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 Jafar vs Municipal Committee and Others1983 PLD Peshawar 134 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 167 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Khan vs Gul Faqir1983 CLC 1727 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs S. H. 0. Police Station, Mansehra and Anothes1983 PLD Peshawar 229 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-04
  writ jurisdictionlachescognizable offenceFirst Information Reportcounter-versionpolice dutydiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) to register a criminal case based on a report lodged by the petitioner regarding a cognizable offence. The petitioner alleged that despite providing a counter-version of an incident involving injuries, the police refused to register a case, having already registered a case against the petitioner based on the opposing party's report. The core legal question was whether the police are duty-bound to register a counter-version of a cognizable offence and whether the S.H.O. can adjudicate on the guilt or innocence of parties at the registration stage. The Court held that the police are legally obligated under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register reports of cognizable offences and investigate them, rather than usurping the judicial function of determining the aggressor. However, the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of laches, noting that the petitioner failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay of approximately 17 months in approaching the Court for discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police officer duty-bound to register a counter-version of a cognizable offence reported by a party?
  • Can a police officer determine the guilt or innocence of parties or identify the aggressor at the stage of registering an FIR?
  • Does an inordinate delay in filing a writ petition without reasonable explanation disentitle a petitioner to discretionary relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1359 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh alias Mandu vs Muhammad Wajihuddin Khan1983 PLD Peshawar 220 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and Another vs Gulistan and 13 Others1983 CLC 250 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ANWARAccused vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar Khan vs Muhammad Amin Khan Tareen and 2 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 234 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mufti Amanullah and 65 Orthers vs Settlement Commissioner (Land), Peshawar Division, Peshawar and 2 calms1983 CLC 1801 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Zarina Bibi vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 218 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahira Begum vs Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 51983 CLC 663 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-01-31
  dowermutationland reformMartial Law Regulation 115transfer of titlesuo motu revisionnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Federal Land Commission declaring a dower-based land transfer void. The petitioner received 200 Jaribs of land as dower during her marriage on November 29, 1970, which was registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. Although the mutation was attested on January 4, 1972, it was entered on December 16, 1971, prior to the crucial date of December 20, 1971, set by Martial Law Regulation No. 115. The core legal question was whether the transfer of title occurred upon the completion of the dower transaction or upon the subsequent attestation of the mutation. The Court held that title passes when the transaction is completed, not when the mutation is sanctioned. Consequently, the transfer predated the crucial date, rendering the Land Commission's order invalid. Furthermore, the Court found the revisional order was void ab initio because it was passed without notice to the petitioner. The key principle established is that a mutation is merely a record-keeping entry and does not confer title; therefore, the date of the underlying transaction governs its validity under land reform regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the title to property pass upon the completion of a transaction or upon the attestation of the mutation in revenue records?
  • Does a mutation attested after a crucial date render a land transfer void if the underlying transaction occurred before that date?
  • Can a revisional authority pass an order affecting a party's rights without providing notice to that party?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naz Parwara and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulmarjana vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 228 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gul Adam vs M. Talib Jan1983 PLD Peshawar 127 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mohibullah and 21 Other vs N.-W.F.P. Province and 3 Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 729 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-01Read full judgment →
• Miskeen vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1113 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mirdad and Another vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 81 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mir ZAMANs vs Mst. Begum Jan and 11 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-16
  judicial admissionestoppelmutation cancellationexchange of landwithdrawal of suitrevision petitionres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a suit seeking to declare a mutation cancellation illegal. The dispute originated from an exchange of land between the parties, which was later contested in a previous suit. In that earlier litigation, the plaintiffs withdrew their suit based on a compromise, admitting that the exchange transaction never occurred and consenting to the cancellation of the relevant mutation. The High Court addressed whether the plaintiffs could subsequently challenge the resulting mutation cancellation. The Court held that the revision petition must fail, affirming the lower courts' findings. It ruled that the plaintiffs were bound by their previous judicial admissions. Although the earlier suit was withdrawn, the admissions made therein, which were acted upon by the revenue authorities to cancel the mutation, created an estoppel. The Court affirmed that while admissions are generally not conclusive, they become binding and conclusive when they amount to a representation on a matter of fact that induces the other party to alter their position, thereby preventing the maker from later denying the truth of that admission.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judicial admission regarding the cancellation of a land mutation create an estoppel against the party making it?
  • Can a party challenge a mutation cancellation if they previously consented to it in a withdrawn suit?
  • Does a compromise statement regarding land title require registration under the Registration Act 1908 if it does not create new rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Hayatullah (Represented by His. Representatives) vs Mst.1983 PLD Peshawar 202 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mian Dad vs Haji Nazal Shah and 13 Others1983 CLC 699 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-16Read full judgment →
• Matiul Haq and 6 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 429 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
• Maqboolur Rahman and 2 Othees vs Muhammad Iqbal Khan and 91983 CLC 38 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-08-31Read full judgment →
• Majid Ahmad and 4 Others vs Chaudhry Muhammad Sadiq and Another1983 PLD Peshawar 108 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition, Collector-v, Tarbela Dam Resettlement1983 CLC 1879 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector-II and 2 Others vs Fazalur Rehman and 51983 CLC 1847 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector IV, Tarbela Dam, Resettlement1983 CLC 1868 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Lal Hussain alias Lal vs Bagga1983 CLC 657 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• Khyber Electric Lamps Manufacturingco. Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and Another1983 PLD Peshawar 112 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-20
  excise duty exemptionreasonable classificationdiscriminatory taxationwrit jurisdictioncorrigendumfiscal policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged a government notification issued under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which exempted certain manufacturers of electric bulbs and fluorescent tubes from excise duty. The petitioner, a competing manufacturer, alleged that the exemption was discriminatory, mala fide, and lacked jurisdiction because it favored a specific company (Respondent No. 2) while excluding others. The core legal questions were whether the government’s classification for tax exemption based on the fuel source (furnace oil/LPG versus natural gas) constituted illegal discrimination, and whether the subsequent notification could be treated as a valid corrigendum to the initial one. The Court held that the government possesses the authority to grant exemptions based on reasonable classifications, such as the cost of production associated with different fuel types. It found no evidence of discrimination or mala fide intent, as the exemption was grounded in the higher operational costs of using furnace oil and LPG. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the second notification functioned as a valid corrigendum to clarify the government's original intent, dismissing the petition in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government grant excise duty exemptions based on the type of fuel used in the manufacturing process?
  • Does a notification issued to clarify the intent of a previous government order constitute a valid corrigendum?
  • Is a tax exemption policy discriminatory if it distinguishes between manufacturers based on operational costs?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Mir vs Mian Noor1983 PLD Peshawar 238 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ur Rehman vs Ibrahim1983 PCr.LJ 717 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-01-21Read full judgment →
• Khadi Khan vs Mst. Resham Jan and 2 Others1983 CLC 57 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
• Kala Khan vs Shah Hussain and 9 Others1983 CLC 684 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• Jehandad Khan vs NN Khan and 9 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 84 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-22Read full judgment →
• It ,3'')/*''"di 131111 In" 10 Before Sardar Fakhre Alam and Muhammad !shag1983 PLD Peshawar 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan vs Mukarab Khan and Another1983 PLD Peshawar 129 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ikramullah Khan vs N.-W.F. Proince through Chief Secretary and Another1983 PLC (C. S.) 812 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain and Another vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 37 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Hassan Khan vs Mst. Rape Jana1983 CLC 615 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan and Another vs Deputy Commissioner, Bannu and 8 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 44 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ayub vs Syed Buzarag Shah and 3 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 67 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-09
  second appealejectment petitionpersonal needreconstruction of buildingconcurrent findingsmunicipal sanctionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second appeal arising from concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and the District Judge, Peshawar, which dismissed the appellant-landlord's ejectment petition against the respondent-tenant. The petition was filed on grounds including reconstruction and personal need. The core legal questions involved whether the concurrent findings of fact could be disturbed in second appeal due to misreading of evidence and erroneous application of law, whether a sanction for reconstruction must precede the filing of an ejectment petition, and whether pleas of reconstruction and personal need are mutually destructive. The Peshawar High Court held that concurrent findings based on misreading of evidence or erroneous legal propositions are not immune from interference in second appeal, that the relevant law does not require reconstruction sanction to be obtained prior to instituting the petition, and that personal need and reconstruction are not mutually destructive. The court established the key principles that a landlord has the sole prerogative to select properties for personal occupation and that the lack of the word 'already' in rent restriction statutes means post-filing acquisition of municipal sanction for reconstruction is legally sufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the first appellate court be disturbed in a second appeal?
  • Are the grounds of personal need and reconstruction mutually destructive in an ejectment petition?
  • Must the necessary sanction for reconstruction from the municipal authority be obtained prior to the filing of an ejectment petition?
  • Does a landlord possess the exclusive prerogative to select which property to occupy for personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Malik Banaras Khan vs N.W. F. P. through Secretary to Government N.W. F. P.,Home Department, Peshawar and Others1983 CLC 27 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Malik Banaras Khan vs N.W. F. P. through Secretary to Government N.W. F. P., Home Department, Peshawar and Others1983 PLD Peshawar 169 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Jehanzeb vs Khalid Khan and Another1983 PLD Peshawar 215 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-03
  revision petitionpre-emptioncopy of decree sheettime-barred appealoffice negligencecondonation of delaymandatory requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from a suit for possession by pre-emption dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Malakand, which was subsequently dismissed as time-barred and incompetent by the District Judge because the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree sheet. The petitioner challenged this appellate dismissal before the Peshawar High Court. The core legal question was whether an appeal filed without a decree sheet, which was admitted to regular hearing due to the negligence of the court office in failing to point out the defect, should be dismissed or whether the delay in supplying the decree sheet should be condoned. The High Court held that while the requirement to file a copy of the decree under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory, where the court office is equally negligent in scrutinizing the appeal at the initial stage and admits it, the litigant should be protected against the default of court officials. The Peshawar High Court set aside the appellate court's dismissal, condoned the delay, and remanded the matter for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed without a certified copy of the decree sheet is incompetent?
  • Can the delay in filing a copy of the decree sheet be condoned when the court office was negligent in checking the appeal at the initial stage?
  • Does a litigant deserve protection against default committed by court officers in failing to point out defects in an appeal memorandum?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Amir and 5 Others vs N.W. F. Province through Deputy1983 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman and anothers vs Faqir Muhammad1983 CLC 670 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-17Read full judgment →
• H. Raza Khan and Another vs Awal Khan and Others1983 CLC 2163 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• Gulla Jan vs Ghulam Habib Etc.1983 CLC 1149 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• Gul Badshah vs Sherbaz Khan,1983 CLC 1227 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 152 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Safdar vs Khan Muhammad and 5 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 98 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-13Read full judgment →
• Gharib Gul and Another vs The State-.Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 1657 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-11Read full judgment →
• Fazalur Rehm an vs The State and 4 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 417 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhammad vs Daulat Khan and 3 Others1983 CLC 1141 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Karim] Industries, Peshawar1983 PTD 100 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Shah (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Akhtar Munir and 251983 PLD Peshawar 223 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ch1ragh Shah (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Akhtar Munir and 251983 CLC 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
• Behram Khan and Another vs Government of N.W. F. P. through Secretary to Government of N.W. F. P., Local Government Elections and Rural Development Department, Peshawar and 10 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Azam Khan vs Government of N.W.F.P. and 3 Others1983 CLC 1819 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-10Read full judgment →
• Awal Din vs Awal Said and 3 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 106 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-11Read full judgment →
• Australasia Bank Ltd. vs Abdul Aziz Jan and Others1983 PLD Peshawar 64 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-30
  institution of suitpower of attorneyrecognized agentdefective signatureprocedural irregularityamendment of plaintremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal arose from a recovery suit filed by the appellant bank against the respondents. The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the suit on the sole preliminary ground that the suit was incompetent because the plaint and Wakalatnama were signed by only one of the bank's attorneys (the Manager), whereas the terms of the power of attorney required two attorneys to act jointly. The key legal question before the High Court was whether the failure of a second attorney to sign the plaint and Wakalatnama rendered the suit a nullity or constituted a curable procedural irregularity. Setting aside the lower courts' findings, the High Court held that under Order XXIX Rule 1 and Order III Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Manager was a recognized agent and principal officer. The omission to join the second attorney was a mere procedural defect, not a violation of a mandatory provision, and did not affect the court's jurisdiction or suit's merits. The court remanded the case with directions to permit amendment and correction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of one of two joint power-of-attorney holders to sign a plaint render the suit a nullity or merely an irregularity?
  • Can an appellate court under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grant permission to amend the plaint and allow a second attorney to sign it post-trial?
  • Does a defect in the signing or verification of a plaint by a recognized agent affect the jurisdiction of the civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs The State1983 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ansar Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1009 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-01-29Read full judgment →
• Amir Nawaz Khan vs Nawab Khan1983 PLD Peshawar 205 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-13Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Naeem Butt1983 CLC 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad Humayltn Khan and 21983 PLC 498 · Peshawar High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Afsar Khan vs Raza Muhammad Khan and Another1983 CLC 1872 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-28Read full judgment →
• Akbar Gul vs WAPDA and 3 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 25 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-11-05Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Alias Logai vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1398 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2462 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-06-11Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim and 36 Others vs N.W. F. Province and 2 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 143 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wakeel vs Mst. Amina1983 CLC 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and 10 Others vs Collector and Another1983 PLD Peshawar 185 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saeed and Another vs Khalilurrehman 3 and Others1983 CLC 1481 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Muqtadir Khan vs Collector and Assistant Commissioner, D. I.1983 CLC 1842 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Muhammad Zaman and 3 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 225 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Akhto and Others1983 CLC 3156 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-12-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Babar vs The State and Another1983 PLD Peshawar 22 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem vs Custodian of Evacuee Property_Member, Board of Revenueil N. W. F. P. and 45 Others1983 PLD Peshawar 140 · Peshawar High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
• Zardad Khan and 4 Other vs North West Frontier Province and 7 Arts1982 PLD Peshawar 69 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
• Zahfran vs The State-1982 P Cr. L J 58 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-06-23Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad Khan vs Government of N. W. F. P. and 3 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
• Wahid Gull vs Mst. Amtari and Another1982 CLC 2026 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-22Read full judgment →
• Tameez Gul vs Mumtaz Ali and 6 Other.1982 PLD Peshawar 142 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Zammurrad Shah and 4 Other vs Federal Land Commission and 21982 PLD Peshawar 77 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Rahim Shah vs Government of N: W.F.P. and Other1982 PLD Peshawar 93 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• Saeed Amer vs Principal Khyber Medical College, Peshawar and Another1982 PLD Peshawar 51 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• S. Ajmal Shah vs Government of N. W. F. P. and Another1982 PLD Peshawar 165 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-06-22
  constitutional petitiondisciplinary inquiryreduction in rankmajor penaltyright of cross-examinationnatural justiceshow-cause noticeinquiry report
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were filed by two government engineers challenging an order dated 18-06-1979 whereby the major penalty of reduction to a lower post was imposed on them for misconduct and inefficiency under the North-West Frontier Province Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The petitioners contended that the departmental inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory rules because key witnesses were examined in their absence, no opportunity for cross-examination was provided, day-to-day proceedings were not held, no final show-cause notice with the inquiry report was served before recommending major penalties, and the reduction order failed to specify the operative period as required under Rule 29 of the Fundamental Rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in flagrant disregard of statutory procedures, natural justice, and the precedent set in PLD 1981 SC 176 regarding mandatory post-inquiry show-cause notices. Consequently, the High Court quashed the inquiry proceedings and the resulting penalty orders, allowing both constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the examination of witnesses in the absence of an accused civil servant and without providing an opportunity for cross-examination vitiate departmental inquiry proceedings?
  • Is it mandatory under Rule 5(4) of the NWFP Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 to provide a copy of the inquiry report and issue a show-cause notice before recommending a major penalty?
  • Does an order imposing a penalty of reduction to a lower post become defective if it fails to specify the duration of the reduction as required by Rule 29 of the Fundamental Rules?
  • Can a civil servant who is directly selected to a post be demoted to a post lower than that of their initial direct recruitment?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawabzada Muhammad Umar Khan (Represented by His Legal Heirs)1982 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-05
  Martial Law OrderJudicial reviewMala fideEminent domainLachesConstitutional validationProperty rightsVoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged Martial Law Order No. 47, which divested them of their property (shops) without compensation, transferring title to occupants. The core legal question was whether this order constituted a valid legislative measure protected by constitutional validation clauses or an executive act subject to judicial review. The Court held the order void and of no legal effect. It reasoned that the order was not a legislative measure of general application but an executive act targeting specific individuals, which violated fundamental principles of property rights and natural justice. The Court established that constitutional validation clauses do not protect acts performed without jurisdiction or those tainted by mala fide. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that superior courts possess inherent jurisdiction to determine their own authority, and that void ab initio orders are not subject to the doctrine of laches. The principle laid down is that law must be a rule of general application, and acts of confiscation for private use, lacking public purpose, cannot be validated as legitimate legislation, even under Martial Law regimes.

  Questions settled

  • Does a superior court have the inherent power to determine its own jurisdiction despite constitutional ouster clauses?
  • Can a Martial Law Order that targets specific individuals for property confiscation be considered a valid legislative measure?
  • Are acts done with mala fide intent or without jurisdiction protected by constitutional validation clauses?
  • Does the doctrine of laches apply to a challenge against an order that is void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan vs N.-W.F.P. Government1982 PLC (C. S.) 257 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Bannu vs Munawar Khan, Advocate1982 PLD Peshawar 61 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-29
  specific performancemunicipal committeelease contractstatutory compliancemandatory procedureregular second appealadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of a lease contract concerning a vacant site owned by the Municipal Committee, Bannu. The respondent claimed that the Controlling Authority’s approval of his lease proposal created a binding contract. The core legal question was whether this approval, absent the formal execution of a written deed as required by law, constituted an enforceable contract. The Court held that the approval did not create a binding contract. It emphasized that Section 26 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, and the associated rules prescribe mandatory procedures for the execution of contracts by Municipal Committees. Because these statutory formalities—including the execution of a formal written deed and proper reporting—were not followed, no enforceable contract existed. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' decrees and dismissed the suit. The key principle laid down is that contracts involving public bodies must strictly adhere to statutory formalities; failure to comply renders the agreement void and incapable of specific performance, regardless of any preliminary approval or administrative sanction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the approval of a lease proposal by a Controlling Authority constitute a binding contract if the mandatory statutory execution procedures are not followed?
  • Are the provisions of Section 26 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960 regarding contract execution mandatory or directory?
  • Can a court grant specific performance of a contract involving a public body if the statutory requirements for the contract's formation have not been satisfied?
  • Does the Controlling Authority have the power to rescind an approval of a lease proposal if no formal contract has been executed and the order has not been acted upon?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahoor vs The State1982 PLD Peshawar 104 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah Khisro Khan vs The State through Deputy1982 PLD Peshawar 48 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-11-16
  writ jurisdictionfindings of factlachesland disputeexclusive jurisdictionconstitutional petitionadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges multiple administrative orders and recommendations by the Land Dispute Enquiry Commission and subsequent forums, which declared the petitioner's claimed property as State property. The core legal question is whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can re-examine findings of fact regarding property title and possession that have already been adjudicated by specialized forums constituted under special law. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that it cannot act as an appellate court to re-evaluate evidence or decide disputed questions of fact, such as actual possession, which were already determined by competent authorities. The Court found no evidence of perversity or arbitrariness in the lower forums' decisions. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere in writ jurisdiction with findings of fact made by exclusive forums constituted under special law, provided those findings are not perverse or arbitrary. Additionally, the Court affirmed that petitions challenging long-standing administrative orders without plausible explanation are barred by the principle of laches.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court in writ jurisdiction re-examine disputed questions of fact regarding property title and possession?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against findings of specialized forums when those findings are neither perverse nor arbitrary?
  • Does the principle of laches apply to a constitutional petition filed years after the impugned administrative orders were passed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Khan vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 131 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Khan vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar and Others1982 PLC 354 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Haji Nisar Ahmad and 15 Other1982 PLD Peshawar 24 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-09-04Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Ahmad and 2 Other vs Muhammad Ilyas and 2 Others1982 PLD Peshawar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaukat Jan vs Government of N. W. F. P. through General1982 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Nisa vs Abdus Salam and Another1982 PLD Peshawar 42 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-08
  pre-emptionexemption from pre-emptionurban immovable propertyrevision petitionmisreading of evidenceconcurrent findingscross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts that decreed a pre-emption suit against the petitioner regarding a purchased house. The core legal question concerns whether the sale in dispute is exempt from pre-emption under section 5(d) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950, specifically regarding the ingredients of urban residency, property size, lack of other property, and purchase for own occupation. The Peshawar High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence, ignored material statements and admissions, and failed to apply the correct statutory exemption provision. The Court established that all four necessary ingredients for exemption under section 5(d) were fully proven by the record. Consequently, the revision petition was accepted, the concurrent findings were set aside, and the pre-emption suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in revision when a misreading of evidence is established?
  • What are the necessary ingredients required to claim exemption from pre-emption under section 5(d) of the N.-W. F. P. Pre-emption Act, 1950?
  • What is the legal effect when a witness is not cross-examined on a particular point stated on solemn affirmation?
  • Does a married woman residing permanently with her husband in an urban area acquire residency there for the purposes of pre-emption exemptions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Muhammadia vs Zari Bacha and Another1982 PLD Peshawar 85 · Peshawar High Court · 1981-10-12
  murderretracted confessionocular testimonybenefit of doubtcriminal revisionforensic evidenceFIR sanctity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition arose from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the complainant sought enhancement of the life sentence, while the accused challenged the conviction itself. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the sole ocular witness, the admissibility of a retracted confession, and the evidentiary value of forensic reports following procedural delays. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the ocular testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence, specifically regarding the presence of charring marks which contradicted the claimed firing distance. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the FIR lost its sanctity as it was recorded after preliminary investigation. The confession was deemed unreliable, having been recorded in violation of procedure while the accused was in police custody. Additionally, the unexplained twenty-day delay in submitting forensic evidence rendered the expert report doubtful. Consequently, the Court acquitted the accused, establishing the principle that discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with procedural irregularities in investigation, necessitate the benefit of doubt for the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recording of an FIR after preliminary investigation by the police affect its evidentiary value?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted confession that mirrors a police statement?
  • What is the legal effect of an unexplained delay in sending forensic evidence to an expert?
  • Does the presence of charring marks on a wound contradict ocular testimony regarding the distance of the firing?
  Read full judgment →