Order 12(3)?
  • Is a Labour Court competent to exercise powers conferred upon it by laws other than the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Multan Khan vs Cantonment Board, Nowshera through Cantonment1995 CLC 1297 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mujahid Pervez vs Sheraz and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 574 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaq00b and others vs General Manager, Tarbela Dam1995 CLC 1536 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Said Rehman and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 571 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 561 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and others vs Additional District Judge and others1997 MLD 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq and others vs Ali Asghar Khan and others1995 CLC 1529 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-07
  Land AcquisitionTransposition of partiesInherent powersNatural justiceLocus standiRecall of orderCollusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Additional District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge, Abbottabad, which recalled a previous order transposing certain respondents as petitioners in a land acquisition objection petition. The core legal question was whether the lower court acted lawfully in recalling its earlier order of transposition, which had been passed without notice to the contesting respondents. The High Court held that the initial order of transposition was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as it was obtained without notice to the contesting parties and appeared to be the result of collusion. The Court affirmed that a trial court possesses inherent powers to recall an order passed without notice or in violation of natural justice to prevent the abuse of the court's process. Furthermore, the Court found the appeal itself incompetent, as the appellants lacked locus standi to challenge the recall order, given that the parties directly affected by the recall did not pursue the matter. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the trial court's exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court recall an order passed without notice to the affected parties in the exercise of its inherent powers?
  • Does an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice warrant recall by the court that issued it?
  • Can an appeal be dismissed on the grounds that the appellants lack the necessary locus standi to challenge the impugned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1753 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Hasrat Ali alias Bhutto and 2 others1995 PLD Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Najja and others1995 CLC 1600 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parvez vs The State1995 MLD 1519 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs Medical Superintendent, D.H.Q. Hospital, Bannu and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1149 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs Chancellor, Gomal University and others1995 CLC 510 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Saleem Jan and others1995 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-22
  specific performancenatural guardianminoritycontract enforcementIslamic jurisprudencelimitationproperty lawcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement to sell property. The plaintiffs, who were minors at the time of the agreement, sought enforcement of a contract negotiated on their behalf by their father. The core legal questions concerned the enforceability of a contract entered into by a natural guardian for minors and the issue of limitation. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petitions, affirming the lower courts' decrees for specific performance. The Court held that a natural guardian may validly enter into a contract for the benefit of minors, rendering the agreement enforceable. Regarding limitation, the Court found the suit timely, as it was filed after the defendant's refusal to transfer the property. Crucially, the Court invoked Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, emphasizing that judicial interpretation must align with Islamic norms, specifically the obligation to fulfill contracts ("Ehd"). Consequently, the defendant could not evade his contractual commitments through technical pleas, as the agreement was binding and made for the minors' benefit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a natural guardian enter into an enforceable contract on behalf of a minor?
  • Does Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 require courts to interpret laws in accordance with Islamic norms regarding the fulfillment of contracts?
  • Is a suit for specific performance time-barred if filed after the defendant refuses to transfer property following the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul vs Mst. Shahru Bibi and 3 others1995 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooql vs The State1995 MLD 551 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz Khan and 6 others vs The District Magistrate, Batagram and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 587 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-28
  preventive detentionMaintenance of Public Ordervague groundsmala fideconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionalternative remedypublic order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by seven petitioners challenging their preventive detention orders dated 03.11.1994, issued by the District Magistrate, Batagram under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 for a period of 30 days. The detaining authority alleged that the petitioners were instigating the public to stage demonstrations against the government. The petitioners argued that the grounds were vague, lacked concrete facts, and were passed mala fide to defeat a bail order granted to them on the same day in separate criminal cases.

  The Peshawar High Court quashed the detention orders and declared them void. The Court held that preventive detention grounds must be objective, backed by specific facts, and not vague. Where substantive criminal cases are already registered against detenus on the same allegations, preventive detention cannot legally be justified. Furthermore, issuing detention orders immediately upon grant of bail demonstrates bad faith. The Court also reaffirmed that filing a representation with the government under Section 3(6) is not an adequate alternative remedy barring writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether vague and non-specific grounds of detention lacking concrete facts vitiate a preventive detention order under Section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960?
  • Can executive authorities validly issue a preventive detention order on the same allegations for which substantive criminal cases have already been registered against the detenu under the Penal Code?
  • Does passing a preventive detention order immediately upon a detenu's release on bail by a criminal court render the detention order mala fide and unlawful?
  • Does the statutory right to make a representation to the government under Section 3(6) of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960 constitute an adequate alternative remedy barring constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 313 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-26
  dying declarationextra-judicial confessioncriminal appealmurder convictionprocedural irregularityadmissibility of evidencecommutation of sentencesite plan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, for the murder of a Deputy Inspector-General of Police and another individual, alongside a charge of house trespass. The core legal questions involved the admissibility of a site plan prepared by the investigating officer, the evidentiary value of unproved newspaper reports regarding motive, the legality of the challan submission process, and the validity of the dying declaration and extra-judicial confession. The Court held that minor procedural irregularities in investigation, such as the preparation of a site plan by an investigating officer rather than an expert, do not vitiate a trial unless they cause prejudice or miscarriage of justice. The Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that a dying declaration, if credible and corroborated by circumstances, is sufficient for conviction even without formal attestation. Furthermore, the Court held that unproved newspaper reports are inadmissible hearsay. While upholding the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the absence of a clear motive and the existence of prior friendly relations between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a procedural irregularity in the investigation, such as the preparation of a site plan by an investigating officer, automatically vitiate a criminal trial?
  • Can unproved newspaper reports be admitted as evidence to establish the motive for a crime?
  • Is a dying declaration admissible and sufficient for conviction if it is not signed or verified by a doctor or magistrate?
  • Does the submission of a challan by a police officer other than the Station House Officer invalidate the trial in the absence of prejudice to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs Arsalla Khan and others1997 MLD 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar and 7 others vs Noor Muhammad and another1995 CLC 744 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali and 5 others vs Mst. Noor Jehana and 3 others1995 CLC 1701 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waziran vs Kalu and 3 others1995 CLC 1532 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-22
  Muslim LawHibaGift between spousesTransfer of possessionConstructive possessionBurden of proofCivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a dispute over the inheritance of land measuring 108 Kanals 12 Marlas, following the death of the owner, Ghulam Muhammad, who died issueless. The petitioner, his widow, claimed ownership based on a gift deed executed by her husband in her favor. The respondents, collaterals of the deceased, challenged the validity of the gift, alleging forgery and lack of transfer of possession. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, citing failure to prove the deed's execution and transfer of possession. Upon revision, the High Court held that the gift was valid. The Court determined that under Muslim Law, a gift between husband and wife does not require physical transfer of possession, as the wife is constructively in possession of the husband's property. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that such gifts can be effected orally or through unregistered instruments, and the burden of proving fraud or forgery lies squarely on the party alleging it. The revision petition was accepted, and the suit was decreed in favor of the widow.

  Questions settled

  • Is physical transfer of possession a mandatory requirement for the validity of a gift between a husband and his wife under Muslim Law?
  • Does a gift deed between spouses require registration to be considered valid under Muslim Law?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a gift deed is challenged as fraudulent or forged?
  • Can a gift under Muslim Law be validly effected through an oral declaration?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraya Begum vs Aftab Ahmad Khan1995 CLC 1603 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs Saifur Rehman and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 1466 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qaisra Ellahi vs Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust through Chairman and 5 others1995 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan and others vs Muhammad Rafique and others1995 CLC 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-04
  specific performanceagreement to selllegal heirsframing of issuescomparison of signaturesimmovable propertyearnest moneypresumption of adequacy
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal was filed by some of the legal heirs of a deceased vendor against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The appellants contended that the agreement was fake, signatures were forged, issues were framed in an omnibus fashion without covering preliminary objections, and specific performance could not be decreed against legal heirs or where monetary compensation was available. The High Court rejected these contentions, holding that the trial Court properly framed issues reflecting the essence of the controversy under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and properly compared the signatures of the deceased. The Court further held that under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, specific performance is enforceable against legal heirs claiming under the vendor, and under Section 12, breach of a contract to transfer immovable property is presumed not adequately relievable by money compensation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell immovable property executed by a deceased vendor can be specifically enforced against his legal heirs under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does the statutory presumption under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 apply to contracts for the transfer of immovable property such that monetary compensation is presumed inadequate?
  • Whether framing omnibus issues invalidates a decree if the parties understood the true essence of the controversy from the pleadings and produced evidence accordingly?
  • Can execution of a sale agreement be established through natural marginal witnesses even if the credentials of the petition-writer are challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Bibi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1472 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-21
  post-arrest bailprohibition orderheroin recoveryprivate vehicle searchcognizable offenceillegal arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Mst. Iqbal Bibi seeking post-arrest bail after being refused by the lower forums. The petitioner was apprehended along with another accused when a motorcar was intercepted by police and 100 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the rear seat. The core legal question addressed by the court is whether the recovery of contraband from a private vehicle constitutes a cognizable offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, requiring no warrant, and whether the consequent arrest was legally justified. The Peshawar High Court held that a vehicle is defined as a "place" and not a "public place" under the Order, and offences under Articles 3, 4, 8, and 11 are not cognizable unless committed at a public place. Since the search of a private vehicle was conducted without a warrant and the recovery was non-cognizable, the arrest was illegal. The court laid down the principle that the search of a private vehicle without a warrant for non-cognizable offences under the Prohibition Order renders the arrest unjustified, entitling the accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of contraband from a private vehicle constitutes a cognizable offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Is a private vehicle considered a public place under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Does the search of a private vehicle without a warrant render the subsequent arrest illegal and entitle the accused to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamida Akhtar vs Nazir Muhammad and 2 others1995 CLC 2020 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-07-06
  temporary injunctionstatus quo violationco-sharerjoint propertyinherent jurisdictionunlawful constructionrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner impugned the concurrent orders of the lower courts dismissing her application for a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration of ownership and possession over land based on a mutation. The petitioner contended she was a co-sharer and the respondents had encroached upon her land by exceeding their share and carrying out construction in flagrant violation of an ad interim status quo order. The Peshawar High Court held that a co-sharer has an interest in every inch of joint property and cannot be dealt with to their detriment, and that a party who violates a status quo order to its own advantage cannot be permitted to take benefit from its wrong. Citing precedents, the Court ruled that the trial court erred in refusing the injunction and that the court possesses inherent jurisdiction to order the removal of unlawful construction raised in defiance of an injunction. The revision petition was accepted with costs, directing the respondents to restore the original position or face civil imprisonment and attachment of property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a co-sharer has an interest in every inch of joint property irrespective of the quantity of their share?
  • Can a court exercise inherent jurisdiction to order the demolition of structures raised in flagrant violation of a status quo order?
  • Does a party who disobeys an ad interim injunction disentitle itself to equitable relief?
  • What powers does a court possess to punish or reverse actions taken in breach of a temporary injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulzar Bibi vs Publicingeneral and 4 others1995 CLC 1550 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-16
  guardianshipcustody of minorterritorial jurisdictionordinarily resideswrit petitionconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the paternal grandmother of a minor against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which had returned her application for the custody and guardianship of the minor for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Family Court at D.I. Khan had jurisdiction to entertain the guardianship application when the minor was subsequently residing with her remarried mother in Mianwali. The Peshawar High Court held that under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, an application for the guardianship of the person of a minor must be made to the District Court having jurisdiction where the minor ordinarily resides, and the word 'ordinarily' connotes more than a mere temporary residence. The Court ruled that the minor's ordinary place of residence followed that of her mother upon the mother's lawful remarriage and relocation to Mianwali. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the lower courts correctly returned the application for want of territorial jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Which court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for the guardianship of the person of a minor under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Does temporary residence suffice to establish territorial jurisdiction for a guardianship petition under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • What is the effect of a mother's second marriage and relocation on the ordinary residence of a minor child for the purpose of guardianship proceedings?
  • When can the High Court interfere in the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding territorial jurisdiction in guardianship matters under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima vs Mst. Noorul Huda1995 MLD 1593 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farangeza vs The State1995 MLD 1439 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-16
  post-arrest bailoption of pubertydissolution of muslim marriageszina hudoodprinciple of consistencybail for women
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application arose from an order of the Sessions Judge, Battagram, whereby bail was refused to the petitioner, a woman charged under section 5/10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of an earlier Nikah. The core legal question was whether the female petitioner was entitled to bail after arrest, considering her prior exercise of the right of option of puberty, the principle of consistency with co-accused already granted bail, and her status as a female. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as a matter of right. The court reasoned that she had repudiated her first marriage by exercising her right of option of puberty under section 2(vii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 prior to her second marriage, for which a court order is not strictly essential; that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail, attracting the principle of consistency; and that her case fell squarely within the first proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 owing to her gender.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court order essential to validate the exercise of the right of option of puberty by a minor female under Muslim law?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused in a criminal case have already been granted bail?
  • Does the case of a female accused fall under the first proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of bail?
  • Does the mere institution of a suit or repudiation before consummation validate a subsequent marriage without a formal decree dissolving the first marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Mosam Shah and 12 others vs Mir Piyao Khan Alias Piyao Khan and 101995 CLC 1497 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Miss Sajida Par Veen vs Principal/Dean, Khyber Medical College and1995 CLC 1867 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-07Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad and anothers vs Fazal Ellahi and another1995 MLD 1583 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad And Another vs Fazal Ellahi And Another1995 MLD 1583 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-18Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Al! alias Maqbali and 11 others vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar and 2 others1995 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Mir Qalam Khan vs Mst. Shamim Bibi and another1995 CLC 731 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Yousafullah Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 502 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Iqbal vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Land1995 CLC 1561 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Yusaf vs Pistric Magistrate, Attock1995 MLD 1510 · Peshawar High Court · 1968-03-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Yusaf vs District Magistrate, Attock1995 MLD 1510 · Peshawar High Court · 1968-03-26Read full judgment →
• Major (Rtd.) Mushtaq Hussain Shah vs Lt.Col. (Rtd.) Fazal Akbar and 61995 P Cr. L J 1772 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Madad'ichan vs Government of.N.W.F.P., through Home Secretary, N.W.F.P., Peshawar1995 PLD Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Retd..) Mukhtar Ahmad Usmani and others vs Bal Miki Sabha1995 CLC 2028 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector vs Said Rehman and others1995 CLC 667 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →