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.

• Habibullah vs Master Fazal Ur Rehman And 4 Other1989 CLC 1567 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Habib Khan vs Haji Haroon Ur Rashid1989 CLC 783 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-14
  evictiontenant estoppelco-ownershipres judicatabona fide personal requirementlandlord-tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an order of the District Judge, Swat, which dismissed a landlord's eviction petition against a tenant, overturning a Rent Controller's decision. The core legal questions were whether a tenant, having previously acknowledged the landlord's title, could subsequently claim co-ownership to defeat an eviction petition, and whether the landlord's plea for personal use was barred by previous unsuccessful litigation. The Court held that a tenant who has acknowledged the landlord's title is estopped under Article 115 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984, from denying that title. The Court found the tenant's claim of co-ownership to be an afterthought and rejected it. However, regarding the landlord's claim for personal use, the Court held that while Section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, might not strictly apply as res judicata, the general principles of res judicata precluded re-agitating the same issue already decided against the landlord in previous rounds of litigation. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the denial of eviction on the grounds of personal use.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tenant estopped from denying the title of their landlord after having previously acknowledged it?
  • Can a tenant raise a plea of co-ownership to defeat an eviction petition after having admitted to the tenancy?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to a landlord's plea for personal use if it was previously rejected by competent courts in earlier litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• H.Fazal Elahi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Peshawar1989 PTD 443 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• H. Fazal Elahi. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, PeshawarPTCL 1989 CL. 617 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• H Amidullah Khan vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Gulab Begm and anothers vs Additional Secretary, Home and Tribal1989 PLD Peshawar 142 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gul Zaman vs Muhammad Shafique1989 PLD Peshawar 247 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Gul Marjan And Another vs Atta Muhammad Khan And 2 Other1989 CLC 2189 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Hayat vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1701 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
• Gul Hamad And Others vs Additional Secretary, Government of N. W.F.P1989 CLC 1561 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Gul Azad Khan, Eada (E&M), Directorate of Agriculture and 13 others vs N.-1989 PLC (C.S.) 7 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Gul Alam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2020 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. Through Collector, Mardan And Another vs Gul1989 CLC 2080 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Government of N. W.F.P. And 3 Others vs Syed Allauddin And 10 Other1989 CLC 1677 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-29Read full judgment →
• Government of N. W.F.P. And 2 Others vs Shah Alam1989 CLC 1542 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-15
  civil revisionservice upon governmentex parte decreegovernment pleaderwakalatnamalegal practitioners and bar councils act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the Government of N.-W.F.P. and others regarding a rescinded timber purchase agreement and forfeited security. The core legal questions involved the legality of service of summons upon the Government, the competence of an advocate to represent the Government without proper authorization under Order 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the validity of an ex parte decree passed without adhering to mandatory provisions, and the competence of an appeal filed by the Government Pleader. The Peshawar High Court held that mandatory provisions regarding the service of summons upon the Government through the Government Pleader or authorised agents were violated, that the trial court passed an illegal ex parte decree without writing a proper judgment containing issues and findings, and that the appellate court erred in holding the appeal incompetent. The revision petition was accepted, setting aside both the trial and appellate court judgments, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit against the Government can proceed without proper service of summons upon the Government through the Government Pleader or authorised forest officers?
  • Can an advocate legally appear and act on behalf of the Government without being appointed by a general or special order in writing?
  • Is an appellate court justified in dismissing an appeal filed by the Government Pleader on the ground that it should have been filed by a private counsel?
  • Whether a trial court can pass an ex parte decree after framing issues without rendering a judgment containing a concise statement of the case and findings on each issue?
  Read full judgment →
• Gohar Aman Khan vs Malik Aman And 3 Other1989 CLC 2032 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar And Others vs Mst. Sultan Bibi And Other1989 MLD 4873 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sadiq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2035 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Shah vs Muhammad Akram and 3 others1989 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farid alias Bindis vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Shariat Cases 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar Khan vs Haji Sher Jan And Other1989 CLC 1789 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-08
  civil revisionconsent decreealienation of landin pari delictopublic policyadverse possessionland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an appellate court judgment that reversed a trial court decree regarding the ownership of land. The petitioner sought a declaration that a consent decree and subsequent mutation were void due to fraud, impersonation, and violation of the North-West Frontier Province New Irrigation Projects (Control and Presentation of Speculation in Land) Act, 1950. The core legal questions concerned whether a consent decree constitutes an "alienation" under the Act and whether the petitioner could challenge the transaction despite the parties' mutual involvement in circumventing the law. The court held that a consent decree is essentially an agreement between parties. Crucially, the court applied the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis, ruling that where both parties are equally at fault for entering an illegal transaction to defeat statutory provisions, the court will not assist in recovering the property. Consequently, the court refused to grant relief, favoring the party in possession, and dismissed the revision petition, affirming the appellate court's decision to uphold the transaction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a consent decree constitute an 'alienation' of land under the North-West Frontier Province New Irrigation Projects (Control and Presentation of Speculation in Land) Act, 1950?
  • Can a party seek the assistance of the court to recover property transferred under an illegal contract where both parties are in pari delicto?
  • Does the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis apply to successors-in-interest of the original parties to an illegal transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroze Khan and 5 others vs M I SK I N1989 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Fazal, Qadir vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 108 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-15Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad And Others vs Sarwar Khan And Other1989 CLC 2359 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-05Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 784 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-11Read full judgment →
• Faroq Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1520 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-02Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 375 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Miss Gulshan Naheed vs The N.W.F.P Public Service Commission And Another1989 CLC 1301 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ali Yahyah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1652 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-02
  exemption from personal appearancesessions trialframing of chargeabsence of accusedcriminal revisionmedical groundsbail bonds
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arises from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansehra, refusing to grant personal appearance exemption to the petitioner, a co-accused facing trial under sections 302, 148, 149, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who resides and works as a medical professor in Libya and suffers from heart disease. The core legal question was whether the trial court could refuse exemption under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused represented by a pleader when multiple co-accused are standing trial and unnecessary delays are being caused. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court's discretion under section 540-A was not exercised judicially, noting that the presence of the accused was not mandatory at the framing of a charge in a Sessions trial under section 265-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner was duly represented by counsel. The court set aside the impugned order, granted the exemption, and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person can be granted exemption from personal appearance under section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 while being represented by a pleader?
  • Is the personal presence of an accused mandatory at the time of framing a charge in a trial before the Court of Sessions?
  • Does section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases triable by a Court of Sessions?
  • Can a trial court exercise its discretion to dispense with the attendance of an accused when multiple co-accused are facing trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Charsadda Sugar Mills Ltd. vs North West Frontier Province And Another1989 CLC 1539 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• CH Am an Khan vs Naqibullah Khan and 10 others1989 PLD Peshawar 107 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Central Government of Pakistan vs Suleman Khan And 5 Other1989 CLC 1610 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Byram D. Avari and 3 others vs The State and 4 others1989 PLD Peshawar 145 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-10
  writ jurisdictionmala fides in lawquashing of FIRcivil disputejudicial reviewpolice investigationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a criminal investigation and arrest warrants initiated against them, arguing that the underlying dispute regarding contractual obligations was purely civil and that the criminal proceedings were instituted mala fide to exert financial pressure. The core legal question was whether the High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, could interfere with a criminal investigation initiated by the police. The Court held that the police investigation and subsequent arrest warrants were without lawful authority and constituted mala fides in law. The Court reasoned that the facts alleged in the First Information Report did not disclose the commission of any criminal offence, rendering the police action incompetent. The Court affirmed that police functions are subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, as no state action is sacrosanct. The judgment established that "mala fides in law" encompasses the gross violation of legal authority, even absent actual malice, and that the High Court must intervene when criminal machinery is abused to settle civil disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash a criminal investigation that is mala fide or beyond the competence of the investigating agency?
  • Does the definition of 'mala fides in law' include the exercise of power in gross violation of law without proof of actual malice?
  • Is a police officer authorized to register a case if the information provided does not disclose the commission of an offence?
  • Are the actions of police functionaries amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Boladar And 11 Others vs Abdul Ghafoor And 25 Other1989 CLC 1771 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Bashir Muhammad And 2 Others vs Mst. Shahzado Bibi And Another1989 CLC 1685 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-02Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan vs N.-W.F.P. Agricultural University and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 678 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Khan And 3 Others vs North West Frontier Province1989 CLC 1671 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Bakhtawar Shah vs Sikandar Muhammad Iqbal Khan And 5 Other1989 CLC 2398 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Babu Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Reh Ana Parveen1989 PLD Peshawar 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-15
  ejectmentpower of attorneyratificationmaintainabilityrent controllerunauthorized agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from two separate appeals filed by a tenant against the orders of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment from two commercial shops under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The appellant-tenant contended that the ejectment applications were incompetent and non-maintainable because they were signed and filed by an attorney who did not hold any power of attorney on the date of filing, and that the subsequent power of attorney executed three months later did not ratify his past unauthorized acts. The High Court examined the definition of power of attorney and the doctrine of ratification under Section 196 of the Contract Act, 1872. It held that a power of attorney must be construed strictly and only confers powers specifically described therein. Since the subsequent instruments only authorized future acts and contained no reference to past actions, there was no valid ratification of the unauthorized filing. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the ejectment orders solely on this technical ground while granting the landlords liberty to file fresh applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney executed subsequent to the filing of a legal proceeding can validate the unauthorized filing of that proceeding under the doctrine of ratification?
  • Can a power of attorney be construed to ratify past unauthorized acts of an agent if the instrument only refers to acts in futuro?
  • Are the provisions of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before a Rent Controller under rent restriction laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan and another vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 2286 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-19Read full judgment →
• Atlas KHANPetitioncr vs Mazamullah Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 2044 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-21
  bail cancellationabscondenceacquittal of co-accusedmurderprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Bannu, following the acquittal of his co-accused. The core legal question revolved around whether an accused who has absconded for a long period is entitled to bail merely because his co-accused has been acquitted after a trial. The Peshawar High Court held that long abscondence is a significant factor against the grant of bail, and the acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle an absconding accused to bail, as absconsion cannot be rewarded. The court laid down the principle that an accused who absconds for a noticeable period after the occurrence is not invariably entitled to bail solely on the ground that a co-accused has been acquitted, and such abscondence forms relevant material that must be considered alongside other incriminating evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a co-accused automatically entitle an absconding accused to post-arrest bail?
  • Is long abscondence of an accused relevant when considering a petition for bail after the acquittal of a co-accused?
  • Can an accused who has absconded for a prolonged period claim bail solely on the ground that eyewitnesses were disbelieved during the trial of a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ataur Rehman Khan vs Fateh Muhammad and 2 others1989 PLD Peshawar 191 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
• Astan Muhammad vs Haji Amanullah Khan And Another1989 CLC 2257 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-12Read full judgment →
• Asif Mahmood alias Kukoo and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-26
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaythird provisoremand orderillegal detentionpiecemeal evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose out of a murder case registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioners were detained as under-trial prisoners for over two years without trial conclusion. The primary legal questions were whether the delay in the trial was attributable to an act or omission on the part of the accused so as to disentitle them to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether remands granted under the signature of a Court Reader rendered their custody illegal under Section 344 of the same Code. The Peshawar High Court granted bail to the petitioners, holding that the prosecution bears the duty to produce witnesses, and adjournments caused by its failure cannot be debited to the defence. Additionally, raising a valid objection against piecemeal evidence does not constitute delay by the accused. The Court further held that remand orders signed by a Court Reader in the absence of the Presiding Officer render the detention illegal under Section 344, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if statutory delay in trial was not caused by an act or omission of the accused?
  • Does raising a valid objection against the recording of piecemeal evidence of prosecution witnesses constitute a delay attributable to the accused?
  • Is a custody remand order signed by a Court Reader instead of the Presiding Judge or Magistrate valid under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs Mst. Parveen Akhtar And Another1989 CLC 1557 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan And 16 Others vs Mst. Sahibzada And 3 Other1989 CLC 1327 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Amir Abdullah vs Tota And 5 Other1989 CLC 1294 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad Nazir And 3 Other1989 CLC 1614 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs Government of Pakistan And 53 Other1989 CLC 1571 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-05
  settlement recordjamabandimortgageprescriptive titlerevenue entriesrevision petitionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration that he and certain pro forma defendants were mortgagees of the suit land, that the redemption period of sixty years had expired, and that they had acquired prescriptive title, while also challenging revenue entries dating back to the 1904-1905 settlement. The trial court ultimately decreed the suit, but upon appeal, the District Judge set aside that judgment and dismissed the suit. The petitioner challenged this dismissal through a revision petition before the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question concerned whether an erroneous entry in the initial 1872 settlement record could override consistent subsequent settlement records of 1904-1905 and 1948-1949 which verified government ownership and military possession, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that settlement records prepared after physical measurement and inquiry carry a much stronger presumption of truth than routine Jamabandis, and that an erroneous initial entry does not override subsequent corrected settlement records when a challenge is time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an erroneous entry in an initial settlement record can override subsequent settlement records prepared after physical measurement and inquiry?
  • What is the evidentiary difference between revenue entries in a Jamabandi prepared by a Patwari and a record-of-rights prepared upon the conclusion of a settlement operation?
  • Whether a plaintiff can claim prescriptive title on the basis of a time-barred mortgage when subsequent settlement records consistently show government ownership and military possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Zaman vs Yaqub1989 CLC 2354 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2385(2) · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-25Read full judgment →
• Alam Zeb Khan vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others1989 PLD Peshawar 231 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdus Sattar And 5 Others vs Sahibzada Mashooo Elahi And 9 Other1989 CLC 1747 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Abdus Samad Khan And Others vs Molvi Abdullah1989 CLC 1563 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-30
  benami transactionbeneficial ownershipostensible ownerburden of proofbona fide purchasercivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a civil suit concerning the ownership of a house purchased in an open auction. The respondent claimed to be the true owner, asserting that the property was purchased 'benami' in the name of the appellant, his step-brother, who acted as the ostensible owner. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully established his beneficial ownership despite the auction documents and municipal records being in the appellant's name. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, finding him to be the actual owner. The High Court upheld this decision, holding that the respondent proved his case through consistent evidence of payment of consideration, possession, and the fact that original title documents remained in his custody. The Court reaffirmed the principle that in benami transactions, the source of consideration and the custody of title deeds are critical factors in determining true ownership. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellants' claim of being bona fide purchasers, noting that their own inconsistent testimony regarding the sale agreements undermined their defense.

  Questions settled

  • What are the primary factors to be considered in determining whether a transaction is benami?
  • Does the fact that auction documents and municipal records are in the name of an ostensible owner preclude a claim of beneficial ownership by another party?
  • Is the custody of original title deeds a relevant factor in proving a benami transaction?
  • Does the failure to frame a specific issue regarding benami status necessarily prejudice the defense in a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman And Others vs Mst. Afroza And Other1989 CLC 2333 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman and another vs Fida Hussain and 3 others1989 P Cr. L J 2028 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Syed Ghulam Mujaddad And 6 Other1989 CLC 697 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum And 10 Others vs Haji Abdul Fateh And Other1989 CLC 702 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 31 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan Khan vs Election Tribunal (Local Councils), Peshawar1989 CLC 1290 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manan And Another vs Mir Nawaz Khan And 4 Other1989 CLC 2277 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-05-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Muhammad Urfan And Another1989 CLC 2363 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-12
  civil reviewwithdrawal of suitpermission to file fresh suitnatural justicecondemned unheardrevisional jurisdictionlimitation period for review
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition arises from an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a revision petition, wherein the plaintiffs-respondents were permitted to withdraw their suit with permission to file a fresh one without notice to the defendant-petitioner. The core legal question is whether an order allowing the withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh one can be passed in a revision petition without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party, and whether such an order violates principles of natural justice and adversely affects accrued rights. The court held that an order under Order XXIII Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires the court's satisfaction based on formal defects or sufficient grounds, which contemplates a pre-decisional hearing to the affected party in accordance with natural justice. The key principle laid down is that passing an order of withdrawal with permission to file a fresh suit behind the back of the defendant, thereby destroying valuable rights accrued through the dismissal of the suit and appeal, is illegal and warrants recall through a review petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order permitting the withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh one can be passed in a revision petition without notice to the opposite party?
  • Does an order allowing withdrawal of a suit without hearing the defendant violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a review petition filed against an order passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Whether valuable rights accrued to a defendant due to the dismissal of a suit and appeal can be taken away without affording an opportunity of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2100 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Khan vs Mst. Bibi Fatima And 5 Other1989 CLC 2424 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil and anothers vs Ajoon and 20 others1989 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Director, PCSIR Laboratories, Peshawar1989 PLC 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee vs Sher Afzal And 26 Other1989 CLC 2283 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar and ancthers vs The State1989 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Khan. vs The StatePTCL 1987 CL. 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mumtaz And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 1796 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-09Read full judgment →
• Tehzeeb. vs Wajid Mahmood Alias Abdul Majid And Another1987 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
• Tehzeeb vs Wajid Maiimood alias Abdul Majid and another1987 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-11Read full judgment →
• Tehmas vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 802 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad And Another vs Sub Divisional Magistrate And 4 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 158 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Turab Shah vs Warad Shah And 19 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 132 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Raza and 4 anothers vs Aurangzeb Khan and 5 others1987 CLC 1829 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-18
  evacuee propertyredemption of mortgagejurisdiction of civil courtdisplaced persons land settlementcross-objectionsrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from a dispute over the redemption of evacuee land originally mortgaged prior to partition and later transferred to the petitioners subject to a mortgage charge. The petitioners sought redemption through various forums, eventually obtaining an order from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (A.C. Hangu) on 18-12-1976. The respondents subsequently filed a civil suit challenging this order, which the trial court dismissed in favor of the petitioners. On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the trial court's judgment and decreed in favor of the respondents, holding inter alia that certain issues could not be touched without a cross-appeal. The Peshawar High Court held that the order of the A.C. Hangu had attained finality under Section 22 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, and that the jurisdiction of civil courts was barred under Section 25 thereof. Furthermore, the High Court held that a respondent may support a trial court decree in their favor on any ground decided against them without filing an appeal or cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the appellate decree was set aside, and the trial court's judgment was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in matters relating to the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act?
  • Can a respondent support a decree in their favor on grounds decided against them in the trial court without filing an appeal or cross-objections?
  • Does an order passed by a settlement authority regarding land settlement attain finality if left unchallenged?
  • Whether an appellate court can decline to review adverse findings against a successful party solely due to the absence of cross-objections?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique Gohar vs Fazal Rehman1987 PLD Peshawar 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad vs United Bank Limited And 3 Other1987 PLD Peshawar 144 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-23
  master and servantstatutory ruleswrit jurisdictionbank employeedismissal from serviceconstitutional petitionservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the suspension and subsequent dismissal of a bank manager by the United Bank Limited. The core legal question was whether the service rules governing the bank's employees were statutory in nature, thereby enabling the invocation of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction to challenge dismissal orders, or whether the relationship remained governed by the principle of master and servant. The Court held that the service rules, framed by the Executive Board under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Bank, were not statutory rules because the power to frame such rules under the Banks (Nationalisation) Act, 1974, vested in the Federal Government, not the Executive Board. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the relationship between the bank and its employee was governed by the rule of master and servant, rendering the constitutional petition non-maintainable for seeking reinstatement and back benefits. The principle laid down is that service rules framed by a bank's internal board, absent statutory backing from the Federal Government, do not attain statutory status, thus precluding writ jurisdiction for service-related grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Are service rules framed by the Executive Board of a nationalized bank considered statutory rules?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to order reinstatement of a bank employee dismissed in violation of non-statutory service rules?
  • Does the rule of master and servant apply to employees of nationalized banks where service rules lack statutory status?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Khan alias Khan vs Haji Hassan Khan1987 PLD Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
• Salim Khan and 5 others vs Muhammad /MB Khan1987 MLD 2413 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
• Sadar Khan vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2164 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Sabuz Hussain Shah And 3 Others vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 164 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-07-13Read full judgment →
• Razi Khan vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• Razi Khan vs The State,1987 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• Raza A. Khan, Deputy Attorney General, Peshawar vs Reghzi Gul-1987 P Cr. L J 1789 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• Rabnawaz And 10 Others vs Saadullah Khan and 3 others1987 P Cr. L J 770 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Qazi Mughal Baz vs The N.W.F.P. through the Provincial Government1987 CLC 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-09-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another1987 CLC 1844 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
• Niamatullah Khan vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan, Bannu Branch through its Manager vs Sayed1987 CLC 1103 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-13
  second appealrecovery suitproof of signatureconcurrent findingsmisreading of evidencebank loanadmissibility of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a dismissed recovery suit filed by the National Bank of Pakistan against the respondent for a loan amount, which decisions were upheld by the first appellate court. The core legal question is whether the lower courts erred in discarding the bank's documentary evidence and whether concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in second appeal where an error of law or misreading of evidence is shown. The Peshawar High Court held that the appellant successfully proved the execution of the disputed loan documents through acceptable statutory modes of proof, such as witnesses in whose presence documents were signed, and that the lower courts committed legal errors in discarding them. The court established that concurrent findings of fact based on misreading or misrepresentation of evidence are open to interference in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that a failure to object to the admission of documents at the initial stage precludes a party from raising such objections later.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in second appeal if they are based on a misreading or misrepresentation of evidence?
  • What are the recognized modes of proving a signature or handwriting under the Evidence Act?
  • Does the failure to object to the admission of a document into evidence at the trial stage bar a party from raising objections later?
  • Is the mere production of a certified copy of a bank statement sufficient per se to charge a person with liability without corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Naik Lath Khan vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Additional1987 CLC 2121 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan and 2 Others vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan and 2 Other vs The Sta Te1987 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan & 2 others. vs The State.PTCL 1987 CL. 383 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muzammil Khan vs Fateh Muhammad Khan And Others1987 P Cr. L J 670 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Government of Pakistan Through Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, PeshawarK.L.R. 1987 Tax and Customs Cases 17 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs The State1987 MLD 1645 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yunas and Another vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1987 PLD Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →