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.

• Mir Dad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 881 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad Khan vs Gul Ayub Khan and 3 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 3 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-07-03Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal. vs The District Excise & Taxation Officer, Abbottabad And 2 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 431 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal vs The District Excise & Taxation Officer, Abbottabad and 21985 PLD Peshawar 101 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mir Abbas vs Amanullah Khan and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Inayatullah Khan vs Government of Pakistan and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 23 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-14
  ex parte decreefraudlimitation periodreview petitionrevisional jurisdictionCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an order setting aside an ex parte decree. The petitioner had filed a suit for damages against the respondents after his fruit garden was allegedly destroyed due to the stoppage of water supply by the respondents. The trial court granted an ex parte decree, which was subsequently set aside upon an application filed by the respondents under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of fraud. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing inter alia that the application was time-barred under Article 173 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908, being akin to a review petition. The Peshawar High Court converted the mistaken appeal into a revision petition and held that an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is distinct in scope from a review petition under Order XLVII, and is instead governed by Article 181 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908, prescribing a three-year limitation period. The Court further held that section 12(2) does not bar an application simply because an appeal was available, and dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be treated as a review petition?
  • Which Article of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 barred on the ground that the impugned order could be challenged in appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Major Abdus Samad Khan vs Attaur Rehman and 2 others1985 CLC 2614 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• M. Afsar Khan and 12 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 103 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-29Read full judgment →
• Khanizaman vs M. Maqsood Khan and 2 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhamma D vs Collector of Customs, Peshawar and others1985 CLC 1273 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood alias Babu vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1040 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad vs Sherurrehman and others1985 P Cr. L J 1620 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs Bibi Sahiba and 2 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-22Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb vs The State1985 PLD Peshawar 50 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-14Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal vs Principal, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and 21985 PLD Peshawar 60 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jahandad Khan through his Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Aslam Khan1985 CLC 2577 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
• Izzat Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1148 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
• Izharuddin and 3 others vs Sardar Ahmad and 3 others1985 CLC 666 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
• Inamullah Khan vs Directorgeneral, Pakistan Forest Institute, Peshawar and 2 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hakim Khan vs Land Acquisition Collector and Others1985 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Noorul Hassan vs District Judge, Dera Ismail Khan and 8 others1985 CLC 2620 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Nisar Ahmad alias Pahar Baba and 2 Others vs The State1985 PLD Peshawar 148 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Aman Gul and another vs Mian Khadim Shah1985 CLC 78 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
• Haakam Khan vs Town Committee, Havelian1985 CLC 808 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• Guldad vs Nadir Din and 2 others1985 CLC 2602 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• Gulab vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1617 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Baz vs Abdur Raz1q1985 PLD Peshawar 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. and 3 others vs Bahadur Khan1985 CLC 1457 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-02-03
  breach of contractoctroi collectiondamagesquantum of proofcontractual liabilityauction noticewrongful cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a trial court decree awarding damages for the wrongful cancellation of an octroi collection contract. The core legal questions concern the existence of a valid contract, the legality of the cancellation, and the sufficiency of evidence regarding damages. The High Court held that a valid contract existed based on the parties' conduct, notwithstanding the absence of a formal written agreement. While the appellants possessed the authority to cancel the contract, the failure to provide the mandatory 15-day notice rendered the cancellation improper. However, the court set aside the damages decree, ruling that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving actual financial loss with reasonable certainty. The judgment establishes that while a contract may be formed through conduct, a claim for damages under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872 requires proof of actual loss sustained; speculative or hypothetical estimates are insufficient to establish the quantum of damages, and the onus remains on the plaintiff to provide concrete evidence of financial injury.

  Questions settled

  • Can a valid contract be formed through the conduct of parties despite a requirement for a formal written agreement?
  • Does the failure to provide a mandatory notice period for contract cancellation render the cancellation illegal or merely improper?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to damages for breach of contract without proving actual financial loss with reasonable certainty?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Iqbal Khan vs Abdul Jalil and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Saidur Rehman and Others1985 PLD Peshawar 13 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider vs Said-Ur-Rehman and others1985 CLC 2638 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
• Ghaniur Rehman vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 177 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-29
  criminal intimidationprobation of offenderssimultaneous sentence and probationrevisional jurisdictioninherent powers of high courtconfiscation of property
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner was convicted under section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code for criminal intimidation by a trial court which sentenced him to one year's imprisonment but simultaneously released him on probation for a period of one year. On revision, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the probation order, holding that the simultaneous imposition of a sentence and a probation order rendered the probation unlawful, and restored the sentence of imprisonment, while also confiscating the petitioner's licensed shotgun. The core legal question was whether a trial court's order sentencing an offender to imprisonment while simultaneously placing him on probation is entirely unlawful or whether the probation order can be sustained. The Peshawar High Court held that where a court convicts an offender and mistakenly imposes a sentence alongside a probation order, the sentence is suspended and the probation order remains effective, as the court has the power under the Probation of Offenders Ordinance to place the offender on probation instead of executing the sentence immediately. The High Court set aside the revisional order under its inherent jurisdiction and restored the trial court's probation order, while also ordering the return of the confiscated shotgun.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the simultaneous imposition of a sentence of imprisonment and an order of probation by a trial court renders the probation order unlawful?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside an order passed by a Sessions Judge under section 439-A?
  • Does a court have the power to confiscate a licensed weapon that is not connected with the commission of the alleged offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad vs The State and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 571 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Shaista Khan and another1985 CLC 505 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
• Dr . Mu H a Mma D Rafiq vs Muhammad Rauf and 4 others1985 CLC 471 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ali Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 246 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Central Government of Pakistan vs Sardar Fakhar-E-Alam and another1985 CLC 2228 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-05-27
  compulsory acquisitionland acquisitionmarket valuematerial datebuilding sitecompensationpotential value
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over compensation for land acquired by the Government of Pakistan for the Pakistan Military Academy, Kakul. The core legal questions concerned the determination of the material date for assessing compensation when a corrigendum is issued following an initial notification, and the appropriate method for valuing land that, while classified as agricultural in revenue records, possesses the potential and character of a building site. The Court held that a corrigendum which is self-contained and includes all necessary details effectively supersedes the original notification, making the date of the corrigendum the material date for valuation. Regarding compensation, the Court affirmed that market value must be determined based on the land's actual complexion and character on the material date. Consequently, if land has acquired the potential for residential or commercial use, it must be valued as a building site rather than agricultural land, rendering revenue record classifications irrelevant for determining fair market value. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the enhanced compensation awarded by the Acquisition Judge.

  Questions settled

  • What is the material date for determining compensation when a corrigendum is issued after an initial notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Does a corrigendum that is self-contained and includes all necessary details supersede an earlier notification under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Should compensation for acquired land be based on revenue record classifications or the actual potential and character of the land on the material date?
  Read full judgment →
• Baz Muhammad and 3 otherss vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 451 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
• Baidullah Khan and another vs Mahmood Jan Khan and 12 others1985 CLC 821 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-27
  inheritancerevision petitioncustomary lawMuhammadan Lawadverse possessionmutationco-sharerlimited estate
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises out of a civil suit seeking possession of land as heirs of the deceased owner. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and appeal, holding that the last full owner died after the enactment of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1935, that the widow and daughter inherited as full owners under Muhammadan Law, and that the suit was barred by time and adverse possession. The Peshawar High Court examined the evidence regarding the date of death and held that if the owner died when custom governed, the limited estate would terminate upon the enforcement of the West Pakistan Shariat Application (Amendment) Act, 1962, rendering possession permissive as co-heirs. Alternatively, if inheritance was governed by Muhammadan Law, the mutation showing equal shares for the widow and daughter was incorrect, and the plaintiffs as residuaries were entitled to their shares. The Court emphasized that mutation does not create title, automatic devolution occurs upon death, and the possession of co-heirs is not adverse without clear proof of ouster. Consequently, the High Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and decreed the plaintiffs' claim for a 3/8 share.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the entry in a death register showing the date of death can be relied upon when conflicting evidence and material cuttings exist?
  • Does the omission of an heir's name from an inheritance mutation deprive them of their legal share in the property?
  • Whether the possession of a co-heir or limited owner becomes adverse to other lawful heirs upon the termination of a limited estate?
  • Does a revenue mutation create or extinguish title to property?
  Read full judgment →
• Badiuz Zaman Khan and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2624 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Rehman vs Additional Secretary, Home Department and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 445 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan vs Abdul Jabbar1985 PLD Peshawar 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Must Afa vs Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P. and 2 others1985 CLC 83 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-07-28Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan and 21 Others vs Mian Inayatur Rehman and 16 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 99 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Muhammad Ashraf and 36 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan and another vs Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P.1985 CLC 495 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Awan vs N.W. F. P. through Chief Secretary and 2 Others1985 PLD Peshawar 52 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and 8 others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Dera Ismail1985 CLC 2221 · Peshawar High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and 7 others vs Mst.Anwar and 4 others1985 CLC 818 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Akbar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 447 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• A SL Am Khan vs Government of N-W.F.P. and 3 others1985 CLC 814 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• Zar Khan vs The Senior Vice-President, Muslim Commercialbank Ltd., Regional Office, Abbottabadand 2 Others1984 PLC 89 · Peshawar High Court
  grievance noticeindustrial relationswrit jurisdictionconcurrent findings of factlachessuppression of factsclean hands doctrinelabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim against his dismissal from bank service due to the failure to serve a mandatory grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions concerned whether the grievance notice was served, whether a 'Mercy petition' could substitute for such notice, and whether the petitioner could introduce new arguments or suppress material facts in writ jurisdiction. The Court held that it cannot re-appraise evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact. It further ruled that a grievance notice must be an independent document served specifically upon the employer, not a higher authority, and that a petitioner cannot raise new pleas not previously agitated before lower forums. Additionally, the Court held that the petitioner’s suppression of a criminal compromise and the 17-month delay in filing the petition (laches) disentitled him to relief. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction is not for re-evaluating evidence or entertaining new cases, and petitioners must approach the Court with clean hands.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court re-appraise evidence to set aside concurrent findings of fact in its writ jurisdiction?
  • Does a 'Mercy petition' or an appeal to a higher authority constitute a valid grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can a petitioner raise a new case in a writ petition that was not pleaded before the competent lower forums?
  • Does the suppression of material facts, such as a criminal compromise, disentitle a petitioner to relief in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• TM Ali Khan vs Government of N.W. F. P. and 3 Others1984 CLC 486 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-27Read full judgment →
• Tila Muhammad vs Maqsood and Others1984 CLC 984 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Iqbal1984 P Cr. L J 257 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Aziz and 2 OTHERSAccused1984 PLD Peshawar 230 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
• The Chairman, Railway Board, Lahore and 2 Others vs Hafiz Abdul1984 PLD Peshawar 285 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-26
  arbitration awardobjections to awardlimitation periodnotice of filing awarddewatering chargesaward made rule of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arose from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, dismissing the appellants' objections as time-barred and making an arbitration award a rule of the court, resulting in a decree against the appellants for dewatering charges. The core legal questions involved whether the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitration award under Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908 runs from the date of the award's filing when the parties' counsel had knowledge and presence in court, and whether an award allowing a disputed rate based on conflicting contractual documents is void on its face. The Peshawar High Court held that oral or constructive notice, established through the presence of a party's counsel in court on the date the arbitrator files the award, is sufficient to commence the limitation period under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, and that an award based on an evaluation of competing contractual evidence is not void on its face. The court laid down that lack of a formal written notice under Section 14(2) does not vitiate limitation where parties have clear constructive knowledge through counsel's presence, and that objections filed beyond the statutory thirty-day period are rightly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing objections against an arbitration award commence from the date of constructive notice when counsel is present in court upon the filing of the award?
  • Can an arbitration award be treated as void on its face merely because it adopts a disputed contractual rate supported by one version of the agreement?
  • Is a formal written notice mandatory under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 when the parties have actual knowledge of the filing of the award through their counsel's presence in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Khan vs N.W. F. P. Forest Development Corporation and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Noorulhassan vs The State1984 PLD Peshawar 273 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
• State vs Sa Hibza Da1984 P Cr. L J 603 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
• State vs Mst. Gran Bibi and 4 OTHERSAccused1984 P Cr. L J 122 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
• State through the Advocategeneral, N.W. F. P., Peshawar vs Muhammad Irshad Salik Lodhi and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 139 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• State through Liaquat Ali and Another vs Amanullah and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 593 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Sohbat Khan and 2 Others vs Noor Alam Khan and 11 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Khan and 4 Others vs Abdullah and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 54 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Shamsul Qamar alias Sepoy vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 504 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-02
  criminal breach of trustinherent powersquashing of convictionsolitary witnessdelayed witness statementrevisional jurisdictionno evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was brought to challenge the conviction and enhanced sentence of the petitioner, a godown chowkidar, under Section 408 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for criminal breach of trust regarding missing tobacco bundles, and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal while accepting a revision petition to enhance his sentence. The State raised a preliminary objection that Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 barred further revision. The High Court held that while Section 439-A excludes revisional jurisdiction under Section 439, it does not curtail the High Court's inherent powers under Section 561-A to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice in extraordinary cases. On the merits, the Court found the conviction rested solely on an uncorroborated eye-witness whose statement was recorded after an unexplained inordinate delay of nearly a month, making it a case of no evidence. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition, quashed the conviction, and set aside the sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A?
  • Can the High Court quash a conviction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the judgment is based on no evidence?
  • Is an uncorroborated statement of a solitary witness examined after an unexplained inordinate delay sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 589 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Shah vs Jamshid Khan and 6 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 74 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Sardood and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 649 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sardar Hasti Khan vs N.W. F. P. and 3 Others1984 CLC 517 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Fazalurrehman and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 222 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-04Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Khan vs Muhammad Rauf Khan and 4 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• Sardar Abdul Hamid vs Momin Khan and 4 OTHERSAccused1984 PLD Peshawar 199 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-27Read full judgment →
• Samunder Gul and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 626 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
• Samundar Khan and 2 Others vs Ali Zaman1984 PLD Peshawar 12 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-09
  pre-emptiontalab-i-mowasibattalab-i-ishhadMuslim Law of Pre-emptioncivil revisionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit concerning land in Batagram, an area where the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 did not apply, necessitating adjudication under Muslim Law. The core legal question was whether the petitioners (pre-emptors) had strictly complied with the mandatory requirements of talab-i-mowasibat (immediate demand) and talab-i-ishhad (demand with invocation) before filing the suit. The trial court and the appellate court had concurrently dismissed the suit, finding that the petitioners failed to prove these essential prerequisites. The High Court affirmed these findings, holding that the mere averment in the plaint regarding a demand for transfer, even if not denied in the written statement, does not satisfy the strict evidentiary burden required to prove the formal demands under Muslim Law. The Court emphasized that these demands are not mere formalities but strict legal requirements that must be clearly proven through evidence, including the presence of witnesses and, for talab-i-ishhad, the presence of the vendee or vendor or the subject premises. The revision was dismissed as the petitioners failed to establish compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a defendant to specifically deny a general averment of demand in a plaint satisfy the requirements of talab-i-mowasibat and talab-i-ishhad under Muslim Law?
  • Are the requirements of talab-i-mowasibat and talab-i-ishhad under Muslim Law mere formalities that can be inferred from circumstances, or must they be strictly proven?
  • Does the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1950 apply to areas where it has not been extended?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman vs Fazlur Rehman and 2 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 219 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
• Said Khan and 12 Others vs Mst. Fozia Parveen and 3 Others1984 CLC 494 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Said Ahmad and Anothers vs Additional Commissioner and 4 Others1984 CLC 1260 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Roshan Khan (through His Heirs) vs Haji Said Khan and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 102 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• Raza Ali Zaidi vs N.W. F. P, Public Service Commission, Peshawar and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• Rahim Shah vs Muhammad Din and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 265 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• Rafiullah vs District Judge, Swat and Others1984 PLD Peshawar 122 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Qureshi Noor Hussain and 7 Others vs Ghulam Jan and 5 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 86 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-05
  limitationgift mutationfrauddeclaration suitsuccessors-in-interestrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  Ghulam Jan and his minor brothers instituted a civil suit for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land and that two gift mutations were fraudulent, void, and ineffective against their rights. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, a decision upheld through successive appeals before the Additional District Judge and the District Judge. In the revision petition before the Peshawar High Court, the sole contention raised by the petitioners was that the suit was barred by time under Article 95 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908. The core legal question was whether Article 95 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied when a gift mutation is challenged on the ground of fraud by the successors-in-interest of the donor rather than a party to the transaction. The Court held that Article 95 applies only when a party to the transaction itself challenges it, whereas for successors-in-interest, the applicable provision is the residual Article 120, providing a six-year limitation period. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed as the suit was filed within time.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 95 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 apply when a gift mutation is challenged by the successors-in-interest of the donor rather than a party to the transaction?
  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit for declaration challenging a fraudulent gift mutation filed by non-parties who are successors of the donor?
  • What is the period of limitation under Article 120 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 for filing a suit for declaration upon knowledge of fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Pasham Khan and 7 Others vs The State1984 PLD Peshawar 156 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-20
  murderappreciation of evidenceinterested witnesschance witnessmedical contradictionbenefit of doubtacquittalblood-feud
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences of eight appellants under sections 302, 307, 404, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with a connected murder reference and a revision petition for sentence enhancement. The core legal question concerns the appreciation of partisan ocular evidence, the reliability of chance witnesses, and the presence of material contradictions between ocular testimony, medical evidence, and the site plan in a murder trial involving a prior blood-feud. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from major doubts, including unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, glaring contradictions between the eye-witnesses' accounts and the medical evidence regarding the nature and direction of injuries, and the exaggerated involvement of the entire male family of the accused. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, laying down the principle that interested ocular testimony contradicted by medical evidence and physical circumstances cannot form the basis of a safe conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of interested and closely related eye-witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration when contradicted by medical evidence?
  • Does an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case?
  • How does a material conflict between the site plan, weapon recovery locations, and the medical evidence regarding the direction of injuries affect the prosecution's narrative?
  • Whether the involvement of an entire family in a criminal case due to previous blood-feud enmity warrants closer scrutiny of partisan witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Paper Corporation Ltd., Charsadda vs Director N.W. F. P.1984 PLD Peshawar 197 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• Packages Ltd. vs Khyber Electric Lamps Manufacturing Company Ltd.1984 PLD Peshawar 133 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
• Packages Limited vs Khyber Electric Lamps Manu Facturing CompanyPTCL 1984 (CL) 273 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Niaz Muha Mmad alias Nazoon vs Additional Secretary to Government1984 P Cr. L J 1350 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Namoos Khan vs Government of N.W. F. P. through Secretary, Home1984 CLC 129 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• N.W W. F. P. through Collector, Mardan and 2 Others s vs Faiz1984 PLD Peshawar 180 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muslim Sher vs Mst. Qudrat Bibi and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman alias Mana vs Aslam and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 166 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and Another vs The State1984 PLD Peshawar 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs The State1984 PLD Peshawar 56 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-28
  Oaths Actsolemn affirmationMuslim witnessadmissibility of evidenceprocedural irregularityIslamization of lawscriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a trial under Sections 302, 307, 109, 114, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner challenged the trial court's decision to examine Muslim witnesses on solemn affirmation rather than on oath. The petitioner argued that following the amendment of Section 6 of the Oaths Act 1873 by Ordinance XXVII of 1981, administering an oath to Muslim witnesses was mandatory. The High Court examined the interplay between the mandatory nature of Section 6 and the curative provisions of Section 13 of the Oaths Act 1873. The Court held that after the 1981 amendment, administering an oath to Muslim witnesses above twelve years of age is mandatory. While accidental or negligent omissions to administer the oath remain curable under Section 13, any deliberate omission after an objection is raised is not cured and invalidates the evidence. Since no form of oath had yet been prescribed by the High Court for Muslim witnesses, the Court directed that the customary form of oath commonly used by Muslims in the local area must be administered until a formal form is prescribed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendment to Section 6 of the Oaths Act 1873 makes it mandatory for a Muslim witness above twelve years of age to be examined on oath rather than solemn affirmation?
  • Does a deliberate omission by a trial court to administer an oath to a Muslim witness, despite an objection, invalidate the evidence under Section 13 of the Oaths Act 1873?
  • What form of oath should be administered to a Muslim witness when the High Court has not yet prescribed a specific form under Section 7 of the Oaths Act 1873?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ta Hir vs University of Peshawar and 4 Others1984 CLC 146 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamabad and 31984 PLD Peshawar 184 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Azizur Rehman and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 244 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Na Waz alias Mamad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 595 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood Ali vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance1984 CLC 142 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-06
  writ jurisdictionpremature petitionshow-cause noticedouble jeopardyservice matterdepartmental inquirymisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Income-tax Inspector, challenged show-cause notices issued by the department regarding alleged misconduct, arguing that previous proceedings had already resulted in his removal being set aside by the Service Tribunal, thus invoking the principle of double jeopardy. The core legal questions were whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere with departmental show-cause notices, and whether a second inquiry into the same charges was barred after a previous removal was set aside on technical grounds. The Court held that the writ petition was premature because only show-cause notices had been issued, not a final order, and that the Service Tribunal's previous order, which was based on procedural technicalities rather than merits, did not bar a fresh inquiry into the same charges. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is generally ousted where a final order has been passed by a departmental authority, but here, the lack of a final order rendered the petition incompetent. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the department to pay the petitioner's outstanding salary arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a show-cause notice by a government department provide a cause of action for a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Can a second departmental inquiry be initiated on the same charges if the previous removal order was set aside by a Service Tribunal on technical grounds rather than merits?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant where no final order has been passed?
  • Does the principle of nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa apply to departmental disciplinary proceedings where the initial removal was invalidated due to procedural defects?
  Read full judgment →