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.

• Khizar Hayat And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1220 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Khan Zaman vs The State and anothers1997 MLD 2073 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Khalil vs Maulvi Miskeen and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1701 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nawaz Khan vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 5 others1995 PLC 228 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The District Judge, Dera Ismail Khan and 2 others1995 MLD 298 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs The District Judge, Dera Ismail Khan And 2 Other1995 MLD 298 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
• Kamdar Khan and 6 others vs Qadeem Khan and 5 others1995 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmad and 6 others vs Provincial Urban Development Board, N.W.F.P. through the Secretary, Provincial Urban Development Board, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others1995 MLD 1341 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
• Jalil Ahmad And 6 Others vs Provincial Urban Development Board, N.1995 MLD 1341 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmad Khan vs The State1995 MLD 766 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan vs Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman and 3 others1995 MLD 311 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan vs Water and Power Development Authority1995 MLD 311 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad vs Haji Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others1995 CLC 1857 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-13
  pre-emption suitmortgage versus saledisguised transactionalienation of propertyTalbsrevision petitionusufructuary mortgage
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner assailed the concurrent findings of the two courts below whereby a pre-emption suit filed against him was decreed in favour of the respondent. The dispute arose from a transaction ostensibly framed as a mortgage deed through which a plot was transferred, which the plaintiff alleged was actually a sale disguised to defeat his right of pre-emption. The trial court and the appellate court both held the transaction to be a sale and decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the transaction bore all the hallmarks of a sale—such as an unlimited mortgage period, an amount equal to the property's value, and extensive rights of improvement—satisfying the tests laid down for disguised transactions. The Court further held that mortgages fall within the meaning of the term "alienation" under the relevant pre-emption statute, and that the courts below rightly found compliance with the statutory requirements of making demands (Talbs).

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction ostensibly styled as a mortgage can be treated as a sale for the purposes of pre-emption?
  • Does the term "alienation" under the N-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 include a mortgage?
  • What factors are to be considered by the court to determine if a transaction described as a mortgage is actually a sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Ihsan Ullah vs The State1995 PLD Peshawar 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-29
  post-arrest bailexplosive substancesArms Ordinanceburden of proofexpert reportsubversive activitiesprosecution sanction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ihsan Ullah, who was charged with possession of a Klashnikov and four hand grenades. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the recovery and the absence of specific evidence linking him to subversive activities. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish, at this preliminary stage, that the accused possessed the explosive substances for unlawful purposes or that he was a saboteur, which is a necessary element to shift the burden of proof. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of an expert report confirming the nature and serviceability of the recovered items and the lack of required sanction for prosecution. Consequently, the court granted bail, emphasizing that in the absence of conclusive evidence and with the investigation effectively complete, the petitioner's continued incarceration was not warranted. The key principle laid down is that for charges involving explosive substances, the prosecution must provide reasonable suspicion of unlawful intent to justify denying bail, and procedural deficiencies like missing expert reports weigh in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of explosive substances automatically shift the burden of proof to the accused to prove lawful purpose without evidence of subversive intent?
  • Is the absence of an expert report regarding the nature and serviceability of recovered explosives a valid ground for granting bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution has failed to obtain the necessary sanction for trial and the investigation is complete?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasrat vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1938 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-12Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 343 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Bahadur Khan and anothers vs Pir Hassanurrehman and 71995 CLC 1461 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sharif Khan vs S.D.M. and 7 others1997 MLD 152 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Mitha Khan vs Mst. Nafees Begum and 2 others1995 CLC 896 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-08
  Pardahnasheen ladypower of attorneystrict constructionagencyalienation of propertyfuture-acquired propertycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, Mst. Nafees Begum, challenged the alienation of her plot, alleging that the general power of attorney used to transfer the property was forged and that she, as a Pardahnasheen lady, was not bound by the transactions. The trial and appellate courts granted the decree in her favor. In revision, the High Court examined whether the plaintiff was a Pardahnasheen lady and whether the power of attorney authorized the alienation of the specific property. The Court held that the status of a Pardahnasheen lady is a question of fact requiring specific pleading and proof, which was absent here. However, the Court further held that a power of attorney must be strictly construed. Since the power of attorney was executed in 1969 and the property in question was acquired by the plaintiff only in 1975, and the deed did not explicitly authorize the agent to deal with future-acquired property, the agent lacked the legal authority to alienate the plot. Consequently, the Court upheld the decree in favor of the plaintiff, dismissing the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a woman automatically qualify as a Pardahnasheen lady merely by observing Pardah or being illiterate?
  • Can an agent acting under a general power of attorney alienate property acquired by the principal after the execution of the power of attorney?
  • Is the status of a Pardahnasheen lady a question of law or a question of fact requiring specific pleading?
  • How should the scope of authority granted under a power of attorney be interpreted by the courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Sattar Khan vs Salim Khan and others1995 CLC 529 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghafoor vs Abdul Qayum and others1995 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-04Read full judgment →
• Haider Zaman and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 217 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-18Read full judgment →
• Haider Zaman And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1218 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Government of N.anothersW.F.P. through Secretary, C & W Department1995 CLC 516 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-04
  ex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreelimitation periodservice of summonsLocal Commissioner reportFirst Appeal from Ordersufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal from Order (F.A.O.) challenges the legality of an order passed by the Civil Judge, Abbottabad, dismissing the appellants' applications for setting aside an ex parte decree. The respondents had instituted a suit for permanent injunction and recovery of damages against the appellants (including the Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, C & W Department). Despite being served and initially represented by departmental Sub-Engineers, the appellants repeatedly failed to appear and were proceeded against ex parte. The trial court appointed a Local Commissioner, before whom the appellants' representative also participated before withdrawing. An ex parte decree was subsequently passed on June 22, 1992. The appellants filed applications to set aside the decree months later, which were dismissed as time-barred. The Peshawar High Court held that the appellants had clear knowledge of the proceedings and were bound by Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, making their applications hopelessly time-barred. The High Court further ruled that the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance or lack of due service. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree is governed by Article 164 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can a defendant who actively participated in trial proceedings through a representative subsequently claim lack of service or knowledge of the suit?
  • What are the remedies available to a defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed?
  • Does the failure to assign good cause for previous non-appearance preclude a defendant from succeeding under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sabir vs Abdul Rashid Khan1995 PLD Peshawar 9 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-25
  rent restrictionbona fide requirementeviction petitionpremature petitionlandlord-tenant disputeCantonments Rent Restriction Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two First Appeals challenging orders passed by the Rent Controller, Peshawar Cantonment, which allowed eviction petitions against tenants on grounds of default and bona fide personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether the eviction petitions were premature, having been filed prior to the landlord's retirement, and whether the landlord had sufficiently substantiated the claim of bona fide requirement for the premises. The Court held that the petitions were filed under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, not Section 17-A, rendering the 'premature' argument misconceived. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that if a lis is filed prematurely but matures during the pendency of proceedings, it is not liable to be dismissed on technical grounds. Regarding personal need, the Court established the principle that a landlord's statement regarding bona fide requirement is of fundamental importance and must be accepted as truthful unless rebutted by cogent evidence from the tenant. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the eviction orders were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eviction petition filed prematurely is liable to be dismissed if the statutory period for maintaining the lis expires during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Is a landlord's statement regarding the bona fide requirement of premises sufficient to establish the need in the absence of rebuttal by cogent evidence?
  • Does the expression 'requires in good faith' connote mere wish or convenience of the landlord, or must it be substantiated by positive evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and another vs Mst. Bibi Amrezan1995 CLC 543 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and 3 others vs Mst. Bibi Amrezan1995 CLC 541 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and others vs Imam Bakhsh and 9 others1995 MLD 1165 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain And Others vs Imam Bakhsh And 9 Other1995 MLD 1165 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
• Ghazi vs Salam Din1995 MLD 1488 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• General Manager, HBFC and others vs Ali Rehman and others1995 CLC 531 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-14
  unregistered sale deedcompulsory registrationequitable doctrinepart performancedower deedmortgage chargecourt fee deficiencyburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership of a house in Malakand Agency, where the plaintiff claimed title through an unregistered sale deed, while the defendants asserted title through a registered dower deed and a subsequent loan facility obtained from the House Building Finance Corporation (HBFC). The core legal questions involved whether an unregistered sale deed could confer title, whether the equitable doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act could override the registration requirements, and whether the plaintiff had legally proved the execution of the documents. The Court held that the unregistered sale deed was ineffective to transfer title due to the mandatory registration requirements under Section 49 of the Registration Act. It further ruled that equitable doctrines cannot override specific statutory registration provisions. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration and injunction, while clarifying that the plaintiff could pursue an independent suit against the vendors for recovery of money, without being barred by res judicata or Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unregistered sale deed of immovable property valued over one hundred rupees confer valid title?
  • Does the equitable doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 override the mandatory registration requirements of Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can a deficiency in court-fee be remedied under Section 28 of the Court Fees Act 1870 to prevent an appeal from being time-barred?
  • What are the recognized modes of proving a signature or handwriting under the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazle Raziq and others vs Additional Commissioner, Peshawar and others1995 CLC 1569 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• Fazar Ali Khan and 3 others vs Ghulam Ali Khan and 9 others1995 CLC 1850 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-26
  co-sharerpossessionpartitiondeclaratory decreecivil revisioncourt feesjoint property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over the ownership and possession of a house located in Lakki Meena Khel. The plaintiff, Ghulam Ali Khan, sought a declaration of ownership and possession against Fazar Ali Khan and his wife, Mst. Sameena Yasmeen, alleging they were permissive occupants. The lower courts concurrently held that the property belonged to the plaintiff and the heirs of Akbar Ali Khan, including Mst. Sameena Yasmeen, and decreed possession against the defendants. The core legal question was whether a co-sharer in possession of a property can be ejected by other co-sharers without a formal partition. The High Court held that while the declaratory decree regarding ownership was correct, the decree for possession was unsustainable. The court established the principle that a co-sharer in possession of joint property cannot be ejected by other co-sharers merely because they deny the plaintiff's title or claim hostile title; such dispossession is only permissible through a formal partition of the property. Consequently, the court upheld the declaration of ownership but set aside the decree for possession, subject to the petitioner paying the requisite court fees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-sharer in possession of joint property be ejected by other co-sharers without a formal partition?
  • Does a co-sharer lose their right to possess joint property if they deny the title of other co-sharers?
  • Is a revision petition against an appellate decree subject to the payment of court fees under the Court Fees Act 1870?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal-Ur-Rehman and 14 others vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and 7 others1995 CLC 904 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• Fazal Baqi and anothers vs Rehmatullah1995 MLD 303 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
• Fazal Baqi And Another vs Rehmatullah1995 MLD 303 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 32 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-15Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher Khan and anothers vs Mir Qalam Khan and another1995 CLC 1077 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-19
  pre-emptionTalb-e-Muwathibatcivil revisionsuperior right of pre-emptionpersonal appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a pre-emption suit for declaration-cum-possession was decreed in favor of the pre-emptors. The core legal question revolves around whether the pre-emptors validly and timely made the statutory demand of Talb-e-Muwathibat as required by the pre-emption law, and whether one of the pre-emptors could prove his case without personally appearing in court. The Peshawar High Court held that the pre-emptors failed to prove the timely making of Talb-e-Muwathibat, noting a fatal delay of two days between acquiring knowledge and making the demand, along with material contradictions and omissions in the evidence. Furthermore, the Court held that Talb-e-Muwathibat is a personal act that must be deposed to personally by the plaintiff, and failure of a plaintiff to appear in court and subject himself to cross-examination is fatal to the case. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted and the pre-emption suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a delay of two days between acquiring knowledge of a transaction and making Talb-e-Muwathibat fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Can the requirement of proving Talb-e-Muwathibat be fulfilled without the personal appearance and testimony of the pre-emptor in court?
  • Does failure to mention the details of the informant and time of knowledge in the plaint render evidence regarding Talb-e-Muwathibat inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Faizullah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 510 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
• F.S. Tobacco Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Superintendent, Central Excise1995 PTD 874 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-15
  sales tax exemptionconstitutional petitionfiscal disputemanufacturer definitiontax evasioncontract manufacturingwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a cigarette manufacturing company, challenged a show-cause notice and a demand notice issued by tax authorities alleging sales tax evasion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, acting as a contract manufacturer for another entity, was entitled to the sales tax exemption granted to industries established in the North-West Frontier Province under Notification No. S.R.O. 580(1)/91. The Court held that the petitioner, as the entity engaged in the production process, qualified as a "manufacturer" under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and was entitled to the exemption regardless of the ownership of raw materials. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notices illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that where a tax exemption is granted to an industry based on its geographical location and date of establishment, the exemption remains valid even if the manufacturer produces goods for third parties. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that constitutional petitions are maintainable in fiscal disputes involving the interpretation of exemption rights, notwithstanding the availability of alternate statutory remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable in fiscal disputes despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy?
  • Does a company manufacturing goods under a contract for another entity qualify as a 'manufacturer' under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Can tax authorities levy sales tax on goods produced by an industry that is otherwise exempt under a government notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mian Mohsin Shah and 7 others vs University of Peshawar through Vice Chancellor, Peshawar and 16 others1995 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Gulab Sher vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 41995 CLC 574 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-19
  foreign scholarshiplocus paenitentiaevested rightconstitutional petitionservice ruleswithdrawal of scholarshipFATA scholarship
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court to challenge the cancellation of a foreign scholarship awarded to the petitioner, Dr. Gulab Sher, for higher studies in medicine under a scheme reserved for doctors domiciled in the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA). The core legal questions involved whether a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner precluding the government from withdrawing the scholarship under the doctrine of locus paenitentiae, and whether the three-year government service restriction applied to a candidate who was not a government servant at the time of application. The court held that once an order of scholarship has taken legal effect, decisive steps have been taken, and the recipient has acted upon it without misrepresentation, the government loses the locus paenitentiae to rescind the benefit to the individual's detriment. The court further held that the three-year service rule applied exclusively to government servants nominated as such, which did not affect the petitioner's standing. The petition was consequently allowed, protecting the petitioner's scholarship.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the government can withdraw a scholarship after decisive steps have been taken and the order has taken legal effect?
  • Does the doctrine of locus paenitentiae permit the authorities to rescind an order to the detriment of rights created in favour of an individual?
  • Whether a three-year government service restriction applies to a candidate who was not a government servant at the time of submitting an application for a general scholarship?
  • Can a scholarship recipient be penalized for administrative lapses or departmental errors when there is no misrepresentation or suppression of material facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fawad Anwar vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Services1995 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-10Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Khan vs The State and 2 others1995 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad Through Chairman And 3Other1995 MLD 1737 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through ChairmanPTCL 1995 CL. 405 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector, Land Acquisition, Peshawar and others vs Rokhan and others1995 PLD Peshawar 78 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-20
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementmarket valuepotential valueone yearly averagecompulsory acquisition chargesstatutory interestLand Acquisition Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arose from cross Regular First Appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and landowners against a decree of the Additional District Judge, Peshawar (Referee Judge), which had enhanced compulsory land acquisition compensation from Rs.994.94 to Rs.2,291 per marla along with compulsory acquisition charges and 10% interest. The acquiring authority challenged the enhancement, while the landowners sought a further increase based on one-year averages and potentiality. The High Court affirmed that relying solely on a one-year average price schedule or classification of land (such as banjar qadim) is improper if the land possesses high potentiality, strategic location, and neighbourhood advantages for future commercial and residential development. To prevent unnecessary remand delays, the High Court took judicial notice of surrounding developments, averaged three one-year price schedules on record, and enhanced compensation to Rs.5,056 per marla plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Furthermore, the court corrected the interest calculation under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, awarding 8% compound interest up to 22-5-1983 and 6% simple interest thereafter until payment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the potential value and location of acquired land can be considered over its revenue classification when determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is the one-year average price schedule the sole criterion for determining compensation for compulsory land acquisition?
  • How should statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be calculated when compensation is enhanced by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector, Dera Ismail Khan and others vs Mst. Shahzad Bibi and 71995 CLC 1843 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Bilawar Khan vs Amir Sabir Rehman1995 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-17Read full judgment →
• Bashiruddin vs The Government of N.W.F.P. through Collector and 61995 CLC 1394 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-09
  bogus allotmentfraudulent transactionevacuee propertycancelled allotmentbona fide purchaserpast and closed transactionconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of four consolidated writ petitions challenging an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, whereby an evacuee land allotment and subsequent mutations were cancelled on the ground that the original claim and allotment were bogus, forged, and obtained through fraud. The core legal questions involved whether the cancellation orders were passed without notice, whether the matter constituted a past and closed transaction barred by the repeal of evacuee laws, and whether subsequent transferees were protected as bona fide purchasers under the Transfer of Property Act. The Peshawar High Court held that fraud vitiates the most solemn transactions, rendering fraudulent allotments nullities that can be cancelled at any time irrespective of the repeal of the settlement laws, and that official acts regarding inquiries and notices carry a presumption of regularity. Furthermore, the Court held that the protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is inapplicable to evacuee property allotments, which are subject to the inherent cancellation powers under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Consequently, all four writ petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment of evacuee land obtained through fraud can be cancelled after the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Does a subsequent purchaser of evacuee property enjoy protection as a bona fide transferee under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act against the cancellation of an underlying fraudulent allotment?
  • Whether a tribunal or authority of limited jurisdiction possesses the inherent power to recall or cancel an order obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Can the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 be barred by sub-constitutional limitations regarding pending proceedings before settlement authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Banarus Khan vs The State1995 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-20
  criminal appealrevisional jurisdictionnon-examination of investigating officercurable illegalitytime-barred appealremandmiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed in absentia by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu. The appellant challenged the conviction, despite the appeal being time-barred, arguing that the trial court committed a grave miscarriage of justice by failing to examine the Investigating Officer, who was the principal witness regarding the F.I.R. (dying declaration). The core legal question was whether the High Court could treat a time-barred appeal as a criminal revision to rectify a serious illegality. The Court held that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer constituted an illegality not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on the wide revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court determined it had a duty to rectify errors causing grave injustice. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for the examination of the Investigating Officer and the accused, affirming that the High Court's revisional power is an unfettered duty to ensure subordinate courts adhere to the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a time-barred criminal appeal be treated as a revision by the High Court to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice?
  • Is the non-examination of the Investigating Officer a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have a duty to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct errors of subordinate courts?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the primary evidence, such as the F.I.R. (dying declaration), remains unproved due to the non-examination of the Investigating Officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Banaras Khan and anothers vs Mst. Yasmeen Begum1997 MLD 1830 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-07-08Read full judgment →
• Banaras and others vs The State and others1995 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-18
  criminal appealmurderocular evidencedying declarationmedical evidencebenefit of doubtfalse implicationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution relied upon ocular testimony and an alleged dying declaration to secure the conviction. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained despite significant contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, and doubts surrounding the authenticity of the dying declaration. The Peshawar High Court held that the conviction could not be maintained. The court found that the ocular witnesses were unreliable as they falsely implicated other co-accused and their testimony regarding the weapons and nature of injuries was irreconcilably contradicted by medical reports. Additionally, the dying declaration was deemed unreliable due to the absence of a medical certificate certifying the deceased's fitness, visible interpolations, and contradictions by other prosecution witnesses. The court established that where prosecution evidence is inherently defective, contradictory, and fails to prove the motive, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused as a matter of right, leading to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained when ocular testimony is irreconcilably contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does the false implication of co-accused by eye-witnesses render their entire testimony unreliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a dying declaration that lacks a medical certificate of fitness and contains unexplained interpolations?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the motive for an offence when it has been explicitly advanced in the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Astam Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 459 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-08-18
  murderf.i.r. delaymedical evidenceocular account contradictionmotiveacquittalbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant, Astam Khan, against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his father, Sher Ahmad, fired at the deceased (the appellant's father-in-law) following a domestic dispute. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found a significant, unexplained delay of two and a half hours in lodging the First Information Report, which cast doubt on the presence of the eye-witnesses. Furthermore, the ocular account was directly contradicted by the medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired, the distance of firing, and the nature of the injuries. The Court also noted the lack of corroborative evidence, such as the delayed transmission of blood-stained earth to the Chemical Examiner and the absence of recovered weapons. Consequently, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, accepted the appeal, and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal effect of an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report on the credibility of the prosecution's case?
  • How should a court resolve a material contradiction between the ocular testimony of eye-witnesses and the medical evidence regarding the distance and number of gunshots?
  • Is a conviction sustainable under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when there is no evidence of pre-planning or common intention, and the ocular account is unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1268 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Arbab Jamshed Ahmad and another vs Ghazan Khan and others1995 CLC 695 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-18
  revisional jurisdictionsale mutationburden of proofrevenue recordpresumption of truthtemporary injunctionirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected revision petitions filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of title, possession, confirmation of possession, and annulment of a sale mutation on the grounds of fraud, collusion, and non-payment of consideration was dismissed. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings regarding the validity of the sale mutation and payment of sale consideration were sustainable, and whether the burden of proof was properly discharged. The Peshawar High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the correct attestation of the mutation and the receipt of sale consideration by the deceased vendor were unexceptionable and supported by the revenue records and oral testimony, thereby creating a rebuttable presumption of truth that the plaintiffs failed to rebut. The court laid down the principle that while mutations do not confer title by themselves, they carry a strong presumption of truth when incorporated into the revenue records, and once evidence has been led by both parties, the question of onus loses its significance.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a sale mutation be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the evidentiary weight and presumption of truth attached to a mutation incorporated in the revenue records?
  • Does financial loss resulting from the breaking of a monopoly constitute irreparable loss for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Amrood Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1378 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Amir Qadir vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 547 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-14Read full judgment →
• Amir Khan vs The State1995 PLD Peshawar 153 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Farid Khan and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 741 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Aksar Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Akrampoor vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1781 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-21Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Shah and another vs Pir Sabir Shah1995 CLC 402 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Akbar Nawaz Khan vs Sher Dil Khan and 2 others1995 MLD 1061 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
• Akbar Nawaz Khan vs Sher Dil Khan And 2 Other1995 MLD 1061 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-24Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan vs The State1995 MLD 1199 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
• Aftab Khan vs Haamid Hussain and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 552 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-01Read full judgment →
• Afsar Khan vs Nawab Khan and 3 others1995 P Cr. L J 549 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-07-03
  quashing of orderpolice releaseinsufficient evidencejudicial scrutinychallancriminal procedureabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to quash an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakki Marwat, whereby two accused persons in a murder case were released pursuant to a police report under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the legality of releasing an accused under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at a late stage when the accused is no longer in police custody, and the propriety of a Magistrate blindly endorsing a police release without judicial scrutiny or application of mind. The court held that powers under section 169 can only be exercised by the police while the accused is in police custody, and Magistrates cannot act as a rubber stamp to police opinions. The impugned order was declared void and set aside, laying down the principle that the release of an accused due to insufficient evidence must be processed properly through the challan and subjected to independent judicial scrutiny by the Magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Can the police exercise powers under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused is no longer in police custody?
  • Whether a Magistrate can blindly endorse the release of an accused person opined by the police without judicial application of mind?
  • How should an accused person released by the police due to insufficiency of evidence be reflected in the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rauf vs Muhammad Aslam Khan and 9 others1995 CLC 618 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel Khan and 4 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera and 10 others1995 CLC 548 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-30
  land acquisitionreference to courtinterested personsimpleadment of partieslimitation periodcompensationcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of land acquisition proceedings wherein land was acquired for a residential colony under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, filed an application under section 18 of the Act requiring a reference to the Court. During the proceedings before the Senior Civil Judge acting as the Land Acquisition Judge, respondents Nos. 2 to 11 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleadment as parties, which was allowed. The petitioners challenged this order through a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal question was whether a Land Acquisition Judge can implead persons as parties to a reference under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when those persons failed to seek a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the prescribed limitation period and had accepted compensation without protest. The Peshawar High Court held that the Land Acquisition Judge erred in exercising jurisdiction by allowing the impleadment, as the special procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 overrides general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court laid down the principle that persons who fail to file a reference before the Collector under section 18 within the stipulated limitation period and accept compensation without protest cannot subsequently circumvent the special law by seeking impleadment as parties before the Reference Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Land Acquisition Judge implead a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 who failed to file a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • Does the special procedure provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 exclude the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the addition of parties?
  • Is a person who has accepted compensation without protest entitled to seek a reference or impleadment in land acquisition proceedings after the expiry of the limitation period?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Ghulam Muhammad and 9 others1995 CLC 1075 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Chairman Labour Appellate Tribunal N.W.F.P, And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum Khan vs Musa Khan and 5 others1995 CLC 729 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-05
  pre-emptionTalb-e-MuwathibatTalb-e-Ishhadframing of issuespleadingswrit petitionlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner sought to frame additional issues regarding 'Talb-e-Muwathibat' and 'Talb-e-Ishhad' after the trial had progressed. The core legal question was whether a court is obligated to frame additional issues regarding specific pre-emption demands when the plaintiff failed to plead these essential facts in the original plaint. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court correctly disallowed the framing of these additional issues. The Court reasoned that issues must be framed based on the existing pleadings of the parties. Since the petitioner's plaint contained no allegations regarding the time, place, or manner of the required 'Talbs'—which are mandatory for the existence of a pre-emption right—there was no factual basis in the pleadings to support the framing of such issues. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition suffered from laches and that the attempt to frame these issues was an improper effort to introduce evidence on matters not raised in the original pleadings. The writ petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court frame an issue regarding a pre-emption demand if the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary facts in the plaint?
  • Is a second revision competent against an order passed by an appellate court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure to plead the time and place of 'Talb-e-Muwathibat' and 'Talb-e-Ishhad' in a pre-emption suit preclude the framing of issues on those topics?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi vs The State1995 MLD 521 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1792 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 862 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ziarat Gul vs XEN, WAPDA and anothers1994 PLD Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ziarat Gul vs XEN, WAPDA And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
• Zarin Khan vs Haji Amir Sultan1994 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 176 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
• Zahidullah vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
• Zahiduliah vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
• Yousaf and others vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Yousaf And Other vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Khan vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 153 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-18Read full judgment →
• Usman Khan and 10 others vs Ghazi Khan and 14 others1994 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• Usman Khan And 10 Other vs Ghazi Khan And 14 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-29Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Syed Jumaat Ali Shah, And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Syed Jumaat Ali Shah and anothers1994 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• TM Muhammad vs United Bank Ltd., Karachi1994 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood Khan vs Sultan Mahmood Khan and anothers1994 PLD Peshawar 268 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood Khan vs Sultan Mahmood Khan And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 268 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Taj Wali vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs United Bank Ltd., Karachi1994 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Sultan Ali Shah and others vs Abdur Rehman and others1994 PLD Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Sultan Ali Shah And Other vs Abdur Rehman And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashraf Shah And Others vs Muzaffar Khan And Other1994 CLC 2408 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Akbar Shah and 4 others vs Syed Usman Bacha and 3 others1994 PLD Peshawar 194 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Akbar Shah And 4 Other vs Syed Usman Bacha And 3 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 194 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin and 2 others vs Habib Bank Ltd.1994 PLD Peshawar 233 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →