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.

• Ameer Jan and 17 others vs Project Manager GRC and 5 others2018 CLC 1465 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The State etc2018 PHC 1622 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-05-04Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs Station House Officer, Police Station Munda and 32018 PLD Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-15Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank Limited through Manager vs Anti-Corruption Establishment2018 CLD 145 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasaya and another vs The State and another2018 PHC 1492 · Peshawar High Court · 2012-04-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Nawaz vs Govt of KPK and others2018 PHC 1840, 2019 MLD 1016 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ali Rahman & others vs Government of KPK & others2018 PHC 1512 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Khan vs Nazir-Ul-Islam and another2018 P Cr. L J 1372 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11
  criminal revisionjudgment writingmandatory provisionsprocedural defectremandpoints for determinationsentence enhancement
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged a trial court judgment that convicted the respondent under section 302, section 353 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (referred to as A.O. in the text). The petitioner sought enhancement of the sentence to death. However, the High Court identified a fundamental procedural defect in the trial court's judgment. Specifically, the trial court failed to formulate points for determination, record decisions thereon, and provide reasons for those decisions, as mandated by section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the use of the word "shall" in section 367 makes its provisions mandatory, and non-compliance renders a judgment inherently defective and illegal, an error not curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment without addressing the merits of the case to avoid prejudice and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement under section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for a court to formulate points for determination and provide reasons mandatory?
  • Does a failure to comply with the requirements of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a curable irregularity under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the consequence of a trial court judgment failing to specify points for determination and reasons for its decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Bahadar son of Baghi Shah, r/o Pakrari, District Swabi vs Toyota Indus2019 YLR 622, 2018 PHC 1744 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-25
  constitutional petitionvehicle seizuretampered chassis numbercustody of vehicleExcise and Taxation DepartmentProvincial Motor Vehicles Ordinancestatutory duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the unconditional return of a seized Toyota Pickup Hilux Double Cabin vehicle to the petitioner. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the petitioner to the custody of a vehicle whose chassis number was found tampered with according to the FSL report, alongside issues regarding the prolonged, unlawful detention and mishandling of the vehicle by the Excise authorities without completing statutory disposal proceedings. The Peshawar High Court held that custody of the vehicle could not be handed over to the petitioner as doing so would permit the plying of a tampered and unauthorized vehicle on the road. However, the Court strongly criticized the Excise Department for failing to follow the mandatory statutory rules for safe custody, inventory, and timely disposal of seized vehicles. The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking the vehicle's return but directed the Secretary Excise and Taxation to probe the departmental delay, mishandling, and misuse of the vehicle, and to take legal action against the delinquent officials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether custody of a vehicle with a tampered chassis number can be handed over to a petitioner?
  • Does the seizure of a vehicle by Excise authorities permit its indefinite detention without completing statutory disposal proceedings?
  • What are the responsibilities of the Excise Department regarding the safe custody and disposal of seized vehicles under the relevant motor vehicle rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Azim Afridi vs Syed Waqar Shah etc2019 PLC (C.S) 1109, 2018 PHC 1822 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-13
  quo-warrantodeputationabsorptionrecruitment rulesnepotismProvincial Assemblyvoid ab initio
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the absorption of a Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (P.I.A.C) employee into the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Assembly Secretariat as a Special Secretary to the Speaker. The petitioner argued that the appointment and subsequent absorption were illegal, violating recruitment rules and established judicial guidelines against nepotism. The court examined whether the transfer on deputation from a corporation outside the provincial or federal government service met the requirements of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Secretariat (Recruitment) Rules, 1974. The court held that the deputation was invalid from its inception because the respondent did not meet the essential prerequisites for transfer under the Recruitment Rules, 1974. Consequently, the subsequent absorption was also void ab initio. The court emphasized that the post was created in indecent haste to accommodate a specific individual, reflecting nepotism and a disregard for the law by the Speaker. The court reaffirmed that the High Court has the authority under Article 199 to issue a writ of quo-warranto upon the application of any person to challenge the holding of a public office.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a corporation be transferred on deputation to a Provincial Assembly Secretariat if they do not meet the criteria for transfer from the affairs of the Federation or Province?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to entertain a petition challenging the appointment of a public office holder filed by an outsider?
  • Is an absorption into a public office valid if the underlying deputation order was void ab initio?
  • Are employees of the Provincial Assembly considered civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunal Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Askar vs The State2018 MLD 1608, 2018 PHC 1509 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-06
  criminal appealillegal weaponArms Ordinancebenefit of doubtrecovery of crime weaponcorroborative evidencecondonation of delayacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance for the alleged recovery of a pistol. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the weapon beyond reasonable doubt and whether the uncorroborated recovery of a crime weapon can sustain a conviction when independent witnesses were not associated and material contradictions exist. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the recovery due to lack of independent corroboration, failure to associate public witnesses despite availability, and material contradictions in the testimony of police witnesses. Furthermore, the court reiterated that recovery of a crime weapon is merely corroborative in nature and cannot by itself sustain a conviction in the absence of primary direct evidence. The court established the principle that where recovery evidence is doubtful and uncorroborated, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the acceptance of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for illegal possession of a weapon under the Arms Ordinance be sustained solely on the basis of a disputed recovery without independent corroboration?
  • Does the recovery of an incriminating article or weapon of offence serve as substantive evidence or merely as corroborative evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Whether the absence of independent public witnesses associated with the recovery of an alleged crime weapon creates a fatal flaw in the prosecution case?
  • Under what circumstances can delay in filing a criminal appeal against conviction be condoned when the appellant was unaware of a separate conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Askar vs The State through Additional Advocate General and another2018 MLD 1608 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-06
  illegal weapon possessionrecovery evidencebenefit of doubtcorroborative evidencecriminal appealcondonation of delayArms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, for the illegal possession of a pistol and ammunition. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, given the lack of independent witnesses and inconsistencies in the police testimony. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting that the absence of independent witnesses during the recovery process and the appellant's failure to flee upon seeing the police raised significant doubts about the recovery's authenticity. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that recovery of incriminating articles serves only as corroborative evidence; when the primary evidence is weak or disbelieved, such recoveries are insufficient to sustain a conviction. Furthermore, the Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the appellant's explanation regarding his lack of awareness of the specific conviction under the Arms Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Can the recovery of an incriminating weapon sustain a conviction if the prosecution's primary evidence is disbelieved?
  • Is the absence of independent witnesses during a police recovery sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
  • Can a delay in filing an appeal be condoned if the appellant was unaware of the specific conviction at the time of sentencing?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamzeb vs Jehanzeb and others2018 PHC 1338 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Alamzeb vs Jehanzeb and 5 others2018 PHC 1338, 2018 MLD 1262 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-15Read full judgment →
• Al-Fatah Cricket Club through President vs Pakistan Cricket Board2018 PHC 1363, 2018 CL C 1427 · Peshawar High Court
  writ jurisdictionPakistan Cricket Boardstatutory bodyjudicial reviewcricket club scrutinymaintainability of writ petitionsports governance
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged the Pakistan Cricket Board's (PCB) decision to classify several cricket clubs as "INACTIVE," effectively denying them voting rights and participation in cricket activities. The core legal questions were whether the PCB performs functions in connection with the affairs of the State, thereby rendering its regulations statutory and its actions amenable to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, and whether the scrutiny process was fair. The Court held that the PCB performs functions under the control of the Federal Government, and its regulations, having been published in the official Gazette, possess statutory character, making the petitions maintainable. The Court observed that the petitioners were treated with undue harshness and potential discrimination compared to other clubs. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioners a fresh opportunity to prove their eligibility for "ACTIVE" status, excluding cases involving foreign nationals. The judgment establishes that statutory bodies performing public functions are subject to writ jurisdiction, and procedural fairness mandates providing clubs a reasonable opportunity to rectify deficiencies during scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Pakistan Cricket Board a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Do the Pakistan Cricket Board Election Regulations 2015 possess statutory character?
  • Can a High Court direct a statutory body to provide a second opportunity to a cricket club for scrutiny of its status?
  Read full judgment →
• Al -Fatah Cricket Club vs Pakistan Cricket Board, through Chairman and others2018 PHC 1363 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-07
  writ jurisdictionPakistan Cricket Boardstatutory bodyactive club statusjudicial reviewsports administrationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several writ petitions filed by various cricket clubs challenging the Pakistan Cricket Board's (PCB) decision to classify them as 'INACTIVE' clubs, thereby denying them voting rights and participation in official cricket activities. The core legal question was whether the PCB performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, rendering its regulations statutory and its actions amenable to the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court held that the PCB is a body performing functions under the control of the Federal Government, and its regulations, published in the official Gazette, possess statutory character. Consequently, the writ petitions were found maintainable. The Court observed that the petitioners were treated with inconsistency compared to other clubs and emphasized that sports promotion is a state responsibility vital for social development. Applying the principle that statutory bodies must act fairly and avoid discriminatory practices, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the PCB to provide the petitioner clubs a fresh opportunity to undergo scrutiny and demonstrate compliance with the requisite criteria, except for one club found to have ineligible members.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Pakistan Cricket Board a 'person' performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Do the election regulations framed by the Pakistan Cricket Board under the Sports (Development and Control) Ordinance 1962 possess statutory character?
  • Can a High Court direct a statutory body to grant a second opportunity for scrutiny to cricket clubs previously declared inactive?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Kamal vs Mst. Samreen Akhtar etc2018 CLC 887, 2018 PHC 1343 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-02Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Kamal vs Mst. Samreen Akhtar and 2 others2018 CLC 887 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-02Read full judgment →
• Ajmal Khan and another vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 1363 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-19
  accountability courtde novo trialabsence of accusedevidence in presence of accusedremand of casesupplementary referenceillegal trialNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Accountability Court-IV, Peshawar, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether a trial court can legally convict an accused by relying on evidence recorded in his absence prior to his arrest, without conducting a de novo trial or examining witnesses in his presence. The Peshawar High Court held that relying on evidence recorded in the absence of an accused violates the principle that evidence must be taken in the presence of the accused, and that the consent of parties cannot cure such a fundamental illegality. The Court laid down the principle that when a co-accused is arrested subsequently in the same reference, the trial court must either conclude the trial separately for the already-tried accused or charge both accused afresh and conduct a de novo trial. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court legally convict an accused by relying on prosecution evidence recorded in his absence prior to his arrest?
  • Does the consent of an accused or his counsel to rely on previously recorded evidence cure the illegality of a trial conducted in his absence?
  • What is the proper legal course for a trial court when a co-accused is arrested after the trial of the initial accused has progressed?
  • Whether a trial court is required to frame a fresh charge and conduct a de novo trial upon the subsequent arrest of an absconding co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Aitbar Shah and 4 others vs The State and another2018 P Cr. L J 566 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02
  criminal appealremandlegal infirmitymandatory requirementstrial court judgmentriotingcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Swabi, which convicted the appellants under sections 302(b) and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing them to death and imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the trial court's failure to record a finding of either conviction or acquittal regarding the charge under section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constituted a legal infirmity requiring the judgment to be set aside. The Peshawar High Court held that the trial court's omission to address the charge under section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 violated the mandatory requirements of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge, Swabi, for a fresh decision after providing a hearing to both parties. The key principle laid down is that a trial court must record findings on all charges framed against an accused, as failure to do so renders the judgment legally defective and necessitates a remand.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to record findings on all charges framed against an accused render the judgment legally infirm?
  • Is a judgment that fails to comply with the requirements of section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 liable to be set aside?
  • Can an appellate court remand a case for a fresh decision if the trial court failed to adjudicate upon a specific charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmadullah and 3 others vs Government of NWFP through Secretary2018 YLR 2328 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Shah vs Agriculture Inspector SMS Plant Production2018 P Cr. L J 512 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-13
  quashmentde-sealing of premisesfake fertilizerproperty rightsinherent jurisdictionKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Fertilizer Control Act 1999
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeks the quashment of an order dismissing a revision petition for the de-sealing of a basement premises. The petitioner, the owner of the premises, rented the property to an accused person involved in a case regarding fake fertilizer. The premises were sealed by the Agriculture Inspector following the recovery of fake fertilizer. The core legal question was whether the authorities could indefinitely seal the petitioner's property to store seized material when the petitioner was not an accused in the criminal case. The Court held that while Rule 24(5) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Fertilizer Control Rules 2003 allows an inspector to store seized fertilizer in the place of seizure, it does not grant the authority to seal the premises indefinitely, especially when the owner is not involved in the offense. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to remove the seized fertilizer within thirty days and restore possession of the premises to the petitioner, emphasizing that property rights cannot be infringed upon without explicit statutory authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Fertilizer Control Act 1999 or its Rules authorize the indefinite sealing of premises used by a third party to store seized fertilizer?
  • Can a court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to order the de-sealing of property owned by a non-accused person?
  • Under Rule 24(5) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Fertilizer Control Rules 2003, is an inspector required to remove seized fertilizer from a third party's premises if the premises owner is not involved in the offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed vs Abdul Rashid and others2018 PHC 1490 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Danyal vs Islamia College, Peshawar through Registrar and others2018 PLJ Peshawar 26 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Agro Pack. vs Federation of Pakistan.PTCL 2018 CL. 317 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
• Agro Pack vs Federation of PakistanPTCL 2018 CL. 317, 2018 PTD 1729 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan and 2 others vs The State2018 YLR 1676 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-12
  interested witnessocular accountcorroborative evidenceabscondencereasonable doubtcriminal appealQatl-e-Amd
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a trial court judgment convicting three appellants for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of a sole eyewitness—the deceased's father—and whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that while the complainant was an interested witness, his testimony was credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the site plan. However, the Court found that the specific weapons attributed to one appellant (Zeeshan) did not match the fatal injuries, creating reasonable doubt; consequently, he was acquitted. Conversely, the Court upheld the convictions of the other two appellants and, finding the trial court erred in its acquittal on the charge of attempted murder, convicted them under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court affirmed that while abscondence alone is insufficient for conviction, it serves as corroborative evidence, and that the testimony of an interested witness is admissible when supported by strong, independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the sole testimony of an interested witness?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused person constitute sufficient evidence for conviction?
  • Is the testimony of an interested witness admissible if corroborated by independent evidence?
  • Should an accused be acquitted if the medical evidence contradicts the weapon attributed to them?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khaliq vs National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman2018 PHC 1825 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
• Afsar Khan vs The State and another2018 YLR 1293 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-18
  murdersolitary eyewitnessbenefit of doubtwithholding best evidenceabscondencemedical evidence contradictioncriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kohat, convicting the appellant under sections 302-C/34, 324/34, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing him to imprisonment and compensation. A connected criminal revision petition was filed for enhancement of the sentence. The core legal question revolved around the reliability of the solitary eyewitness testimony, the consequences of withholding best evidence such as the injured eyewitness and the vehicle driver, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case due to major contradictions in the sole eyewitness testimony, non-production of vital injured witnesses, lack of blood recovery from the scene, and unproven motive and abscondence. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed the revision petition as infructuous, reiterating the principle that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal conviction be safely based on the solitary testimony of an interested and partisan witness when it contains material contradictions and improvements?
  • What is the legal effect on the prosecution's case when the best evidence, such as an injured eyewitness and the vehicle driver, is withheld from the court?
  • Is mere abscondence of an accused sufficient to establish guilt in the absence of unimpeachable independent ocular evidence?
  • Does the failure to recover blood-stained earth from the alleged place of occurrence create a serious doubt regarding the manner and site of the incident?
  Read full judgment →
• Afreen Khan vs Faramoz Khan2018 PLJ Tr.C. (KPK B.C.) 226, 2018 YLR 1409, 2018 PHC 1570 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-17Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali vs Ibrar Muhammad and 2 others2018 PLD Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs The State and another2018 YLR 1629 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-11
  confessional statementpolice custodyco-accused confessionbenefit of doubtFSL reportretracted confessionunwitnessed occurrencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal appeals filed by convicts Abdur Rehman and Raqibullah against their convictions under Sections 302(b) and 382 PPC, alongside a criminal revision for sentence enhancement filed by the victim's widow. The core legal questions pertain to the voluntariness and evidentiary value of an uncorroborated, delayed confessional statement recorded after prolonged police custody, and whether an exculpatory co-accused confession can form the basis of a conviction under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The High Court observed that the confession was involuntary as the Judicial Magistrate granted only 5 to 10 minutes thinking time instead of the prescribed 30 minutes under the High Court Rules, and police custody was unexplained. Furthermore, the co-accused's statement shifted the main blame to the co-appellant without self-incrimination, rendering it inadmissible as substantive evidence. The forensic evidence was also compromised due to unexplained delays in sending crime empties. Consequently, the High Court accepted both appeals, set aside the convictions, and dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a short thinking period of 5 to 10 minutes granted by a Judicial Magistrate render a judicial confession involuntary?
  • Can a confession of a co-accused that shifts the main blame onto another accused be used as substantive evidence for conviction under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an FSL report when there is an unexplained delay in sending physical evidence to the laboratory?
  • Does prolonged and unexplained police custody prior to recording a confession diminish its voluntariness and evidentiary value?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 6 others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Elementary & Secondary Education Department through Secretary Educations, Peshawar and 5 others2018 PLJ Peshawar 43 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khan vs Chairman, National Accountability Bureau2018 PLD Peshawar 59 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wadood vs Additional Secretary FATA etc2019 PLC (C.S.) 488, 2018 PHC 1302, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 162 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-11
  repatriationcivil servantsterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionbar of jurisdictionservice tribunaltransfer and posting
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a set of consolidated constitutional petitions filed by government servants challenging their repatriation orders from FATA to the Health Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question was whether the High Court has constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain petitions concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, specifically regarding transfer and repatriation, in light of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions as non-maintainable, holding that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including transfers and repatriations, fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal. The court established that even if an impugned order is alleged to be mala fide, coram non judice, or in violation of rules, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is explicitly barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, and aggrieved civil servants must seek their remedy before the appropriate Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain constitutional petitions filed by civil servants regarding their transfer or repatriation?
  • Whether the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies when an official order is alleged to be mala fide or coram non judice?
  • Do matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants exclusively fall within the domain of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid & another vs The State, etcPLJ 2018 Cr.C. 754, 2018 PHC 1445 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2018 PHC 1482 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Federation of Pakistan and others2018 PHC 1482, 2018 YLR 2069 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabar son of Gul Akber resident of Bazed Khel, District, Peshawar vs The State and anotherPLJ 2019 Cr.C. 245, 2018 PHC 1835 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-12
  dying declarationmurder trialchance witnessbenefit of doubtacquittalfirearm injurycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment handed down by the trial court under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside connected matters concerning an enhancement revision and an acquittal appeal. The core legal questions involved the reliability of a statement treated as a dying declaration when the injured person was semi-conscious, the credibility of chance eyewitnesses without independent corroboration, and the sufficiency of unverified forensic and ballistic evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the dying declaration lacked credibility due to the injured party's semi-conscious state, the eyewitnesses were uncorroborated chance witnesses, and crucial ballistic items were not sent for forensic analysis. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and dismissed both the connected sentence-enhancement revision and the appeal against the co-accused's acquittal. The key principle laid down is that a statement recorded from a semi-conscious injured person cannot safely form the basis of a dying declaration, and weak ocular testimony uncorroborated by independent medical or ballistic evidence cannot sustain a murder conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statement recorded from an injured person who was semi-conscious be safely relied upon as a valid dying declaration?
  • Whether the testimony of close relatives can be accepted as eyewitness accounts without independent corroboration when they are classified as chance witnesses?
  • Does the failure to send recovered empty cartridge shells and spent bullets to the Forensic Science Laboratory weaken the prosecution's case?
  • What is the effect on an appeal against the acquittal of a co-accused charged with abetment when the main accused charged with the substantive offense is acquitted on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Mithu and others2018 PHC 1588 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-15Read full judgment →
• Abbas Khan vs Inspector General of Police KPK, Peshawar and others2019 P Cr. L J 259, 2018 PHC 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-26
  writ petitioncognizable offencepolice investigationcancellation of FIRdischarge of accusedjudicial oversightcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the police's administrative decision to cancel an FIR (No. 533/2015) registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which accused police officials of murder. The petitioner alleged that the police investigation was biased, leading to the wrongful discharge of the accused police officials while simultaneously pursuing a counter-FIR against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the police, during an investigation, possess the authority to unilaterally discharge accused persons in a serious cognizable offence and effectively quash an FIR without judicial oversight. The Court held that the police cannot simply quash an FIR in a cognizable offence, particularly when police officials themselves are the accused. The Court found the discharge of the accused to be a circumvention of the law that defeated the ends of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned police report and directed the respondents to submit a challan before the competent court within 14 days to initiate a trial in both FIRs.

  Questions settled

  • Can police officials unilaterally discharge an accused person in a cognizable offence and effectively quash an FIR?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Article 199 to set aside a police report that improperly discharges an accused in a criminal case?
  • Is the police required to submit a challan to the court within a specific timeframe under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Muhammad Shah Khan and another vs Haji Abdur Rehman and 62018 PHC 1297, 2018 PLJ Peshawar 154, 2018 YLR 2134 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-10Read full judgment →
• (1) Syed Nauman Bacha (2) Syed Luqman Bacha vs The State etc2018 PHC 1383 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
• (1) Saeed Akbar (2) safi Ullah (3) Wazir vs The State2018 PHC 1353 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-11Read full judgment →
• (1) Muhammad Saleem Khan (2) Bashir Ahmad and others (3) Dost2018 CLC 1693, 2018 PHC 1648 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-06-06Read full judgment →
• (1) Jumma Khan & 1 another (2) Zeeshan vs The State2018 PHC 1424 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-01-04Read full judgment →
• (1) Haris Nasim alias Khalid son of Nasim Ahmad (2) Mekaeel Mehmood2019 P Cr. L J 535, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 230, 2018 PHC 1757 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-31
  criminal appealconfessional statementjuvenile justicecircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtretracted confessionanti-terrorismcustodial torture
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellants for murder and terrorism offenses. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on confessional statements and circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found the confessional statements to be involuntary, noting evidence of custodial torture, particularly regarding the juvenile appellant, and observed that these confessions were mere copies of statements recorded by the police. The Court emphasized that confessions by juveniles require rigorous scrutiny due to their susceptibility to coercion and tutoring. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the circumstantial evidence, including forensic reports and call data records, failed to establish an unbroken chain of evidence linking the appellants to the crime. Additionally, the prosecution's failure to produce material witnesses warranted an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, affirming that the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained on a retracted confession without independent corroborative evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary standard for evaluating a confessional statement made by a juvenile accused?
  • Does the abandonment of material prosecution witnesses warrant an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction if it fails to form an unbroken chain connecting the accused to the crime?
  Read full judgment →
• (1) Akhtar Munir (2) Ali Mahir vs The State2018 PHC 1525 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-13Read full judgment →
• (1) Abid (2) Jehanzeb Sharif (3) Hassan vs District Magistrate and others2018 PHC 1577 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-10Read full judgment →
• Zuhrab Gul vs The State2017 PHC 1295 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-09Read full judgment →
• Zuhrab Gul vs The State and another2017 YLR 1376 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-09
  criminal appealadditional evidencedying declarationmedico-legal reportremandmurder referenceappellate jurisdictionfair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court for multiple murders and related offences. The core legal question concerns the appellate court's authority to order the production of additional evidence when a material witness—a medical officer—was not properly examined regarding medico-legal reports and a dying declaration during the trial. The Court held that the conviction and sentences must be set aside, and the case remanded to the Trial Court for the re-examination of the medical officer. The Court emphasized that under Sections 428 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, appellate forums possess wide, plenary powers to summon or recall witnesses if such evidence is essential for a just decision. The principle laid down is that while these powers should not be used to cure inherent prosecution infirmities, they must be exercised when necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice, as the primary duty of a criminal court is to ascertain the truth and serve the interests of society, rather than acting as a mere arbiter between parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court exercise its powers to record additional evidence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rectify omissions made by the trial court?
  • Does the power of the court to summon material witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 extend to recalling witnesses for re-examination to ensure a just decision?
  • Is the appellate court's power to take additional evidence restricted to cases where the evidence was unavailable at the trial stage?
  • Can a conviction be set aside and the case remanded for re-examination of a witness if the trial court failed to examine them on critical medico-legal documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Zubair and Noor Nawaz vs State2017 PHC 520 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ziaullah Afridi vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2017 PHC 1224 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-03Read full judgment →
• Zeshan vs Manzoor Aman and another2017 P Cr. L J 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-16
  summoning of witnessescriminal procedurefair trialjudicial discretionrevisional jurisdictionmaterial witnessfilling lacuna
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged a Trial Court order allowing the complainant's application to summon a witness, Mst. Reema, who was not originally listed in the FIR or the calendar of witnesses. The petitioner argued this was an attempt to fill lacunae in the prosecution's case. The core legal question was whether the Trial Court possesses the authority to summon a witness not cited in the challan. The Court held that under Sections 265-F and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Trial Court has the discretion to summon any person acquainted with the facts of the case if their evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court clarified that Section 265-F does not restrict the examination of witnesses solely to those listed in the challan. The key principle laid down is that the Court's power to summon witnesses is designed to ensure a fair trial and reach a just conclusion, provided the exercise of this power does not cause undue delay or prejudice the defence, which retains the right to cross-examine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Trial Court summon a witness who is not listed in the FIR or the calendar of witnesses?
  • Does Section 265-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limit the prosecution to only those witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161?
  • What are the two parts of the power exercised by a Court under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan vs Jehangir and another2017 YLR 1567 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-01-18Read full judgment →
• Zarmenosh and others vs Siraj Khan and others2017 YLR 666 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-04Read full judgment →
• Zar Wali Khan vs Saddique Akbar and 6 others2017 MLD 49 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-22Read full judgment →
• Zar Nasib Khan & Israr Uddin vs State2017 PHC 682 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →
• Zar Farosh Khan and others vs Muqarab Khan2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
• Zar Farosh Khan and 3 others vs Muqarab Khan and 10 others2017 MLD 1167 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-13Read full judgment →
• Zamurad Khan vs Sabir Khan2017 YLR 355 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-20Read full judgment →
• Zakri Ya vs The State and another2017 YLR 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-26Read full judgment →
• Zakiullah vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and 52017 P Cr. L J 1292 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-29
  freezing of bank accountsNational Accountability Ordinance 1999delegation of powersconstitutional petitionNAB inquiryillegal freezing order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a freezing order issued by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) officials against the petitioner's bank accounts. The core legal question was whether subordinate NAB officials possess the statutory authority to freeze an accused's property under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, without explicit delegation of power from the Chairman NAB. The Court held that the freezing order was illegal, unlawful, and void. The ratio of the decision is that the power to freeze property under Section 12 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, is vested exclusively in the Chairman NAB or the Court trying the accused. While Section 34(A) of the Ordinance permits the delegation of powers, the respondents failed to produce any evidence of a written order authorizing the officials to exercise such power. Consequently, the Court established the principle that freezing orders issued by unauthorized NAB officials, absent valid delegation, constitute an unlawful exercise of jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 authorize subordinate officials to freeze an accused's bank accounts without specific delegation of power from the Chairman NAB?
  • Is a freezing order issued by NAB officials without written authorization under Section 34(A) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 legally valid?
  • Under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which authorities are empowered to order the freezing of an accused's property?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakir Qureshi vs The State2017 PHC 628 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-07Read full judgment →
• Zaki Ullah vs NAB2017-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
• Zahir Shah vs Abdul Ghafar2017 YLR 939 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-08-26Read full judgment →
• (1) Zahir Rahman (2) Khall, District Dir Lower vs (1) State (2) Zahir Rahman2017 PHC 1125 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-23Read full judgment →
• Zahir Gul and 4 others vs Government of Pakistan through Additional2017 MLD 475 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-01Read full judgment →
• Zahid Saeed Lecturer & other vs Director General technical education &2017 PHC 709 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-06Read full judgment →
• Zahid Mohibullah vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government and 10 others2017 MLD 930 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zahid Khan vs K.T.H2017 PHC 1210 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-07Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs The State2017 PHC 736 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Hayat vs Chief Secretary2017 PHC 1245 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-02
  civil serviceindefinite suspensiondepartmental enquirypromotion rightsdeemed reinstatementconstitutional petitiondisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the legality of a civil servant's indefinite suspension and the subsequent denial of promotion. The petitioner, a government servant, challenged his prolonged suspension and the refusal of the authorities to consider him for promotion, which was withheld due to a pending departmental enquiry initiated in 2015. The core legal question was whether the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011, permit indefinite suspension and whether the mere pendency of an enquiry justifies denying promotion. The Court held that the respondents lacked lawful authority to maintain the suspension beyond the statutory limit. Under the relevant rules, a suspension is valid for ninety days; absent a formal extension within that timeframe, the employee is deemed reinstated. Furthermore, the Court ruled that denying promotion solely based on a protracted, unfinished enquiry is unjust. The Court ordered the petitioner’s reinstatement effective after the initial ninety-day suspension period and directed the respondents to consider his promotion alongside his batchmates. The judgment affirms that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to strict statutory timelines to prevent administrative exploitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant be placed under suspension for an indefinite period under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011?
  • What is the legal consequence for a civil servant if their suspension is not extended within the statutory ninety-day period?
  • Does the mere pendency of a departmental enquiry justify the denial of a civil servant's promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Yasir vs The State and anotherPLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 269, 2017 MLD 444 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-09-19Read full judgment →
• Yasir vs State2017 PHC 660 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-30Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs The State2017 P Cr. L J 694 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-15
  quashmentexhumation of dead bodypostmortem examinationunnatural deathsuicidecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the petitioner seeking the quashment of orders passed by the lower judicial magistrate and sessions judge, which had allowed the local police's application for the exhumation and postmortem examination of the dead body of the petitioner's daughter, Mst. Parkha Bibi. The core legal question was whether exhumation and postmortem can be ordered without tangible evidence pointing toward a homicide rather than suicide. The Peshawar High Court held that in the absence of any solid evidence or suspicion of murder by the legal heirs, and given that all legal heirs were unanimous that the deceased committed suicide, exhumation of the dead body is unjustified. The court emphasized that the father acts as the trustee of the grave and that exhumation without sufficient legal justification violates the sanctity and respect accorded to a dead body. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the orders for exhumation were quashed, setting aside the police application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court order the exhumation of a dead body without tangible evidence of murder?
  • Whether an exhumation order can be sustained when the legal heirs do not suspect any foul play and state the death was a suicide?
  • Is a petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 maintainable against an order of exhumation passed by a magistrate and upheld in revision?
  Read full judgment →
• William Maseh vs Bacha Khan University2017 PHC 656 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-06-14
  audi alteram partemnatural justicetermination of servicewrit petitionservice matterreinstatementshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as regular sweepers (BPS-1) by the respondent university, challenged their termination order, which was issued without a show-cause notice or personal hearing. The core legal question was whether the termination of a regular employee without adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically the maxim 'audi alteram partem', is legally sustainable. The Peshawar High Court held that the termination was illegal and set it aside, ruling that the employer failed to provide the petitioners an opportunity to defend themselves. The court emphasized that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' is an essential requirement in all service matters, even if not explicitly provided in the governing statute, as it is an inbuilt part of civil contracts and the Islamic system of justice. Consequently, the court reinstated the petitioners in service, deeming them to have been in service since the date of termination, but ordered a deduction of fifty percent of their wages/salary for the period of absence, while directing the employer to follow due process for any future disciplinary actions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the termination of a regular employee without a show-cause notice or opportunity for a personal hearing violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is the principle of 'audi alteram partem' applicable to service matters even if the governing statute does not explicitly mention it?
  • Can an employer terminate an employee for habitual absence without following formal disciplinary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazirzada etc vs The State2017 PHC 1060 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-09-19Read full judgment →
• Wazir and others vs Haji Dilbar and others2017 PLJ Peshawar 236 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-06-30Read full judgment →
• Waqas Shafique vs StatePLJ 2017 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 285 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-02-10
  post-arrest bailEmigration Ordinancecheatingfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseoverseas employment promoter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Waqas Shafique, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 253 dated 23.12.2016 registered under Sections 17, 18(a), 18(b), and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 at Police Station FIA/AHTC, Peshawar, on allegations of cheating complainants out of money under the guise of providing overseas employment visas. The core legal question was whether mere allegations of providing visas without the recovery of incriminating materials like passports or forged stamps were sufficient to constitute the offence, and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause. The Peshawar High Court held that the applicability of the penal provisions and the sufficiency of allegations without recovery presented a debatable question of further inquiry, noting that the offences carried alternative punishments including fine alone, thus taking the case out of the prohibitory clause. The petition was consequently accepted, laying down the principle that where no incriminating recovery is effected and the penal statute provides for an alternative lesser punishment of fine, the accused makes out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere allegations of receiving money for visas without recovery of incriminating material constitute an offence under the Emigration Ordinance 1979 sufficient to deny bail?
  • Does an offence carrying an alternative lesser punishment of fine fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When does the absence of incriminating recoveries from an accused make out a case of further inquiry entitling them to bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqas Ahmad, Advocate vs District and Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi2017 PLJ Peshawar 155 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• WAPDA through Chairman WAPDA and 4 others vs Jamil Ahmad Khan and others2017 YLR 2272 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Govt of KPK etc2017 PHC 273 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Wali Khan vs Ali Muhammad2017 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-03-14Read full judgment →
• Waisal vs The State2017 PHC 874 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-02Read full judgment →
• Usman Ghani vs Owais Rehman and another2017 YLR 243 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-03
  qatl-i-amdchance witnessbenefit of doubtcorroborative evidenceabscondencedelay in FIRmurder trialappellate acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the qatl-i-amd of his sister-in-law, along with a connected revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question was whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt through trustworthy ocular testimony, corroborative evidence, and proof of the presence of alleged eye-witnesses who were classified as chance witnesses. The Peshawar High Court held that the testimony of the chance witnesses was unnatural and uncorroborated by reliable circumstances, that the three-hour delay in reporting the crime pointed to contrived involvement, and that corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery, medical reports, and abscondence could not sustain a conviction in the absence of reliable direct evidence. The court laid down the principle that corroborative pieces of evidence serve only to test ocular testimony and cannot substitute for primary direct evidence, and that a single substantial doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can corroborative evidence alone sustain a conviction for murder when the direct ocular testimony has been disbelieved?
  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness can be relied upon without convincing explanations of their presence at the crime scene?
  • Does unexplained abscondence of an accused substitute for real evidence of guilt in a criminal trial?
  • What is the legal effect of a delay in lodging the first information report in the absence of a satisfactory explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali Khan and others vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council and others2017 PLD Peshawar 160 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-18Read full judgment →
• University of Swat through its Registrar vs Director Anti Corruption KPK and others2017 PHC 1205 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-11-23Read full judgment →
• Umara Khan vs Mst. Rekham Zarina through L.Rs, and 6 others2017 YLR 222 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-05-12
  revision petitionrejection of plaintres judicatasame cause of actionancestral propertydeclarationmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby the petitioner's plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff whose earlier plaint was rejected on merits regarding the non-existence of a cause of action can file a second suit on substantially the same cause of action. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that when a plaint is rejected on merits rather than on technical grounds, it operates as res judicata and bars a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. The court laid down the principle that while Order VII, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permits a fresh suit upon rejection, it does not apply where the initial rejection adjudicated the core issue or non-existence of a cause of action, and further noted that Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bars omitting claims to file subsequent suits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can file a second suit on the same cause of action after the rejection of the first plaint?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint on merits regarding the non-existence of a cause of action operate as res judicata?
  • Can a plaintiff invoke Order VII Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to bring a fresh suit when the earlier plaint was dismissed after adjudication on the core issue?
  • Does Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a party from raising matters in a second suit that were substantially the subject matter of an earlier suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar Taj vs The State etc2017 PHC 1192 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Umar Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment2017 PLJ Peshawar 129 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Umar Farooq and others vs Hamid Ali and others2017 PHC 1009 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-10-17Read full judgment →
• Umar Ayar vs Abdul Satar Khan2017 PLJ Peshawar 83, 2017 MLD 378 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-10-21Read full judgment →
• Turab Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2017 MLD 957, 2017 PLJ Peshawar 183 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-04-14Read full judgment →
• Torsam and 2 others vs Ibrahim Khan and 5 others2017 PLD Peshawar 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Rahman2017 YLR 318 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-11-04Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ali Amin Ghandapur and others2017 MLD 547 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-11-21Read full judgment →
• The State through P.S. FIA Corporate Crime Circle, Saddar, Karachi- vs Muneeb Iqbal Batla2017 CLD 1493 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-04-24Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate General K.P.K vs Zahoor-ur-Rahman2017 PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2017-01-27Read full judgment →
• The Contractors Association KPK vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2017 PHC 663 · Peshawar High Court · 2017-07-12Read full judgment →