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 Ishaq vs Sarhad Development Authority and Others1984 CLC 126 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-02-05
  locus poenitentiaevested rightsaudi alteram partemretrospective cancellationdelegated powersnatural justicepromotion
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Sarhad Development Authority, challenged an order cancelling his promotion and redesignation as Private Secretary with retrospective effect. The core legal question was whether the authority could unilaterally rescind a promotion order that had already taken effect, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, and whether the initial promotion was within the delegatory powers of the General Manager. The Court held that the writ petition must succeed. It determined that the General Manager acted within the delegated powers granted under the Sarhad Development Authority Act, 1972. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle of locus poenitentiae, holding that once an order has taken legal effect and created vested rights, it cannot be rescinded to the detriment of those rights without due process. The Court also affirmed that the cancellation order violated the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before his vested rights were curtailed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authority rescind an order of promotion that has already taken legal effect and created vested rights?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae allow the withdrawal of an order after a decisive step has been taken?
  • Is an order rescinding a promotion void if it is passed without affording the affected employee an opportunity of being heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq vs Sardar Abdul Haye Khan and 2 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 78 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashiq and 2 Others vs Faqir Masoom Khan and 2 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 150 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Haji Nawab and 2 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 270 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Ghulam Haidar and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 590 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs Excise & Taxation Officer and 2 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 215 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-03
  education cessProvincially Administered Tribal Areasconstitutional petitionlegislative applicationrepeal of amending lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the demand for education cess by the Excise and Taxation Officer from an industrial establishment in the Malakand Agency. The petitioner contended that the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972, as amended, was not applicable to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA) because the amending Act of 1973 was not extended to that region. The petitioner further argued that the repeal of the amending Ordinance of 1972 by the 1973 Act rendered the amendments inoperative in PATA. The Court held that the Ordinance, in its amended form, was validly applied to PATA via the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (Application of Laws) Regulation, 1972, prior to the enactment of the 1973 Act. The Court further clarified that the non-application of the 1973 Act to PATA did not invalidate the existing law, as the repeal of an amending law does not affect the continuance of amendments already incorporated into the principal statute, a principle supported by Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the demand for education cess was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Was the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972, applicable to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas in its amended form?
  • Does the repeal of an amending law affect the validity of amendments already incorporated into the principal statute?
  • Did the failure to extend the Workers' Children (Education) (Amendment) Act, 1973, to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas render the education cess unrecoverable in that region?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Sultan vs Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantonment and 21984 PLD Peshawar 68 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noorunnisa and Another vs Muhammad Sarwar and 6 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mushtri and 5 Others vs Lajbar and 10 Others1984 CLC 1240 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Karim Jan and 3 Others vs Anwar Khan and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 111 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-22
  relinquishment mutationdocument of titlepresumption of truthadverse possessionouster of co-sharerrevenue recordlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration and alternate possession filed by the petitioners-sisters against their brother, the respondent, challenging a 1943 relinquishment mutation regarding agricultural land. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed it, holding that the mutation was validly attested and that the respondent had acquired title through adverse possession. Upon revision, the Peshawar High Court examined the evidence, noting that the revenue entries carried a presumption of truth which the petitioners failed to rebut, and that their inaction for nearly three decades, coupled with their failure to challenge a subsequent similar relinquishment mutation, indicated acquiescence. The Court held that a mutation, though not a document of title per se, creates a presumption of truth when incorporated in the Jamabandi, and that an invalid transfer or a mutation ignoring co-sharers constitutes an overt act amounting to ouster, converting a co-sharer's possession into adverse possession after the statutory period. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mutation in the revenue record operates as a document of title?
  • Can adverse possession be claimed against a co-sharer upon the attestation of a mutation ignoring their name?
  • What is the effect of an invalid transfer on the nature of possession held by the transferee?
  • Whether failure to challenge a related relinquishment mutation affects the credibility of a party's claim over disputed property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hassan Jan and 6 Others vs Mst. Hassan Jan and 23 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faroshia and 2 Others vs Mst. Zarina and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 134 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farida and Others vs Rehmatullah and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 117 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-26
  Muslim Personal LawRetrospective operationCustomary lawInheritanceConfession of judgmentSuccessionProvincially Administered Tribal Areas
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a suit for declaration of ownership regarding land inherited by the plaintiffs from their deceased father, Nadir Khan. The plaintiffs claimed inheritance shares under Muslim Law, while the defendants contended that succession was governed by custom, as the death occurred prior to the enforcement of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, in the relevant area. The core legal question was whether the Act applied retrospectively to successions occurring before its enforcement. The Court held that, pursuant to Section 6 of the Act, only Sections 3, 4, and 5 possess retrospective operation, while Section 2 regarding general succession does not. Consequently, the inheritance was governed by custom. However, the Court observed that the lower courts failed to account for the fact that one defendant had confessed judgment. The Court held that a suit must be decreed to the extent of a defendant's admission. Accordingly, the revision was partly accepted, granting the plaintiffs a declaration regarding the share of the defendant who confessed judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, have retrospective operation?
  • Which sections of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, are retrospective in operation?
  • Can a court decree a suit based on a defendant's confession of judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fakhr Unnisa vs Mohibullah Khan1984 PLD Peshawar 94 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-11
  pre-emptionlimitationburden of proofconsent decreerevision petitionmisreading of evidencepossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two revision petitions challenging the dismissal of pre-emption suits by the lower courts, which held the suits were time-barred. The core legal question concerned whether the vendee had established the date of possession to trigger the limitation period under the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, and whether consent decrees obtained by the vendee constituted a valid sale for pre-emption purposes. The High Court held that the lower courts committed a gross error by misreading evidence and incorrectly placing the burden of proof on the pre-emptor. The Court ruled that the vendee failed to provide cogent evidence of the possession date, and that consent decrees are not sales for pre-emption purposes. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower judgments, finding the suits were filed within the limitation period. The key principle laid down is that the burden of proving the date of possession rests on the vendee when asserting it to defeat a pre-emption claim, and that appellate courts may interfere in revision where lower courts misread evidence or misplace the burden of proof on mixed questions of law and fact.

  Questions settled

  • Does a consent decree obtained through a court suit constitute a sale for the purposes of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the date of possession in a pre-emption suit when the vendee claims it to defeat the limitation period?
  • Can a High Court interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when lower courts have misread evidence regarding a question of fact?
  • Is the question of limitation in a pre-emption suit considered a mixed question of law and fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Yasmeen Nighat And Another vs National Bank Of Pakistan.PTCL 1984 (CL) 334 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• MRS. Yasmeen Nighat and Another vs National Bank of Pakistan1984 PLD Peshawar 188 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-16
  civil revisionbanking recoveryjurisdictionretrospective operationprocedural lawtransfer of suitspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenged an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, transferring a banking recovery suit to the Special Judge, Banking Companies. The core legal question was whether the amendment introduced by the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983, which ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts over certain loan recovery suits and redirected them to Special Courts, applied retrospectively to pending suits. The Peshawar High Court held that changes to a forum or procedure are procedural in nature and operate retrospectively, and that section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not protect a vested right in procedure. The Court ruled that upon the ouster of civil court jurisdiction, pending suits automatically stand transferred to the newly constituted Special Courts, affirming the transfer order and dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendment ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 has retrospective effect?
  • Does a litigant have a vested right in a procedural forum or mode of trial under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • What is the legal effect on pending suits in civil courts when their jurisdiction is abolished by a subsequent statutory amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah and Others vs N.W. F. P. through the Chief1984 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mohabat Khan and Others vs Muhtamim, Irrigation Department and Others1984 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• Miss Na Heed Dost Muhammad vs Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar and 2 Others1984 CLC 139 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mir Alam Khan vs Muhammad Ji alias Aslam1984 PLD Peshawar 71 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mir Afzal and Others vs Collectorii, Land Acquisition, Tarbela Dam1984 CLC 1216 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Sher Rehman vs Muhammad Sharif Khan and Others1984 PLD Peshawar 2 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. vs Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Another1984 PLC 95 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Muhammad Jan vs The State1984 PLD Peshawar 207 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mashal vs Fazale Rabbi and 2 Others1984 CLC 1266 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-09Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector No, VI, Tarbela Dam Resettlement1984 PLD Peshawar 9 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
• Lal Zar1n vs Niaz Muhammad Khan (through Legal Representatives)1984 PLD Peshawar 46 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs Collector Of Customs, Peshawar And OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 318 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
• Khan Aman Khan vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.W. F. P., Peshawar and 3 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue, N.W. F. P., Peshawar1984 PLD Peshawar 18 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
• Kameen Khan vs Mustafa and Others1984 CLC 1244 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• Kala Khan and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1031 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
• Jawad Hussain vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Industries1984 CLC 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Janat Gul vs Mulki Zaman and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 154 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
• Hassan Noor vs Shahzada Burhanuddin and 4 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 176 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Alia ccused vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1237 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• Haq Na Waz vs Rab Nawaz and 4 Others1984 P Cr. L J 600 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
• Hamzullah vs Umar Ali and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 20 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
• Hamidullah Jan vs Sports Selection Committee and Others1984 CLC 149 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-01-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Jauder Khan and 5 Others vs Falahuddin and 4 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 41 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan vs Election Tribunal (Local Council), D. I. Khan and 21984 PLD Peshawar 173 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
• Gulzaman and Another vs Collector, Land Acquisition and Others1984 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-21
  land acquisitionlimitation periodobjection petitioncollector's awardwrit jurisdictionservice of notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging the rejection of objection petitions by the Land Acquisition Collector, who dismissed them as time-barred. The petitioners argued that because they were not served with notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the limitation period for filing objections should commence from the date of their knowledge of the award rather than the date of the award itself. The core legal question was whether the six-month limitation period under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act runs from the date of the award or from the date of the claimant's knowledge. The Court held that the limitation period is fixed by statute and cannot be extended by importing the concept of 'date of knowledge.' Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court affirmed that the maximum period for filing an objection petition is six months from the date of the Collector's award, regardless of whether notice under Section 12(2) was served. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, ruling that the Collector acted within his jurisdiction in determining the limitation issue.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing an objection petition under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 run from the date of the award or the date of knowledge of the award?
  • Is the Land Acquisition Collector empowered to decide the question of limitation regarding objection petitions?
  • Does the failure to serve notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 extend the statutory limitation period for filing an objection petition?
  • Are the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 applicable to objection petitions filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Rahim Khan alias Khan vs Muhammad Naeem Khan alias Naeem1984 CLC 521 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• Gul Haq and 7 Others vs Custodian Evacuee Property and Others1984 PLD Peshwar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Abbottabad, District Hazara1984 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hazrat and Anothera ccuseds vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1357 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hassan vs Soharu and 131 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 278 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-22
  civil revisionlimitationminorityadverse possessionvoid transactionrevenue recordpresumption of truthlis pendens
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a suit filed in 1964 by the legal heirs of Muhammad Bakhsh challenging revenue mutation entries from 1911 and seeking declaration of title, permanent injunction, and correction of revenue records. The plaintiffs alleged that the sale of suit property by Tagga (brother of Muhammad Bakhsh) was void as Muhammad Bakhsh was a minor at the time of transfer. The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit as time-barred, but the Additional District Judge reversed this decision on appeal. The Peshawar High Court evaluated whether a claim challenging an allegedly void transfer of a minor's property is subject to the law of limitation and adverse possession.

  The High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The Court held that even if a transaction involving a minor's property is void, the party affected cannot choose their own time to challenge it. Under Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act, a suit for possession must be brought within the prescribed period (within three years of attaining majority or within twelve years of adverse possession); failure to do so extinguishes the title. Continuous, un-rebutted revenue entries spanning over 40 years carry a presumption of truth.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit to recover possession of property transferred during a person's minority subject to the law of limitation under Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the alleged void nature of a property transaction exempt an affected party from the period of limitation for seeking judicial relief?
  • Does continuous and un-rebutted possession recorded in the revenue record for over 40 years create a presumption of title that extinguishes an adverse claim?
  • How does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 affect transfers of suit property made during pending litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Feroz Khan,s vs Haji Abdus Salam and Others1984 CLC 974 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• Fazal Dad and 7 Others vs Abdul Karim and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 235 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• DR. Syed Haider Bokhary vs Northwest Frontier Province and 51984 CLC 1280 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• DR. Abdul Az1z vs An War Khan and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1340 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi. vs Aminullah Khan Etc.PTCL 1984 (CL) 281 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi vs Messrs Aminullah-1984 PTD 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Incometax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi vs Messrs1984 PLD Peshawar 214 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-05-22Read full judgment →
• Chanzeb vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2219 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• Bakhtyar Ahmad vs The State1984 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
• Baidullah Jan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 481 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan vs The State1984 PLD Peshawar 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs Ejazul Hassan Khan and Another1984 PLD Peshawar 49 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan vs Khan Sahib and Others1984 CLC 963 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• Anwar and 8 Others vs Abdul Rauf and 3 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 15 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-09-06Read full judgment →
• Amiruddin Shah vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and Another1984 CLC 1090 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 605 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-10-07Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs Fazal Rehman Khan1984 PLD Peshawar 121 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Khan vs Fazal Haq Khan1984 PLD Peshawar 253 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Jehang1r Khan and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1335 · Peshawar High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadoos (Represented by Shaukat Zaman) and 8 Others vs Haji1984 CLC 1235 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz alias Chan Gul vs Mst. Adiba Shah Sarwar and 2 Others1984 PLD Peshawar 5 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
• Zarif Khan and Others vs Muhammad and Others1983 PLD Peshawar 58 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-13
  mortgagesub-mortgageprescriptionacknowledgmentlimitationequity of redemptionrevenue mutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a regular second appeal and a civil revision petition involving common questions of law and fact regarding whether first mortgagees had acquired ownership of suit lands by prescription under Article 148 of the Limitation Act 1908. The appellants/defendants contended that the creation of various sub-mortgages by the first mortgagees within the sixty-year limitation period constituted acknowledgments of the original mortgages under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908, thereby resetting the limitation period and rendering the suits premature. The High Court observed that for an acknowledgment to be valid under Section 19, it must be in writing and signed by the party making it. Since the sub-mortgages were oral transactions recorded via revenue mutations, which do not bear the signatures of the parties, they failed to meet the mandatory statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court ruled that sub-mortgagees have no privity of contract with the original mortgagors, and the creation of a sub-mortgage does not terminate the original mortgage. Consequently, the court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, declaring the mortgagees owners by prescription, and dismissed both matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the creation of an oral sub-mortgage recorded via a revenue mutation constitute a valid acknowledgment of the original mortgage under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is a signature or writing mandatory for an acknowledgment to extend the limitation period under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does a sub-mortgagee have privity of contract or estate with the original mortgagor?
  • Can a purchaser of the equity of redemption challenge the validity of the original mortgage created by their vendor?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Its Chairman and Another vs Messrs Khanzada1983 CLC 1792 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
• Talamand Sayeed vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 2302 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Muhammad Naeem Khan and 2 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 118 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-28
  ejectmentminor landlordpersonal usereconstructionrent restrictionlandlord and tenantmutually destructive pleas
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three writ petitions challenging an ejectment order passed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The petitioners, tenants of shops owned by a minor, contested the ejectment on the grounds that a minor cannot require premises for personal use and that the dual pleas of personal use and reconstruction are mutually destructive. The core legal questions were whether a minor landlord can seek eviction for personal use when the business is to be run by their father, and whether the grounds of personal use and reconstruction are legally incompatible. The Court held that the landlord's minority does not preclude an ejectment application for personal use, as the business conducted by the father serves the minor's benefit. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the pleas of personal use and reconstruction are not mutually destructive. The key principle laid down is that the term 'own use' in rent legislation encompasses the beneficial enjoyment of the property for the landlord's family, and such pleas may be pleaded concurrently without being self-destructive.

  Questions settled

  • Can a minor landlord seek the eviction of a tenant for personal use of a non-residential building?
  • Does the requirement of 'own use' by a landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include business conducted by the landlord's father for the minor's benefit?
  • Are the grounds of personal use and reconstruction mutually destructive in an application for ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Khan vs Qaima and 4 Others1983 CLC 1876 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and 8 Others vs Collector No, v, Land Acquisition and Another1983 CLC 1723 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Zafar Ali Shah vs Fazal Shah and 2 Others1983 CLC 1816 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. vs Presiding Officer,1983 PLC 1244 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman Alias Shero vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2519 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• Sher Azam vs Mst. Tareena1983 CLC 3157 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-17
  pre-emptiontenancyco-tenantsland reformsmarket valuerevenue recordcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the respondents on the ground of their superior right as tenants. The trial court and appellate court had decreed the suit in its entirety in favor of the respondents based on an admission by one of the petitioner-defendants that the respondents were cultivating the suit land as tenants. The petitioners challenged the decree, arguing that the respondents were not tenants of the entire suit land and that the valuation based on five years' average was incorrect. The High Court examined the revenue record (jamabandi) and found that the respondents were co-tenants of only a specific portion of the suit land, rather than the entire area. The Court held that under Paragraph 25(d) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, a tenant's right of pre-emption is strictly restricted to the land actually comprised in their tenancy. Consequently, the High Court partly accepted the revision, modifying the decree to cover only the specific area under the respondents' tenancy on a proportionate payment basis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant's right of pre-emption under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 extends to the entire suit land or is strictly restricted to the specific portion comprised in their tenancy?
  • Can an erroneous admission by a defendant regarding tenancy override the entries in the revenue record (jamabandi)?
  • Is a five-year average prepared by the Circle Patwari a proper basis for determining the market value of suit land in a pre-emption dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamus Gul and 2 Others vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Shamshur Rehman and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2293 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-05Read full judgment →
• Shakar Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1105 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-25Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1402 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-04Read full judgment →
• Shah Ali Naqvi vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 211 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
• Shabir Hussain Shah vs Muhammad Hussain (through 3 Legal1983 CLC 1779 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
• Saleh Shah vs Sayed Zafar Ali Shah and Another1983 CLC 637 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• Salahud Din Iqbal vs Mst. Zohra Khatoon and 14 Others1983 CLC 689 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• Saifur Rehman vs Siraj Khan and 3 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 232 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• Sahib Din Khan vs Master Nasir Ahmad and Another1983 PLD Peshawar 137 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Rustam Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1478 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2312 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-07-19Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz and 2 Others vs Sakhiur Rehman and Another1983 CLC 1720 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
• Qadir Khan vs Mst. Kishwar Begum and Others1983 CLC 613 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-14
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantdefault in rentstrikoff of defenceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  Mst. Kishwar Begum instituted an ejectment application against the appellants alleging ownership via a civil court decree, default in rent, damage to the property, and personal need. The appellants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, claiming they were tenants under Mst. Mihraj Begum, the respondent's mother. The Rent Controller struck off the appellants' defence for failure to deposit arrears, and the District Judge dismissed their appeal. On second appeal, the High Court held that while ownership was proved, the lower courts failed to properly determine the crucial question of the relationship of landlord and tenant, particularly considering that the mother had previously rented out the property as attorney. Furthermore, the court held that the appellants acted in good faith by remitting the rent by money order within the stipulated period, negating any wilful default. Consequently, the orders of the lower courts were set aside and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision after framing all relevant issues.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of landlord under section 2(c) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 include a person entitled to receive rent on behalf of another?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-deposit of rent when the tenant remitted the amount by money order under a bona fide misapprehension?
  • Is a determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant mandatory in rent ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• North-West Frontier Province vs Shad Muhammad Khan and Others1983 CLC 2576 · Peshawar High Court · 1974-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Khan and Another vs Haji Nabi Gul and Others1983 CLC 1777 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
• Musa Khan vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 76 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar Khan and Another vs Amani Malik Khan and 6 Others1983 CLC 53 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin vs District and Sessions Judge, D. I. Khan and 21983 P Cr. L J 2365 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Muhammad Sadiq and Others1983 CLC 328 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim vs Bashi Khan and 3 oTHEits1983 PLD Peshawar 115 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jawaid vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2444 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →