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.

• Ayub and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ayub And Another vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-10-04Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner and others vs Abdul Ghaffar and othersPLD.1994 Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner And Other vs Abdul Ghaffar And OtherP L D1994 Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs Muhammad Ali Khan and anothers1994 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan vs Muhammad Ali Khan And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Asal Muhammad and others vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 214 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Asal Muhammad And Other vs The State1994 PLD Peshawar 214 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and 2 others vs Muhammad Hassan and 3 others1994 PLD Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →
• Amanullah And 2 Other vs Muhammad Hassan And 3 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-04-18Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan vs Masood Ahmad Khan1994 MLD 1557 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-28
  banking recoverystatement of accountspenal interestoverdraft facilityburden of proofbankers books evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 challenges the dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant Bank's suit for the recovery of Rs.6,37,928.12 against the defendant-respondent. The core legal questions involved the correctness of the statement of accounts, the legality of charging penal interest without an express contract, and whether entries in bankers' books alone are sufficient to charge a person with liability. The Peshawar High Court held that the bank's statement of account was factually incorrect, that it had levied excessive and unauthorized interest and penal interest without any agreement, and that entries in books of accounts regularly kept are relevant but not sufficient by themselves to charge any person with liability. The court established that when a bank's statement of accounts is proven incorrect and inflated through unauthorized markups, insurance charges, and penal interest, and the defendant has discharged the liability, the recovery suit must fail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether entries in books of accounts regularly kept in the course of business are sufficient by themselves to charge any person with liability?
  • Can a banking company charge penal interest without an express contract or agreement between the parties?
  • What is the effect on a recovery suit when the plaintiff bank's statement of account is proven to be factually incorrect and inflated with unauthorized charges?
  • Does an adverse presumption arise under the law of evidence when a party fails to produce documents or authorities that are within its power to produce?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Rehman vs Mst. Husan Ara and 4 others1994 PLD Peshawar 271 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Rehman vs Mst. Husan Ara And 4 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 271 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Municipal Committee, Dera Ismail Khan and 31994 MLD 2477 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-02-26Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan vs The Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Karachi and 3 others1994 PLD Peshawar 264 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Abid Khan vs The Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Karachi And 3 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 264 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razaq vs District Council, Peshawar Through Chairman, District1994 CLC 1733 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-27
  writ jurisdictioncontractual obligationsauction leasearbitration clauseconstitutional petitiondisputed questions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed by an auction purchaser challenging the demand by the District Council, Peshawar, to pay Educational Tax in addition to the Export Tax lease amount. The petitioner contended that the Educational Tax was not included in the auction terms and that the demand was arbitrary. The respondents argued that the terms of the lease agreement, which the petitioner signed, explicitly included the Educational Tax. The Court held that the petitioner, having signed the lease agreement, was bound by its terms, and the subsequent auction notice, which omitted the specific reference to Educational Tax, did not override the formal lease agreement. The Court further held that the dispute, being purely contractual in nature and involving disputed questions of fact, was not amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court noted that the agreement contained an arbitration clause, providing an adequate alternative remedy. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the Court declined to enforce contractual obligations or resolve factual disputes through extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a dispute arising from a contractual lease agreement amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
  • Can a party challenge the terms of a signed lease agreement in a constitutional petition when an arbitration clause exists?
  • Does a subsequent auction notice that omits a specific tax term override the signed lease agreement containing that term?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1994 PLD Peshawar 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Government of N. W.F.P. And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil vs Hamid Farooq and others1994 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil vs Hamid Farooq And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basir Khan and 3 others vs Sanaur Rehman and 2 others1994 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Basir Khan And 3 Other vs Sanaur Rehman And 2 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Sabir Jana vs Haji Ayub Khan(K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 3) · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Zar Khan and 8 others vs Faqir Gul and 4 others1993 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-30
  civil revisionrevenue recordshamilat-e-dehshar-e-aamthoroughfaredeclarationperpetual injunctionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners. The plaintiffs claimed that Khasra No. 1902 was 'Shamilat-e-Deh' and a public thoroughfare ('Shar-e-Aam'), while Khasra No. 1905 was their exclusive property. They challenged recent revenue entries that reversed these descriptions, showing Khasra No. 1905 as 'Shar-e-Aam' and Khasra No. 1902 as cultivable land. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, relying on the recent 1973-74 revenue records. On revision, the Peshawar High Court examined the historical revenue records dating back to 1903-04, which consistently showed Khasra No. 1902 as a public path and Khasra No. 1905 as the plaintiffs' private property. The High Court held that both lower courts had misread and ignored long-standing consistent revenue entries in favor of a sudden, unexplained change. Consequently, the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the lower courts' decrees, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether long-standing consistent revenue entries can be discarded in favor of a sudden, unexplained change in subsequent records?
  • Can a co-sharer in 'Shamilat-e-Deh' land change the character of a public thoroughfare ('Shar-e-Aam') for personal cultivation or construction?
  • Whether the misreading and omission of historical revenue records by lower courts constitutes a valid ground for interference in a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Zar Jan vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
• Yaqub vs Al' I Zaman1993 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and 3 others vs Muhammad Nawaz Khan and another1993 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-20Read full judgment →
• Umer Khitab vs Islam Yousaf and others1993 MLD 1775 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
• Tahir Zaman and others vs Abdul Akbar Khan and others1993 MLD 1774 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sufibat Ullah Khan vs Pirzada Noorul Baser and others1993 PLD Peshawar 90 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation vs Mamoor Khan1993 CLC 790 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-30
  life insurancesuppression of material factsfraudulent concealmentrepudiation of policyinsurance surveyor reportcontract of utmost good faithcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for the recovery of an insured sum under a life insurance policy filed by the plaintiff against the defendant insurance corporation. The core legal question was whether the life insurance policy was voidable on the ground of fraudulent suppression of material facts regarding the insured's health at the time of the proposal. The trial and appellate courts concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The Peshawar High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and dismissed the suit, holding that the defendant insurance corporation had successfully established through cogent documentary and surveyor evidence that the deceased insured had deliberately suppressed material facts concerning a pre-existing advanced illness (cancer/lympho sarcoma) at the time of obtaining the policy. The court laid down the principle that insurance contracts are governed by utmost good faith, and an insurer is legally entitled under section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938, to repudiate liability and call in question a life insurance policy within the statutory two-year period if material facts were fraudulently concealed by the policy-holder.

  Questions settled

  • Can an insurer repudiate a life insurance policy on the ground of suppression of material facts under section 45 of the Insurance Act 1938?
  • Whether a plaint or written statement can be treated as substantive evidence if the plaintiff or defendant fails to appear as a witness at the trial?
  • Does the deliberate concealment of information in a proposal form constitute sufficient ground for avoiding a contract of insurance?
  • Is an insurance policy vitiated when the policy-holder suppresses a pre-existing serious ailment like cancer at the time of obtaining the insurance?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Qadir Khan vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 281 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sher Ahmad Accused vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-08
  post-arrest bailforged currency notestraffickingpossession of forged notesbailable offencedouble jeopardyrailway police recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a petition for bail filed by Sher Ahmad, who was apprehended by the Railway Police aboard the Khushal Express train with one hundred forged currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination recovered from his shirt pocket. The core legal question was whether the act of possessing such forged notes while travelling constituted trafficking under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rendering the offence non-bailable, or mere possession under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of evidence of trade, commerce, sale, or exchange, the case fell prima facie under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court laid down the principle that when an offence is punishable with fine only or fine alongside imprisonment, the accused is generally entitled to bail as of right to avoid double jeopardy resulting from pre-trial detention, and consequently granted bail to the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of forged currency notes while travelling on a train constitute trafficking under Section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an offence punishable with fine or alternative imprisonment bailable as of right?
  • Does refusal of bail leading to prolonged detention amount to double jeopardy when the conviction might ultimately result only in a fine?
  • When does transportation of forged currency notes amount to trading or trafficking?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheen Akbar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1997 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman vs Sher Afzal Khan and another1993 PLD Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-07
  quashmentexemption from appearanceincapability of appearingemployment abroadcriminal procedureinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of orders passed by a Magistrate and an Additional Sessions Judge, whereby an accused person employed abroad was exempted from personal appearance during trial under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether employment and physical absence abroad constitute an 'incapability' of appearing before the court justifying exemption under Section 540-A, or if such incapability is strictly confined to sickness or infirmity. The Peshawar High Court held that the term 'incapability' under Section 540-A is not restricted to sickness or physical infirmity, but extends to circumstances where an accused is unable to attend due to employment abroad, provided the trial court's satisfaction is based on objective considerations in the facts of the case. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the term incapability under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is strictly restricted to sickness or physical infirmity?
  • Can an accused person employed abroad be exempted from personal appearance during a criminal trial under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes objective consideration for a trial court's satisfaction while granting exemption from appearance to an accused under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Jehan vs Imtiaz alias Papache and another1993 P Cr. L J 683 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Sehbat Ullah Khan vs Pirzada Noorul Wahid and others1993 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad and 2 others vs Haider Zaman and 3 others1993 PLD Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-09
  Civil RevisionVacant sitePossession follows titleBurden of proofNon-impleadmentLimitation ActAdverse possessionDeclaration of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment reversing the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration of title, possession, and perpetual injunction regarding a vacant site. The core legal questions concerned the competency of the revision due to the non-impleadment of pro forma defendants, the burden of proof regarding title when defendants fail to establish their own source of ownership, and the applicability of the law of limitation. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the non-impleadment of pro forma defendants does not render a revision incompetent unless it prejudices the parties' rights. The Court affirmed that while the burden of proof initially rests on the plaintiff, a defendant's failure to assert or substantiate the origin of their own title strengthens the plaintiff's case. Furthermore, the Court established that for vacant land, possession follows title. Finally, the Court held that the suit was within the limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the cause of action arose upon the defendants' recent interference with the property.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-impleadment of pro forma defendants render a civil revision petition incompetent?
  • Does the presumption of possession follow title in cases involving vacant land?
  • Does a defendant's failure to establish the origin of their own title affect the court's assessment of the plaintiff's claim?
  • Is a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding a vacant site barred by limitation if filed within six years of the cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• Saiful Malook vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Criminal Cases 337 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Saiful Malook vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
• Said Amin and 8 others vs Wilayat Shah and 15 others1993 PLD Peshawar 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-16Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad Shaha ccused vs The State and another1993 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-10
  retracted confessionconfession of co-accusedidentification paradepolice custodyrobberyindependent corroborationbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad, convicting the appellants under section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the alleged robbery of a Suzuki pick-up and cash, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment along with fine, compensation, and default sentences. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value and voluntariness of a retracted judicial confession, the legal weight of a co-accused's confession under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the reliability of identification parades vitiated by prior police show-ups, and the necessity of independent corroboration for sustaining convictions in grave offences. The Peshawar High Court held that the retracted confession was involuntary due to prolonged police custody and lacked material corroboration, that a confession found untruthful or involuntary cannot be used even as circumstantial evidence against co-accused, and that flawed identification parades and pointations yielding no recoveries are devoid of evidentiary value. The appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside, establishing the principle that retracted confessions require robust, independent corroboration beyond reasonable doubt before grounding a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can be relied upon to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars?
  • Can the confession of a co-accused be taken into consideration as circumstantial evidence against other co-accused under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 if it is found to be neither true nor voluntary?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade when the witness has already seen the accused in police custody prior to the parade?
  • Does pointation of crime scenes by an accused where no incriminating material is recovered have any evidentiary value regarding guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustam Zaman vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2010 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
• Rozina Ashraf vs Khalid Mehmood1993 MLD 2070 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-07-03Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs The State1993 MLD 526 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
• Rasta Baz Khan vs Nasrullah JanK.L.R. 1993 Revenue Cases 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
• Rashmin and anothers vs Abdur Rahim and others1993 PLD Peshawar 239 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-08Read full judgment →
• Raja Iqbal Hussain vs Secy: Board of Revenue, NWFP and Two OtherK.L.R.1993 Labour & Service Cases 199 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-07Read full judgment →
• Qamar Ali Khan vs Zardad Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 162 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
• Qadeem Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 589 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
• Parwaiz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 685 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Javaid vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-02
  murdercuff and firearm injurieseyewitness testimonysubstitution of accuseddelay in FIRrelated witnessesimprisonment for life
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur, dated 8-4-1991, whereby the accused-appellant Shaukat Javaid was convicted under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Maqboolur Rehman and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine and compensation under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution case was founded on an eyewitness account of a sudden quarrel over the distribution of a drink (Sharbat) near the victim's shop, corroborated by medical evidence establishing death by firearm wounds. The appellant raised a plea of alibi and false substitution, alleging enmity with third parties and police collusion. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence, repelled the contentions regarding the credibility of related and apprentice eyewitnesses, explained minor discrepancies and delays in reporting, and noted that substitution of a single accused is a rare phenomenon. The court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of a related or household-associated witness can be discarded solely on the ground of their relationship or association with the deceased?
  • Is substitution of a single accused person considered a common phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence?
  • Does a minor delay in lodging the First Information Report necessarily vitiate the prosecution case when a plausible explanation is provided?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused fails to examine himself on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Hamidullah Khan And 17 Other vs DeputyK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 132 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nawabzada Hameedullah Khan and 12 others vs Deputy1993 PLD Peshawar 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-19
  public propertyencroachmentexclusive jurisdictiondeclaration of ownershipmunicipal committeewrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute where the petitioners sought a declaration that the suit property was their private property and not public property, and to restrain the Deputy Commissioner and Municipal Committee from leasing it. Initially, the Civil Court returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The petitioners then approached the Tribunal under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977. The Tribunal held that the property was public property and that it lacked jurisdiction because no official proceedings under the Act had been initiated. On writ petition, the High Court examined the evidence, noting that the Municipal Committee had been in possession, management, and control of the property since 1952. The High Court held that under Section 13 of the Act, the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate whether a property is public property. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the land was public property, clarifying that the Tribunal did possess jurisdiction to make this determination despite the absence of formal enforcement proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Tribunal under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1977 have exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a property is public property?
  • Can a Tribunal adjudicate whether a property is public property in the absence of formal enforcement or removal proceedings initiated by the authorities under the Act?
  • Does long-term possession, management, and control of land by a Municipal Committee satisfy the statutory definition of public property under the N.-W.F.P. Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1977?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fiaz vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 138 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-27
  murderself-defencebenefit of doubtsuppression of injuriesocular testimonycriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304, Part I, PPC, alongside a connected criminal revision seeking enhancement of the sentence to Section 302, PPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot and killed the deceased following an earlier dispute. The defense contended that the appellant acted in self-defence after being attacked by the deceased and a prosecution witness, sustaining injuries during the incident that the prosecution failed to explain. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses had suppressed material facts, including the injuries sustained by the appellant and another individual, and that the recovery of the weapon and empties was highly doubtful. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defense version raised a reasonable possibility of a right of private defence, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the criminal revision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence?
  • Does the failure of an accused to fully establish a plea of self-defence disentitle them to the benefit of omissions and doubts in the prosecution case?
  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained upon doubtful ocular testimony and unverified weapon recoveries?
  • Is an offence under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 triable exclusively by a Magistrate of the 1st Class?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Shah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 704 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-20
  murderres gestaeocular evidenceforensic evidencecriminal appeallife imprisonmentadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Muhammad Aslam Shah, for the murder of Suleman Shah under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, along with a fine, based on ocular evidence, medical testimony, and forensic reports linking the crime weapon to the scene. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused, particularly regarding the admissibility of testimony under the doctrine of res gestae. The Peshawar High Court upheld the conviction, finding the ocular evidence credible and consistent with the medical findings. The Court held that the statement made by a witness to another immediately after the occurrence, explaining the event, was admissible under Article 19 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 as part of the res gestae. The Court affirmed that the evidence, corroborated by the forensic report of the crime weapon, established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while maintaining the life sentence due to the appellant's advanced age.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statement made by a witness to another person immediately after a crime admissible as part of the res gestae?
  • Does the doctrine of res gestae allow for the admission of contemporaneous declarations made under the influence of an event?
  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular evidence corroborated by forensic reports of a crime weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State and 3 others1993 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Duarriyaman and another1993 PLD Peshawar 151 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-14
  bail cancellationprinciples of natural justiceaudi alteram partemQisas and DiyatDamannotice to complainantprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition moved under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Abbottabad. The core legal question was whether an accused person whose offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) can be granted bail upon an offer of depositing 'Daman' without serving notice upon the State and the complainant. The Peshawar High Court held that while bail may ordinarily be granted for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the principles of natural justice—specifically the maxim audi alteram partem—require that both the State and the complainant be given notice and an opportunity of being heard before any favourable order regarding bail is passed, particularly under the legal dispensation introduced by the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance 1992. The Court accordingly cancelled the bail order passed without notice, remanded the accused to custody, and permitted him to file a fresh bail application to be decided after notice to the opposing parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the State and the complainant are entitled to a notice before bail is granted to an accused whose offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to issue notice to the complainant and the State vitiate an order granting bail upon the deposit of 'Daman' under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance?
  • Are principles of natural justice applicable to judicial proceedings that result in consequences affecting the liberty or rights of parties even if not expressly mentioned in the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf alias Ashram vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 686 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-19
  summoning of accusedcolumn 2 of challanpolice reportrelease under section 169 Cr.P.C.criminal revisiontrial court powerscognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Sessions Court summoning the petitioner, who was placed in column No. 2 of the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and released under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during investigation, to stand trial alongside his co-accused in a case under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused placed in column 2 and released by the police can be legally summoned by the trial court to face trial. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a Sessions Judge is fully competent to summon an accused person placed in column 2 of the challan upon taking cognizance and receiving the case, regardless of whether the police released them under section 169 or whether the release was challenged by the complainant or the State. The key principle laid down is that police release during investigation is a provisional arrangement, and the trial court retains the legal authority to summon any accused whose name appears in the police report if a prima facie case is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person placed in column No. 2 of the report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be legally summoned by the Sessions Judge to stand trial?
  • Does the release of an accused by the police under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the trial court from summoning him to face trial?
  • Is the State or the complainant legally required to challenge an accused's release under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the trial court can summon him?
  • Whether the Sessions Judge is required to pass a detailed speaking order when summoning an accused placed in column No. 2 of the challan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashaq vs Azizurrahman and 2 others1993 CLC 2293 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-07-06
  rent restrictionstriking off defencewilful defaultconstitutional jurisdictionstatutory interpretationrent depositejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the appellate order upholding the Rent Controller's decision to strike off the petitioner's defense for failing to deposit rent by the 10th of the month. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller correctly interpreted the deadline for rent deposits under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent on time constituted "wilful default." The Court held that the Rent Controller erred by mandating the 10th, as the statute specifies the 15th of the succeeding month. Furthermore, the Court determined that the tenant's delay was not "wilful default" because administrative obstacles beyond the tenant's control prevented the deposit. The judgment establishes that "default" requires an element of negligence or fault, not mere non-compliance. Additionally, it affirms that legal questions going to the root of a case, such as statutory interpretation, may be raised for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction, even if not previously argued before lower tribunals. The impugned orders were declared to be of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'rent due' in Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 refer to the 15th of the succeeding month?
  • Can a tenant's failure to deposit rent due to administrative delays and bank closure be classified as 'wilful default' warranting the striking off of their defence?
  • Is a legal question that goes to the root of a case permissible to be raised for the first time in a constitutional petition?
  • Does the word 'default' in the context of rent legislation require proof of negligence or fault beyond mere non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Khan and 6 others vs The Central Government of Pakistan through Central Board of Revenue_Chief Land Commissioner, Islamabad and 18 others1993 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-16
  civil revisionland reformsouster of jurisdictionconsent decreereturn of plaintLand Commissionbona fide transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from two suits where the plaintiffs claimed ownership of land based on consent decrees passed in 1969. They challenged the subsequent resumption of the land under Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 115) and the mutations attested in favor of private respondents. The trial court and the appellate court returned the plaints under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that civil courts lacked jurisdiction due to the bar contained in Paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The Peshawar High Court, in dismissing the revision petitions, held that the Land Commission possesses exclusive jurisdiction to determine the bona fides and validity of land transactions under the Regulation. The Court ruled that even where a transaction is backed by a civil court consent decree, the final authority to decide its validity under the land reform laws rests solely with the Land Commission. Consequently, the civil courts' jurisdiction was completely ousted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Paragraph 26 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115 in respect of matters within the exclusive domain of the Land Commission?
  • Is the Land Commission bound by a consent decree passed by a civil court when determining the validity of a land transaction under the Land Reforms Regulation?
  • Under what conditions can the statutory ouster of civil court jurisdiction be bypassed when an order of a special tribunal is challenged?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aman alias Pino vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 690 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rooh Afza vs Sher Aman Khan and others1993 PLD Peshawar 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-11-28
  minorguardian ad litemex parte decreecivil revisionadverse interestremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil revision petition arising from a suit for property originally filed in 1983 before the Civil Judge, Swabi, wherein minor defendants were unrepresented and improperly placed ex parte after their mother and proposed guardian failed to appear. The core legal question is whether a minor defendant or respondent can be placed ex parte and whether a decree passed against an unrepresented minor is valid. The Peshawar High Court held that a minor cannot be placed ex parte under any circumstances, and a decree passed against an unrepresented minor is a nullity, void, and without jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a minor must be continuously and properly represented by a qualified guardian ad litem who has no adverse interest, failing which the court lacks jurisdiction over the minor, necessitating a fresh trial upon remand.

  Questions settled

  • Can a minor defendant or respondent be placed ex parte if the proposed guardian does not turn up?
  • What is the legal status of a decree passed against an unrepresented minor?
  • What procedure must a court follow when a proposed guardian fails to appear or declines consent to represent a minor?
  • Is a mother disqualified from acting as a guardian ad litem if she has an interest adverse to her minor children?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Chan Bibi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1317 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Zaman And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Case 140 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Khan vs The StateK.L.R.I993 Criminal Cases 247 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mir Alam vs Shah Zaman and 4 others1993 PLD Peshawar 181 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fazal Weaving Mills Limited, Multan vs Controller Imports &1993 CLC 550 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• Khandad vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Khan Bahadur vs Sher Ahmed and 3 others1993 PLD Peshawar 241 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-16Read full judgment →
• Kamal Khan vs Gulmat Khan1993 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-19
  breach of contractspecific performanceextrinsic evidenceambiguous contractoral evidenceQanun-e-Shahadatcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a civil suit concerning a breach of contract for the sale of land. The defendant-petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell 56 Kanals of land to the plaintiff-respondent but subsequently sold the land to a third party. The trial court decreed the recovery of earnest money but dismissed the claim for damages. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decision, decreeing the damages as well. The core legal question was whether extrinsic oral evidence was admissible to identify the specific land subject to the agreement when the written contract was ambiguous regarding the property's description. The High Court held that the defendant committed a breach of contract. Relying on the principle that where a written contract is ambiguous or obscure, extrinsic evidence regarding surrounding circumstances and the parties' conduct is admissible to clarify the true intent and subject matter, the Court upheld the appellate decision. It affirmed that oral evidence was permissible to prove that the land sold to the third party was indeed the specific property intended for the plaintiff under the original agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Is extrinsic oral evidence admissible to identify the subject matter of a contract when the written agreement is ambiguous?
  • Can the conduct of parties be used to construe the meaning of an obscurely framed contract?
  • Does the prohibition against varying the terms of a written document under Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 prevent the admission of evidence to clarify the intended subject matter of a contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad and others vs Government of N.W.F.P. and others1993 CLC 1067 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-31
  locus standiaggrieved personconstitutional jurisdictionsettlement and rehabilitationevacuee propertywrit petitiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, D.I. Khan, which transferred a disputed house to the respondents. The petitioners, whose predecessor-in-interest had previously been denied entitlement to the property by the Supreme Court, sought to challenge the transfer, arguing the property should have been disposed of via public auction. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having been previously declared disentitled to the property, possessed the locus standi to challenge the transfer of the property to the respondents under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioners were not 'aggrieved persons' within the meaning of Article 199, as they had no legal interest in the property following the Supreme Court's prior judgment. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioners lacked the standing to invoke constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that a party who has been judicially determined to have no entitlement to a property cannot maintain a writ petition to challenge the subsequent transfer of that property to another party, as they do not qualify as an 'aggrieved person'.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party previously declared disentitled to a property by a final judgment have locus standi to challenge the subsequent transfer of that property to another party?
  • Is a revision petition maintainable against an order passed by a Notified Officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
  • Can a party who is not an 'aggrieved person' invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Islam Badshah and 2 others vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-07
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencescorching marginsfirearm rangeacquittalsite plan
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Peshawar High Court arose against convictions and sentences under Sections 304(1) and 308 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the appellants challenged their culpability for the deaths and injuries arising out of a broad daylight firearm shooting. The primary legal question considered by the High Court was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically examining the consistency and compatibility of the ocular testimony and site plan distances with the forensic medical evidence regarding firearm firing ranges and wound characteristics.

  The High Court held that the ocular account directly conflicted with the medical evidence. While eyewitnesses and the site plan placed the assailants at distances ranging from 25 to 45 feet, the victims' entry wounds displayed scorched and blackened margins, which medically only occur from close range (1 to 3 feet). Given this irreconcilable discrepancy, an unmatched crime empty, and an inadequate motive, the Court granted the benefit of the doubt, accepted the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether ocular evidence placing the shooter at a distance of 25 to 45 feet can be accepted when medical evidence establishes scorched margins only possible from a range of 1 to 3 feet?
  • Does an irreconcilable conflict between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony regarding the firing range create reasonable doubt entitling the accused to acquittal?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when a recovered firearm empty fails to match any of the shotguns recovered from the accused, suggesting an unrecovered weapon was used?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Khan vs Zalib Khan and another1993 PLD Peshawar 79 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
• Haris Khan vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-03
  rash and negligent drivingsimultaneous convictiongrievous hurtcontributory negligencecriminal revisionreduction of sentencecompromise
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court convicting the petitioner under sections 279, 338, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code for rash and negligent driving resulting in injuries to two persons and damage to property. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence and whether an accused can be convicted and sentenced simultaneously under both section 279 and section 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the same transaction. The Peshawar High Court held that where rash or negligent driving results in grievous hurt, a separate conviction and sentence under section 279 cannot be sustained alongside section 338, as the minor offence merges into the major one arising from the same transaction. The court laid down the principle that separate sentences are not justified for acts constituting different offences forming part of the same transaction, setting aside the conviction under section 279 while maintaining the convictions under sections 338 and 427, and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone in view of a compromise between the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be convicted and sentenced simultaneously under both section 279 and section 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the same act of rash and negligent driving?
  • Does rash and negligent driving resulting in grievous hurt constitute an offence exclusively under section 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code excluding section 279?
  • Whether separate sentences are justified where acts constituting two different offences form part of the same transaction against the same accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Baz Khan and 8 others vs Abdur Rahim and 5 others1993 PLD Peshawar 36 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-13
  civil revisionadditional evidencepre-emption decreeburden of proofappellate stagelacunaownership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and recovery of rent regarding a house. The plaintiffs claimed title based on a 1924 pre-emption decree, while the defendants asserted ownership through a prior registered sale deed and adverse possession. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the deposit of pre-emption money or the execution of the 1924 decree, and failed to establish the defendants as tenants. In revision, the plaintiffs sought to introduce additional evidence to prove the deposit of pre-emption money. The High Court held that additional evidence cannot be allowed at the revisional stage to fill lacunae in a case, particularly when no such application was made before the appellate court. The Court affirmed that the lower courts correctly appreciated the evidence regarding ownership and tenancy. The revision petition was dismissed, establishing the principle that an unsuccessful litigant cannot use the revisional stage to patch up evidentiary omissions or produce additional evidence that should have been presented during the trial or appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party produce additional evidence at the revisional stage to fill gaps in their case?
  • Is an unsuccessful litigant entitled to produce additional evidence to patch up weak portions of their case?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court permit the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Baz Khan & 8 Other vs Abdur Rahim & 5 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 129 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs The District Judge, D.I. Khan and 9 others1993 PLD Peshawar 259 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-09-28Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed vs Hamid and another1993 PLD Peshawar 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Sher and 2 others vs Shah Jahan and 3 others1993 PLD Peshawar 66 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-09Read full judgment →
• Hafeezur Rehman vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 252 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-08-29
  judicial remandphysical productionbailillegal confinementprohibitory clausecriminal proceduremurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail petition arose from a murder case where the accused challenged the legality of his detention, contending that his remand to judicial custody on three occasions without physical production before the Magistrate rendered his confinement illegal, thereby entitling him to bail. The core legal questions concerned the Magistrate's authority to remand an accused under Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following the 1992 amendments, and whether the absence of the accused during remand proceedings invalidates the detention to the extent of granting bail. The Court held that a Magistrate retains the power to remand an accused under Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, until the case is formally transmitted to the Court of Session. Furthermore, the Court ruled that physical presence is not a mandatory requirement for a valid remand order, as it serves as a rule of caution. Finally, the Court established that while illegal detention may be a ground for bail, it does not mandate automatic release, particularly where the accused is prima facie connected to a non-bailable offense and is currently held under a valid warrant.

  Questions settled

  • Is the physical presence of an accused mandatory before a Magistrate for a valid order of judicial remand?
  • Does a Magistrate retain the power to remand an accused under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the enactment of the Amendment Act No. XXV of 1992?
  • Does an invalid remand order automatically entitle an accused to bail, even if the accused is prima facie guilty of an offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Forest Department, Peshawar1993 PLD Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-24
  civil revisionexecution proceedingsobjection petitionpre-admission noticeinterlocutory orderremandappellate judgment requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from an appellate order dismissing the petitioner's appeal on a technical ground. The respondent had obtained a decree for a perpetual injunction regarding the cutting and transportation of marked trees. During execution proceedings, the petitioner filed an objection petition, which was dismissed by the Executing Court. On appeal, the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to serve a pre-admission notice to the respondent as required under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court analyzed Order XLIII Rule 3 and held that its requirement of pre-admission notice applies strictly to appeals against orders made during the pendency of a suit, aiming to prevent delays in interlocutory matters. It does not apply to appeals against orders passed during execution proceedings. The High Court further observed that the appellate judgment failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by failing to state the points for determination and decide the factual controversy. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the case for disposal on both factual and legal grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the requirement of pre-admission notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to appeals against orders passed in execution proceedings?
  • What is the legislative purpose behind the pre-admission notice requirement in Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What are the essential requirements of an appellate judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary Forest Department, Peshawar1993 PLD Peshawar 194 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-10Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. and others vs Fazal Maula and others1993 PLD Peshawar 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-05-22
  civil revisionclosing of evidencedecision on meritssummary decreeprocedural irregularityremand of caseOrder XVII Rule 3 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit where the trial court, after granting the defendants a final opportunity to produce evidence, closed their evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and immediately decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The District Judge upheld this decision on appeal. The core legal question was whether a trial court, upon closing a party's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is empowered to summarily decree the suit without deciding the case on its merits. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts acted illegally and with material irregularity. The Court ruled that the provisions of Order XVII, Rule 3 are permissive rather than mandatory, and even when evidence is closed, the court is legally obligated to decide the suit on merits. This requires the court to hear arguments and render a judgment on each issue based on the material on record, rather than granting a summary decree. Consequently, the judgments were set aside and the case was remanded for further trial, with the defendants granted a final opportunity to produce evidence subject to heavy costs.

  Questions settled

  • Is the power of a court to close evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or permissive?
  • Can a court summarily decree a suit after closing a party's evidence under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without deciding the case on its merits?
  • What is the legal requirement for a court when deciding a suit under Order XVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Nazir Ahmad1993 MLD 2083 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-06
  rent controlejectmentwilful defaultlandlord-tenant disputemoney orderrent receipt
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Controller of Rents, Nowshera Cantt., which directed the eviction of the appellant-tenant from a shop on the grounds of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the tenant’s failure to pay rent for the period of September 1987 to February 1988 constituted a wilful default warranting ejectment, given the tenant's claim that the landlord refused to issue rent receipts and rejected subsequent rent payments sent via money order. The Court held that the landlord failed to substantiate his claim of issuing receipts, while the tenant provided evidence of attempting to pay rent through money orders. The Court concluded that the tenant’s actions demonstrated a clear intent to pay, negating the element of wilful default. The key principle laid down is that only wilful default in rent payment renders a tenant liable for ejectment; where the evidence is ambiguous or suggests a genuine attempt by the tenant to pay, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the tenant, and the eviction order cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to pay rent always constitute a ground for ejectment under rent control laws?
  • When should a doubt regarding the wilful nature of a rent default be resolved in favor of the tenant?
  • Is a tenant liable for ejectment if they attempt to pay rent via money order after the landlord refuses to issue a receipt?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib vs Rahim Gul & OtherK.L.R 1993 Criminal Cases 168 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
• Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd vs Assistant Collector and othersPTCL 1993 CL. 677 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad Khan and 18 others vs Gaulam Elahi and others1993 PLD Peshawar 87 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-27
  civil revisiondeclaration of titleconsent decreeprocedural technicalityconversion of plaintjurisdictionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of title and challenging a previous consent decree and subsequent land mutations. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs should have filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 instead of a regular suit, as the decree was challenged on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court, relying on the Supreme Court of Pakistan's precedent, set aside the lower courts' decisions. The High Court held that procedural laws are meant to advance justice rather than stifle proceedings on technicalities. It ruled that if a court concludes that a suit is incompetent and an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is the appropriate remedy, the court has the power to convert the plaint into an application under Section 12(2) (and vice versa) at any stage of the proceedings before final decision, rather than dismissing the suit outright.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit challenging a decree be converted into an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the court finds a regular suit is incompetent?
  • At what stage of the proceedings can a court convert a plaint into an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Should a civil court dismiss a suit on technical grounds if the plaint contains the necessary ingredients of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Bhore Khan vs Noor DinK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 124 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
• Bhore Khan vs Noor Din1993 PLD Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-01-16
  special oathgeneral oathoath on Holy Quranrevision petitionbinding agreementpossession suitcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the respondent's suit for possession of a house based on title was decreed pursuant to a special oath taken by the respondent on the Holy Qur'an, following an offer made by the petitioner during the trial. The core legal questions involved whether an oath taken upon a party's offer is governed by sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act 1873 or Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984, whether such an oath is binding, and whether the trial court followed proper judicial caution. The Peshawar High Court held that an oath resulting from a voluntary offer by one party and accepted by the other is a special oath governed by sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act 1873—which is distinct from the general oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984—and creates a binding agreement from which a party cannot resile. The Court laid down that special oaths under the Oaths Act 1873 are valid when based on voluntary agreement, and courts must record separate statements of parties to prevent hasty decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oath taken pursuant to an offer made by the opposing party is governed by the Oaths Act 1873 or Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984?
  • Can a party who voluntarily offers to be bound by an oath taken by the other party subsequently resile from that offer?
  • What are the mandatory procedural guidelines for courts when recording a special oath agreement between parties under the Oaths Act 1873?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahar Gul vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-04-27Read full judgment →
• Badshah Zada vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 699 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-12-23
  rash and negligent drivingpost-mortem examinationproximate causesimultaneous convictioncriminal revisiontraffic accidentcausa causans
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition before the Peshawar High Court arose from the conviction of a bus driver by a Magistrate under Sections 279, 338, 304-A, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner drove rashly and negligently, hitting a jeep from behind and then colliding head-on with a Suzuki van, resulting in the instantaneous death of the van driver and injuries to the jeep's occupant. The High Court examined whether simultaneous convictions under Sections 279, 338, and 304-A were legally sustainable and whether a conviction under Section 304-A could stand without a post-mortem report. The Court held that where rash or negligent driving results in death or grievous hurt, the offender is liable under Sections 304-A or 338, but cannot be simultaneously convicted under Section 279. Furthermore, the absence of a post-mortem report meant the prosecution failed to prove that the victim's death was the direct and proximate result of the injuries. Consequently, the Court acquitted the petitioner under Sections 304-A and 338, but maintained and modified the convictions under Sections 279 and 427.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be simultaneously convicted and sentenced under Section 279 and Sections 304-A or 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the same transaction of rash driving?
  • Is a formal post-mortem examination necessary to sustain a conviction for causing death by negligence under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 338 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the medical evidence fails to prove that the injured person suffered grievous hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs Nasiruddin1993 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-03-06
  declaratory suitconsequential reliefrevenue recordJamabandilimitation periodco-ownershipcause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a dispute over land ownership and the correctness of revenue record entries. The plaintiff-petitioner sought a declaration that revenue entries in the Jamabandi of 1974-75, which recorded the defendant-respondent as the owner of a 1/48 share of land, were incorrect as the plaintiff had not sold that share. The trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit, holding it incompetent under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, for failing to seek consequential relief of possession, and time-barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The High Court, upon review, held that because the plaintiff remained a co-owner in possession of the land, a suit for declaration without consequential relief was maintainable. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a wrong entry in the Jamabandi provides a fresh cause of action, and a suit for declaration and correction of such entries may be filed within six years from the date of knowledge of the wrong entry. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' findings, declared the suit maintainable and within time, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for declaration maintainable without a prayer for consequential relief of possession when the plaintiff is a co-owner in possession of the land?
  • Does a wrong entry in the Jamabandi provide a fresh cause of action for a declaratory suit?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a suit for the correction of wrong entries in the Jamabandi?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Khan and 2 others vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Khan And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 34 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-03Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Shahzullah Khan alias Shazullah Khan and 4 others1993 CLC 545 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Aseel Badshah alias Sail Badshah and 2 others vs The State1993 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
• Amir Afzal and 2 others vs Ghu Lam Haider and 2 others1993 PLD Peshawar 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →