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.

• Muhammad Zubair vs Government of Pakistan and 2 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 186 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair vs Govemment Of Pakistan And 2 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 363 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 3025 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Principal, Ayub Medical College1986 CLC 1425 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-25
  medical college admissionreserved seatsprospectuswrit of mandamusadministrative discretiondomicile certificatediscriminatory refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought admission to Ayub Medical College against a reserved seat for the 1984-85 session after the candidate originally admitted had his domicile certificate cancelled. The Principal refused admission, citing a prospectus rule prohibiting admissions six weeks after the session's commencement. The petitioner challenged this refusal, arguing the rule was discriminatory, as the previous candidate was admitted well after the six-week deadline, and that the college had been closed for winter vacation during that period. The core legal question was whether the college prospectus constitutes a statutory instrument binding on the administration and whether the Principal's refusal to admit the petitioner was unreasonable. The Court held that the prospectus lacks statutory force and is merely an offer for admission. It found the Principal's reliance on the six-week rule unreasonable and discriminatory, particularly given the previous candidate's late admission. The Court established that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably and in good faith, and that technicalities in non-statutory documents should not deprive eligible candidates from backward areas of their lawful rights to reserved seats.

  Questions settled

  • Does a college prospectus constitute a statutory document?
  • Can administrative authorities rely on non-statutory prospectus rules to deny admission in an unreasonable or discriminatory manner?
  • Is a candidate entitled to admission against a reserved seat if the previous occupant's admission is cancelled due to fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qayum Baig vs Mst. Sabira Sultana And 2 Other1986 CLC 194 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khair Ul Azam And 2 Others vs Mehtarjo Taj Muhammad1986 CLC 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jalat Khan And Another vs Ghulam Sarwar Represented By Legal Heirs And 3 Other1986 CLC 552 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-02
  pre-emptionclerical errorarithmetical mistakedeposit of pre-emption moneyextension of timeletters patent appealaccidental omission
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the first appellate court granted the plaintiff a partial decree for agricultural land on payment of a proportionate sale price. However, the court inadvertently miscalculated the proportionate price as Rs. 2,128 instead of Rs. 1,128, and failed to specify a time limit for the deposit of the excess amount. The vendees subsequently sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the excess pre-emption money was not deposited within a reasonable time. The High Court, affirming the decision of the Single Judge and the Senior Civil Judge, held that the error in the first appellate court's judgment was a clerical and arithmetical mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission. Under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, such errors can be corrected by the court at any time, either of its own motion or on application, without any limitation period. The court ruled that a party cannot be made to suffer due to an act or mistake of the court, and the correction takes effect retrospectively.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pre-emptor be penalized for failing to deposit excess pre-emption money within a specific time frame when the decreeing court failed to prescribe any time limit for such deposit?
  • Whether a clerical or arithmetical mistake in a judgment or decree can be corrected by a court at any time under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does any period of limitation apply to an application seeking the correction of an accidental slip or clerical error in a judgment or decree?
  • Whether a correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake in a judgment takes effect retrospectively from the date of the original judgment.
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 21 Others vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 16 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim Shauq vs Haji Muhammad Jee and 6 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And 10 Others vs Government of N. W. F.P. Through Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar And 2 Other1986 CLC 40 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad 1Rshad KHANAccused vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yasmin vs Rashid Ahmad1986 PLD Peshawar 172 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehmat Noor vs Hal1m Shah and 2 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jabeen Baha and 2 Others vs Said Mian Sherzada and 3 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps Manufacturing Limited And Others vs Chairman, District Council, Peshawar And Another1986 CLC 533 · Peshawar High Court
  export taxfreedom of tradelocal government taxationlegislative competencetax versus feeconstitutional petitionDistrict Council
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated writ petitions challenging notifications issued by the Chairman, District Council, Peshawar, imposing an export tax on goods transported out of the district. The petitioners contended that such taxation violated the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 151 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 and that the District Council lacked legislative competence, as export taxation falls under the Federal Legislative List. The core legal question was whether the District Council was empowered to levy such an export tax and whether the distinction between a tax and a fee rendered the levy ultra vires. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that Article 151 does not provide absolute freedom of trade and permits reasonable restrictions in the public interest. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the term export in the context of the North-West Frontier Province Local Government Ordinance, 1979, includes moving goods out of a district, and that the Ordinance’s definition of tax explicitly encompasses fees, thereby validating the Council's authority to impose the levy.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 151 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 guarantee absolute freedom of trade and commerce?
  • Is the imposition of an export tax by a District Council on goods moving out of the district within its legislative competence under the North-West Frontier Province Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the definition of tax in the North-West Frontier Province Local Government Ordinance, 1979, include fees, thereby authorizing the District Council to levy such charges?
  • Can a local authority impose taxes on the movement of goods without violating the Federal Legislative List regarding export and import?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Aman vs Mst. Bib! Amra1zan1986 PLD Peshawar 58 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-06Read full judgment →
• Khani Zaman and Others vs Ghulam Haider and Others1986 PLD Peshawar 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad and Another vs Mir Zaman1986 PLD Peshawar 109 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-01-31
  pre-emptionexchange of landsale versus exchangedeposit of pre-emption moneyconditional decreerevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a pre-emption suit filed by the respondent challenging a land transaction effected through an exchange mutation, claiming it to be an ostensible sale. The core legal questions involved whether the transaction constituted a genuine exchange or a sale subject to pre-emption, and whether the pre-emptor validly deposited the pre-emption money within the prescribed period under a conditional decree. The Peshawar High Court held that the transaction was a genuine exchange and not a sale, as price is an essential element of sale and no cash consideration had passed, nor was there sufficient evidence of disparity in value or location to convert the exchange into a sale. Furthermore, the Court held that the pre-emptor failed to deposit the required pre-emption money within the stipulated period, thereby causing his suit to stand dismissed by operation of law. The key principles laid down are that a transfer of property in consideration of another property rather than a cash price constitutes an exchange and is not liable to pre-emption, and that failure to deposit pre-emption money within the prescribed time results in the automatic dismissal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a transaction involving the transfer of land in exchange for another property constitutes a sale subject to pre-emption or a genuine exchange?
  • What is the legal effect under Order XX Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a pre-emptor fails to deposit the balance purchase price within the prescribed period?
  • Can the benefit of section 10 of the General Clauses Act 1897 be claimed for depositing pre-emption money due to bank rush without demonstrating immediate vigilance and approaching the Court?
  • Is the payment of a cash price an essential prerequisite for a transaction to be classified as a sale in the eyes of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Dad and others vs The State1986 MLD 2777 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Shah vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 361 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs Ghulam Qasim1986 MLD 2363 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yaqoob vs Fazalur Rahman and Another1986 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
• Guldar Khan vs The State Respondent1986 P Cr. L J 2960 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
• Gula Jan and 5 Others vs Abdul Majid and 5 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Zeb vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1986 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Akhtar vs Sultan an KH an and another1986 MLD 1930(2) · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Khabib vs Ghulam Sadiq And 2 Other1986 CLC 1423 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 141 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
• Fazalurrehman and Another vs Haji Muhammad Yaqoob1986 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-04-29
  pre-emptionoccupancy rightsdoctrine of mergerco-sharershipcivil revisionagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two civil revision petitions challenging the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which dismissed the plaintiffs' suits for pre-emption regarding the sale of occupancy rights in agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of merger applied to the sale of occupancy rights, effectively converting them into full ownership rights, thereby allowing the pre-emptors to assert superior rights based on co-sharership, contiguity, and participation in immunities, rather than the status of a landlord. The Court held that the principle of merger was inapplicable because the vendors held distinct and separate rights—ownership of a share and occupancy tenancy of the remainder—which remained independent and were transferred as such. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that the pre-emptors could not claim superior rights based on grounds applicable to full ownership when the subject matter of the sale was specifically occupancy rights. The judgment establishes that merger does not occur where ownership and occupancy rights remain distinct and are transferred as separate interests.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of merger apply to the sale of occupancy rights where the vendor holds both ownership and occupancy interests in the same land?
  • Can a pre-emptor claim superior rights of pre-emption based on co-sharership when the subject of the sale is limited to occupancy rights?
  • Are ownership rights and occupancy rights considered distinct and separate interests that do not automatically merge upon transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dad Khan And 5 Others vs Mst. Hazrat Jan And 17 Other1986 CLC 545 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-12
  revenue recordmutationadverse possessionburden of proofJamabandititle disputecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition concerns a dispute over the title and possession of land. The petitioners, heirs of the original plaintiff, claimed ownership based on a 1942 mutation entry, arguing that subsequent revenue records omitting their ancestor's name were erroneous. The respondents, who were subsequent transferees, contended that the original mutation was dubious and that they had acquired title through adverse possession, supported by consistent entries in settlement and revenue records spanning decades. The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, relying primarily on the 1942 mutation. However, the lower appellate court reversed this, finding that the plaintiff failed to independently prove the underlying sale transaction and that the defendants had established adverse possession. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, affirming that mutation entries and subsequent Jamabandi records do not, by themselves, create title when challenged. The court held that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiff to independently establish the sale, which they failed to do, and that the long-standing, unchallenged revenue records favoring the defendants were correct.

  Questions settled

  • Do mutation entries and subsequent Jamabandi records by themselves create title in favor of a person when challenged?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on a party to independently prove a sale transaction when the mutation entry is disputed?
  • Can long-standing, unchallenged revenue records be preferred over a disputed earlier mutation entry?
  Read full judgment →
• Dara Shikoh vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1053 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-19Read full judgment →
• Chairman, WAPDA And Another vs Faqir Muhammad And Another1986 CLC 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-30Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Abdus Salam And 3 Other1986 CLC 572 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
• Barkat Shah vs Mst. Sultan Zari And Others1986 P Cr. L J 980 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ur Rehman vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2716 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ghulam Ali Khan and 14 Others vs Arbab Muhammad Hussain1986 PLD Peshawar 72 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
• Amir Shah vs Federal Government and 2 oTHERS1986 PLD Peshawar 195 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-05-13Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Abdur Rehman Khan And 2 Other1986 CLC 3021 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar Khan vs Ghulam Sarwar and 19 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ajab Din and 6 OHERSs vs Muhammad Shah and 8 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 30 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan and 2 Others vs Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W. F. P., Peshawar and 4 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-23
  revisional jurisdictionBoard of Revenueland partitionsecond revisionwrit jurisdictioncompetency of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, which had accepted a second revision petition regarding a land partition dispute. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue possesses the jurisdiction to entertain a second revision petition under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, after the Commissioner has already exercised revisional jurisdiction in the same matter. The Court examined the statutory provisions and compared the revisional powers under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, with those under the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950. Relying on the principle established by the Supreme Court in Haji Samad Khan v. Khalid Khan, the Court held that there is no material difference between the revisional powers under these two statutes. Consequently, once the Commissioner has exercised revisional authority, a second revision before the Board of Revenue is incompetent. The Court ruled that the Member, Board of Revenue acted without lawful authority in entertaining the second revision, and the impugned order was declared to be of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second revision petition competent before the Board of Revenue after the Commissioner has already exercised revisional jurisdiction under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Are the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, materially different from those under the N.-W. F. P. Tenancy Act, 1950?
  • Does the Board of Revenue have the authority to entertain a second revision once the Commissioner has decided the matter in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khanan and Others vs The State and 2 Others1986 PLD Peshawar 39 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 119 · Peshawar High Court · 1986-03-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Halim vs The State1986 PLD Peshawar 92 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-12-02
  post-arrest bailstatutory baildelay in trialhardened desperate criminalprevious convictSection 497 CrPChistory-sheeter
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from a case registered under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the accused-petitioner was charged with murder and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under the third proviso (b) to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on account of continuous detention exceeding two years, or whether bail was barred under the fourth proviso on the ground of being a previous convict, hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal. The Peshawar High Court held that mere allegations, charges, or a police history-sheet do not establish a person as a hardened or desperate criminal, nor do they make one a previous convict where past convictions were set aside on appeal. The Court laid down that unless a person is proved guilty by a final court of law, they are presumed innocent. The petitioner was accordingly granted bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does continuous detention for over two years entitle an accused to statutory bail under Section 497(1) CrPC when trial delay is not attributed to the accused?
  • Can a person be treated as a previous convict or a hardened criminal based merely on untried charges, police history-sheets, or convictions set aside on appeal?
  • What degree of proof is required to disentitle an accused from statutory bail under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) CrPC?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaki Bahadur and 2 others vs Abdul Wasih and. 3 others1985 CLC 509 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• Wazir Muhammad vs Durrani and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 17 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Izzat Noor1985 P Cr. L J 457 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-06
  dying declarationocular testimonyacquittal appealmedical evidencecriminal procedureburden of proofappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent, Izzat Noor, who had been charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Niaz Manan. The core legal question concerned the reliability of the dying declaration and the ocular testimony presented by the prosecution to establish the respondent's guilt. The Court examined whether the deceased was in a conscious state to provide a valid dying declaration, noting that the deceased was found unconscious by independent witnesses and that the medical evidence contradicted the narrative in the dying declaration regarding the nature of the weapons used and the number of injuries. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, affirming the trial court's acquittal. The key principles laid down are that a dying declaration must be scrutinized for genuineness, specifically regarding the declarant's mental capacity, consistency with medical evidence, and the absence of external prompting. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an acquittal order should not be lightly interfered with unless the trial court's conclusion is perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration be relied upon when the medical evidence contradicts the nature of injuries described therein?
  • Is a dying declaration valid if the declarant was unconscious at the time of the alleged recording?
  • Should an appellate court interfere with an acquittal order if the trial court's assessment of evidence is not perverse?
  • Does the failure to name an eye-witness in the First Information Report render their testimony unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• The Sarhad Industrial Employers' Association- vs The Secretary to Government of N.W. F. P. Industries, Commerce, Mineral Development, Labour and Transport Department, Peshawar1985 PLD Peshawar 32 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Government of Pakistan through Military Estate Officer, Abbottabad vs Mst. Safia Begum and 2 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 110 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• TH.E State vs Muhammad Akram1985 PLD Peshawar 116 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• Tehmas Khan and 3 Others vs Mst. Bastari1985 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah and Others vs Nasir Ali Raza and Others1985 PLD Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Qamar Shah vs The Senior Executive Vicepresident and Member, Executive Board, Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 106 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Noor Muhammad Shah vs The State1985 PLD Peshawar 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Mir Ahmad Shah and 22 Others vs Muhammad Badshah and 111985 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• State through the AdvocateGeneral, N.W.F.P. vs Haji Gulzar Ahmad1985 P Cr. L J 1153 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
• Sohbat Khan vs Mst. Alm a S a1985 CLC 512 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-28Read full judgment →
• Shamsur Rehman vs Muhammad Rauf and others1985 P Cr. L J 2842 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
• Shahzaman and ANOTHERs vs Muhammad Aslam and 3 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-14
  civil revisionex parte decreedismissal in defaultrestoration applicationearly hours dismissalOrder IX CPCSection 151 CPCsubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed against the judgments of the lower courts refusing to restore an application aimed at setting aside an ex parte decree. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree had been dismissed in default during early morning hours on a date fixed merely for filing a written reply. The core legal questions pertained to whether a suit or application can be dismissed in default in early court hours, and whether a second application lies for restoring a previously dismissed restoration application under Order IX read with Section 141 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court set aside the lower courts' orders and restored the application, holding that procedural rules must advance substantial justice rather than defeat it on technicalities. The Court held that dismissals in default should not occur during early hours without recalling the matter later, and that a second restoration application is maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit or application liable to be dismissed in default during the early morning hours without waiting or recalling the matter towards the end of the day?
  • Is a second application for restoration of a previously dismissed application under Order IX maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can procedural provisions and legal formalities be allowed to defeat the ends of substantial justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Shadi K H a N vs Muhammad Behram and 4 others1985 CLC 2218 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
• Salim Khan vs The State1985 PLD Peshawar 136 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs Abdur Rehman and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 1055 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• Said Khan and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
• Sabz Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 437 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
• Rahimullah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 463 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan vs Mir Hamza and 3 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 125 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
• Pasal vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 229 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-07-27Read full judgment →
• Parvez Akhtar vs Tasleem Hussa1n and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 66 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Ghulam Siddique1985 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Naushad vs Ham Akbar and 4 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
• Nasim Javed vs National Bank of Pakistan1985 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-30
  adjournmentdefault of appearanceproduction of evidencebanking suitex parte decreemerits
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal addresses the applicability of rules 2 and 3 of Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a party defaults in appearance and fails to produce evidence on an adjourned date. The respondent bank filed a recovery suit against the appellant's firm under Order XXXVII, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. After adjournments for the appellant to produce evidence, the appellant and his counsel failed to appear and produce evidence on the fixed date, whereupon the trial court closed the appellant's evidence under Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and decreed the suit on merits based on the available record. The trial court subsequently dismissed the appellant's application to set aside the decree as an ex parte decree. The Peshawar High Court held that where sufficient material is already available on record, Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies even if there is a default of appearance by the defaulting party. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Order XVII rule 2 or Order XVII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies when a party fails to appear and produce evidence on an adjourned date?
  • Can a trial court proceed under Order XVII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to decide a suit on merits when the party is absent but sufficient material is available on the record?
  • Whether an application for setting aside a decree passed under Order XVII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as an ex parte decree is maintainable?
  Read full judgment →
• N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Irrigation and Public Health Engineering1985 CLC 726 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs Abdul Rahim and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 122 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusaf vs Fazal Karim and 4 others1985 CLC 503 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs Jehan Bahadur and another1985 CLC 2214 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and 3 Others vs Muhammad Asim and 6 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 159 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Aziz Akbar and 4 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 142 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parwez vs Badiuzzaman Khan and others1985 P Cr. L J 3007 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-26
  pre-arrest bailmurdermala fidescriminal revisionocular evidenceinvestigationbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the Sessions Judge granting pre-arrest bail to the accused respondents in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge correctly exercised discretion in granting pre-arrest bail despite the existence of direct ocular evidence and the absence of established mala fides. The High Court set aside the order and cancelled the bail. The Court held that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy, not a rule, and is reserved for cases where the prosecution is motivated by mala fides or ulterior motives to falsely implicate the accused. The Court emphasized that in pre-arrest bail matters, the accused must demonstrate that the intended arrest is motivated by mala fides and that they are not involved in the offence. Furthermore, the Court must ensure that granting such relief does not frustrate the investigation. Since the accused were charged with a serious offence supported by direct evidence, the Sessions Judge’s order was unjustified, and the accused were ordered to be taken into custody to facilitate the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of pre-arrest bail a rule or an exception in criminal cases?
  • Must an accused demonstrate mala fides on the part of the prosecution to obtain pre-arrest bail?
  • Can a court grant pre-arrest bail where the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment and is supported by direct ocular evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Additional District Judge and 2 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 8 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Wazir Zada and others1985 P Cr. L J 2844 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul and another vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2U5 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Shaheen vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1985 P Cr. L J 794 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs The State and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 2411 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Khan and another vs Maulana Ri Azul Ha SS an1985 CLC 619 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayaz and ANOTHERs vs The State1985 PLD Peshawar 82 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 181 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Khan vs Nangar Khan and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 574 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Yaqoot Begum and 2 Others vs Muhammad Hasham and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sikandar Jan and 13 others through his Legal Heirs vs Abdul Ghani1985 CLC 2582 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaukata vs The State1985 PLD Peshawar 163 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saliha and ANOTHERs vs Mst. Badri Jamala and .ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleema vs Shad Muhammad Khan and 42 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 29 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Farosha vs Umar Gul and 11 others1985 CLC 810 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-13
  res judicatalimitationregistered sale-deedcompromise decreerevisional jurisdictionrevenue record
  Summary & questions settled

  The dispute in this revision petition relates to agricultural land originally owned by the plaintiff's father, who sold it jointly to the plaintiff and her sister via a registered sale-deed in 1954. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession, holding that it was barred by the principle of res judicata based on an earlier 1955 compromise suit and barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Upon review, the Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence. The court ruled that the earlier suit was resolved via compromise without any direct and substantial issue or judicial determination regarding the suit land, thus rendering res judicata inapplicable. Furthermore, the court held that pleadings cannot be treated as evidence without the maker being examined, and that the suit was within time since the plaintiff had been in continuous possession as owner and the cause of action arose only when her title was denied. The revision was accepted and the plaintiff's suit was decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit dismissed on the basis of a compromise operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings where the matter was not directly and substantially in issue?
  • Can pleadings, such as a written statement or a plaint, be treated as substantive evidence without the person who filed the same being examined as a witness in court?
  • Does a suit for declaration of title and possession remain within time when the plaintiff has been continuously recorded as owner and in possession in the revenue records and files suit upon the first denial of title?
  • Are findings of courts below based on a misreading and disregard of evidence open to interference in revisional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gugoo vs The State1985 PLD Peshawar 114 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-08
  pre-arrest bailPardanasheen ladybail before arrestdiscretionary powercriminal procedurehonour and dignity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Mst. Gugoo, who was charged alongside her brother for lurking house trespass and causing hurt to the complainant, Mst. Bakhmaley. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a Pardanasheen lady, was entitled to pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly given the nature of the alleged offence and the potential for irreparable injury to her honour and dignity. The Peshawar High Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The court reasoned that the petitioner is a woman, and her case falls within the discretionary ambit of the law regarding bail for women. Furthermore, the court established the principle that Pardanasheen women should generally not be refused pre-arrest bail, especially in cases involving non-bailable offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, particularly where there are credible apprehensions of harm to their dignity and honour upon arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Pardanasheen woman entitled to pre-arrest bail when charged with a non-bailable offence not falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the court have the discretion to grant bail to a woman accused of an offence not punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years?
  • What factors should a court consider when exercising its power to grant pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Jan and ANOTHERs vs 2ND Member, Board of Revenue, N.W. F.1985 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Bulbulai and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 222 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bib1 Mehr Jana alias Bibi vs Muhammad Akhya and others1985 CLC 1635 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Gul vs Municipal Committee and others1985 P Cr. L J 3004 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah and another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary1985 CLC 580 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →