|S.No||Citation||Case Subject||Case Title||Download Document|
|1||MLD 2020 Peshawar 153||Theft in dwelling house|
---Unwitnessed Crime---- Offence did not attract non-prohibitory clause of Sec. 497 Cr.P.C. ---BAIL GRANTED.
|2||MLD 2020 Peshawar 1017||Preemption Suit, performance of Talb-i-ishhad|
Non-production of postman by Plaintiff & production of photocopy of talb-i-ishhad;
|GHULAM HUSSAIN SHAH (DECEASED) THROUGH LR |
MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN
|3||2019 MLD 1082||Period of limitation|
For setting aside of Ex-parte Decree is 30 days.
|FAZAL KARIM AND OTHERS|
|4||PLD 2018 Peshawar 30||Succession Certificate|
Status of disputed items could not be determined by Trial Court exercising Jurisdiction under Succession Act, 1925 appropriate remedy would be to approach Civil Court for determination status of disputed items.
PUBLIC AT LARGE
|5||CLC 2016 Note 43||Pardanasheen Lady|
Extra-ordinary care and caution is legally required to be taken in execution of the sale deed when it involves a Pardanasheen lady.
MST. GHULAM FATIMA
|6||2016 S C M R 1781||Power of Attorney Limitations|
Attorney cannot utilize the powers conferred upon him to transfer the property to himself or to his kith and kin without special and specific consent and permission of the principal.
|MST. NAILA KAUSAR AND ANOTHER|
SARDAR MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND OTHERS
|7||2016 SCMR 1141||Land Acquisition Enhancement of Compensation|
Collector without constituting a Committee to re-assess the land again, had relied on the one-year average rate HELD----The Collector should not remain stuck to the one-year average without taking into consideration the present and future potential of the land acquired.
|GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER|
GHULAM MURTAZA AND OTHERS
|8||2016 Y L R 401||Co-ownership and contiguity|
Where property was divided through private partition, such property would no more be joint property---Pre-emption was a right of substitution, once it was established that pre-emptor was no more co-owner and no contiguity existed, suit would not be maintainable.
MST. SAIMA ZIA
|9||2015 S C M R 825||Bail granted by Magistrate in Rape Case was dismissed|
Complainant-victim was a virgin lady and according to medical evidence she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Magistrate allowing bail to accused for an offence under S. 376, P.P.C. according to Schedule-II, Column No. 8, Cr.P.C., said offence was triable by a Court of Session-Only function of the Magistrate after the receipt of report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was to transmit the challan to the Court of competent jurisdiction/Sessions Court.
FARRUKH SHAHZAD AND ANOTHER
|10||2013 Y L R 357||Fard Jamabandi (Record of Rights column weightage)|
Entry in column of ownership would prevail over column of cultivation---Entry in column of cultivation would prevail over column of lagan---Person entered as tenant-at-will in column of cultivation, for being a tenant, could not claim adverse possession.
|MIRZAMAN AND 8 OTHERS|
MUHAMMAD AJMAL HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS
|11||2011 SCMR 972||Suit for recovery of amount of dower|
Plaintiff(wife) was not entitled to recover amount of dower as defendant (husband) had alienated half of the share of his property in favor of the plaintiff--- Validity---Defendant had failed to establish that 1/2 share of his house, which originally belonged to his father and which he had agreed to transfer in the name of the plaintiff in lieu of dower amount, had been transferred by him in favor of the plaintiff---Defendant could not produce on record any document in support of his claim---Leave petition was dismissed.
|RAB NAWAZ AHMED|
MST. HASINA IQBAL AND ANOTHER
|12||2009 S C M R 598||Gift vs Inheritance|
Transfer of land by deceased through mutations of gift and sale in favor of his two daughters excluding his third daughter from inheritance---Plaintiff's plea was that such mutations were the result of fraud and misrepresentation which they had failed to discharge initial onus to prove misrepresentation and fraud---Defendant had proved gift deed by producing its scribe and attesting witnesses. Suit was dismissed for want of proof in circumstances.
|TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN THROUGH L.RS. AND ANOTHER|
MST. MUNAWAR JAN AND 2 OTHERS
|13||2009 CLC 1276||Gift vs Inheritance|
Both the gift and sale mutations were attested during the life time of the original owner by the Revenue Officer in "Jalsa Aam". Suits were filed by the plaintiff after many years of attestation of deeds and even much later than the date of death of executant/original owner. Plaintiffs could get no more than what the original owner had left behind for his other legal representatives at the time of opening of his succession.
|TAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN THROUGH L.RS.|
MST. MUNAWAR JAN AND 2 OTHERS
|14||PLJ 2008 Pesh. 05||Absence of Documentary Evidence|
Change in nature of land and disputed boundaries was alleged based on verbal accusations. HELD-- Court cannot create evidence in favor of plaintiff by appointment of Local Commission when plaintiff himself not made any efforts to prove his case beyond verbal contentions.
|15||2007 MLD 2012||OVII R11 No Cause of Action|
Defendants having clearly declared that they had neither interfered in the suit property nor they intended to do so, such a bald and unreserved statement of defendants should have pacified the plaintiff-----Petitioner could proceed against defendants if any encroachment in the suit property was ever made by them------No cause of action there having accrued to plaintiff to institute suit, both courts below had rightly applied their mind to reject the plaint.
|MALIK MANZOOR ELAHI|
ZULFIQAR ALI AND 2 OTHERS
|16||2007 CLC 857||Ascertainment of Real Market Value|
Land on main road side had lot of potential in terms of commercial as well as residential value. After ascertainment of real market value, compensation of acquired land should have been fixed more than market price---High Court, remanded case to Referee Court with direction to ascertain market value of acquired land.
|RAJA SULTAN ERAJ ZAMAN|
MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER, HAZARA CIRCLE ABBOTTABAD AND 2 OTHERS
|17||2005 PCrLJ 623||Quashing of proceedings|
Complaint filed by Police against Petitioner under S.182, P.P.C. was not competent as it was contrary to mandatory provisions of S.195, Cr.P.C. under which any offence punishable under Ss. 172 to 188, P.P.C. would be taken cognizance of only when complaint was made in writing by public servant concerned or by some other public servant to whom he was subordinate----When a thing was required to be done by law in a particular manner it should be done in that manner or not at all.
|MAULANA MUHAMMAD ILYAS QADRI|
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HARIPUR DISTRICT AND 3 OTHERS
|18||PLD 2004 Peshawar 95||Departure from the Pleadings|
Party could not make a departure from its pleadings and was bound by the same.
|MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND OTHERS|
MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND OTHERS
|19||2004 CLC 825||Un-registered Sale-Deed, Non-Production of Marginal Witnesses|
Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of unregistered deeds executed in her favor Plaintiff neither produced marginal witnesses of the deeds, nor the scribe. Plaintiff was required to prove execution of documents in accordance with law by producing marginal witnesses and scribe of the deeds.
|MST. RASHIDA KHATOON|
MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS
|20||2004 CLC 231||Transaction of gift alleged to be a sale|
Essential condition of Sale is Proof of payment of some price in cash for thing sold is necessary. According to section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, it is to be proved that price/consideration has been paid to the owner.
|MST. WAJIDA BEGUM AND OTHERS|
MST. SHAMIM AKHTAR AND OTHERS
|21||2003 Y L R 2159||Recovery of Dower Amount|
Father of husband had agreed to pay dower amount through agreement deed after filing of criminal case by plaintiff (wife) in respect of land entered in dower deed, but was not in existence at all. Defendant in written statement had given evasive answer to relevant para of plaint. Evidence had been thrashed by Courts below, which being factual matters did not need interference---High Court dismissed Constitutional petitioner in limine.
|MUHAMMAD AAMIR AND ANOTHER|
MST. SHABANA NISAR AND 2 OTHERS
|22||2003 YLR 2084||Setting aside Ex-Party Decree|
Trial Court while passing ex parte decree had overlooked its earlier order directing issuance of notice to defendants and their counsel, which had neither been issued nor served upon them. Ex-parte decree passed without notice to defendant-¬appellant and without directing ex parte proceedings against him, was nullity in eyes of law.
|FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN|
FAZLE RABBI AND ANOTHER
|23||2003 YLR 2064||Suit for declaration and possession|
Defendant claimed to be purchaser of suit-land through unregistered sale-deed. ¬Such sale-deed was not acted upon in Revenue Record & after his death inheritance mutation was attested in their favor. Defendant got sale mutation attested in his favor which was subsequently challenged by Plaintiff.
|MST, ATTA JAN ALIAS TAJ BEGUM AND 6 OTHERS---PETITIONER|
ABDUR RAHIM AND 22 OTHERS
|24||2003 MLD 222|
[Election Tribunal N. W.F.P.]
|Declaration of Assets|
Rejection of nomination papers was a penalty, which could only be imposed, if an offence was committed or law violated Section 14 of the Act would apply, when false statements had been made with mens rea, but not otherwise Mere existence of defect in nomination paper not of substantial nature and defect, which could be remedied, should not be made ground for rejection of nomination papers Returning Officers could ask respondents to file fresh "Goshwara Malkiat" Election Tribunal dismissed appeals in circumstances.
|RETURNING OFFICER NA 19, N. W.F.P., DISTRICT HARIPUR/ADDITIONAL|
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HARIPUR AND ANOTHER
|25||2003 C L C 1170||(Determination of Market Value) Pre-emption Suit|
Sale consideration of the land entered in the mutation was Rs.10,000 but the vendee contested the suit to have purchased the suit-land for a consideration of Rs.83,000---Trial Court, on assessment of evidence decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff on payment of Rs.10,000 against the vendee ---Appellate Court enhanced the market value of the suit-land to Rs.83,000---Validity---Pre-emptor had to shoulder the responsibility of proving the payment of consideration of sale of the property---Market value was to be determined on the factors i.e. location, fertility etc.
|MUHAMMAD ARIF --- PETITIONER|
|26||2002 C L C 1267||Proceeding before wrong forum- Limitation Act 1908|
Filing of civil suit instead of execution petition---High Court advised that the appellant could move proper application for the implementation of earlier order of High Court with an application for condonation of delay caused due to proceedings before wrong forum under misconception or wrong advice.
|WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE|
SULTAN RAJA ERAJ ZAMAN. AND 133 OTHERS
|27||2002 CLC 1206||EJECTMENT OF TENANT|
Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition whereas the Appellate Court allowed the same ---- Plea raised by the tenant was that the Appellate Court had set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller without discussing the evidence available on record----Where the Lower Appellate Court without discussing the facts available on record and without giving reasons for his findings and without applying his judicious mind passed the judgment, such judgment was arbitrary and without lawful authority which was set aside by High Court.
IFTIKHAR AHMAD AND 5 OTHERS
|28||2002 CLC 582||Right of Easement|
Plaintiff claimed right of easement on the ground that the defendants had no right to block the water channel which was passing through the land owned by the defendants, as the orchard of the plaintiff was being irrigated by the water channel Validity Where the plaintiff had alternate access to his orchard and he could use the same at his leisure, the right of easement had rightly been declined to the plaintiff.
|QAZI MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR PETITIONER|
SUFI NOOR ELAHI
|29||2001 P Cr. L J 1595||Appeal against acquittal|
F.I.R. was delayed by thirteen days and the same did not contain any reference to the Jirga having been convened in the case or any undertaking of the accused to pay the amount. Matter between the parties appeared to be of civil nature and certain documents admittedly were not available on the file of the Trial Court Finding of acquittal was based on correct appreciation of evidence by lower Court. Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
|MUHAMMAD QASIM APPELLANT|
MUHAMMAD ASIF AND 3 OTHERS
|30||2001 P Cr. L J 1587||Revision against Acquittal of Accused|
Delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. had remained unexplained Confessional statement allegedly made by accused was not recorded in accordance with law and essential formalities before recording the same were not duly observed Cogent and convincing reasons had been given by the Trial Court for acquitting the accused Revision petition against acquittal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
|ZAHOOR ALI SHAH|
AMIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND ANOTHER
|31||2001 PCr.LJ 1461||Essentials for Grant & Cancellation of Bail|
Consideration for the grant of bail and for cancellation of bail was absolutely different Once an accused had been released on bail, his liberty could not be interfered with lightly. No extraordinary circumstances had been pointed out which could constitute an impediment in the way of granting bail to the accused Order of Court below granting bail to the accused being flawless, could not be interfered with.
MUHAMMAD AZAM AND ANOTHER
|32||2001 PCr.LJ 1401||Narcotics—Recovery of Opium----9(c)|
Opium recovered from the accused was not produced in the Trial Court Burden was on the prosecution to positively establish on the destruction, of the case property which was not discharged by the testimony of two prosecution witnesses—¬No evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the same - -Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
|33||2001 CLC 1983||Custody of Minors|
Claim for custody of minor sons by father Father filed suit against mother for obtaining custody of his minor sons after divorcing her Minors were residing with mother and studying in an educational institution of high repute Petitioner had contracted second marriage and was living happily with second wife ¬Effect If the mother of the minor sons had contracted second marriage, petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court for appropriate relief.
|MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN TAREEN|
DISTRICT JUDGE, HARIPUR AND OTHERS
|34||2000 MLD 1855||Easement Right|
Alternate path available to the petitioners-----Where joint properties of the petitioners touched the main road, they themselves could make arrangements of their approach from the main road No flaw in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below had been found to make a case for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
|ABDUL AZIZ AND OTHERS|
MUHAMMAD MISKEEN AND 8 OTHERS
|35||2000 C L C 1955||Court favors adjudication on merit rather than deciding on technicalities|
Striking off defense of defendants under O17 R3 upon non-filing of written statements
|MESSRS FRIENDS VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS|
PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION, MINISTRY
OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS
|36||2000 CLC 399||Gift by Illiterate Pardanasheen Lady|
Where gift deed was not read ever and explained to such lady, execution of such deed would not be said to have been consciously executed.
|MST. GUL BIBI AND ANOTHER|
MST. SAJIDA BIBI
|37||1999 PCr.LJ 1700||Rejection of Bail regardless of offence not falling within Prohibitory clause|
Offences though did not fall in prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., but since accused armed with deadly weapon had entered house of complainant when a woman having no protection of male in house was present, Court could award imprisonment, as well which fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
|SHAMRAIZ AND ANOTHER|
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
|38||1999 P Cr. L J 1677||Post Arrest Bail of Co-Accused|
Occurrence was supported by injured victim, witnesses as well as medical report which had shown that female victim was injured at the skull with sharp edged weapon by accused Accused, in circumstances, could not be shown leniency towards bail Since blow of co accused had not landed do vital part of body of victim, he was entitled to concession of bail.
|BABAR KHAN AND ANOTHER|
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
|39||1997 CLC 423||Reliance on Wajib-ul-Arz|
Entries in Wajib ul Arz reflected unanimous will of the community to which presumption of correctness was attached----Entries in Revenue Record that properties in question were "Khud Kasht" were not supported by other entries in the Record which were recorded as "Dhaka Rakh' and "Dhaka Chiragah" and the same had never been cultivable land Judgment of Appellate Court to that effect being well reasoned and well founded was maintained in circumstances.
|SHAUKAT ZAMAN KHAN AND OTHERS|
|40||1996 MLD 362||Occupancy Tenancy|
Plaintiffs claim to be full owners on basis of being occupancy tenants of land in question. Plaintiffs admittedly were not recorded occupancy tenants of land in question, in revenue papers at the commencement of North-West Frontier Province Tenancy Act, 1950, therefore, legally they could not be deemed to have become full owners of land in question, by operation of law in terms of Ss.4 & 4-A of the Act.
|MISRI AND 2 OTHERS|
MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 49 OTHERS
|41||1996 CLC 857||Validity of Gift|
Gift in question was made by father in favor of his three sons excluding the fourth one Son who had been excluded from gift assailing gift on basis of fraud and undue influence Suit was dismissed and gift was deemed to be valid.
|MST. BIVI JAN AND OTHERS|
FAQIR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS
|42||1995 CLC 403||Requirements for Adverse possession|
For maturing title through adverse possession it is sine qua non that person making assertion of adverse possession must establish disclaimer of the title which must be notorious and explicit.
|43||PLD 1994 Peshawar 204||Unregistered Document Reliance|
Unregistered document could be received in evidence for collateral purposes Execution of document if proved, whether registered or not, would not have material bearing on the merits of the case Such document could be admitted in evidence and also be relied upon to prove any collateral purpose i.e. factum of possession.
|KHAN GUL AND OTHERS|
AZIM SHAH AND ANOTHER
|44||1994 CLC 2409||Entitlement of co sharer to construct on joint property|
Co sharer could not, ordinarily be permitted to alter the nature of joint property, and to put it to different use from the one for which it was intended----Even if defendant/co sharer had been in possession of land in question, still he could not raise construction thereon, without consulting other co sharer or partition of land.
ABDUL JALIL USMAN AND OTHERS
|45||1994 CLC 1698||Co-sharer Entitlement|
Entitlement of co sharer to construct on joint property. Co sharer could not, ordinarily be permitted to alter the nature of joint property.
|MADRASSA ISLAMIA REHMANIA HARIPUR|
|46||PLD 1993 Peshawar 138||Reliance on Expert Report in Murder Case|
Where the pistol and the empty had remained in police custody for sufficiently long time the report of the Fire arms Expert would not be of much evidentiary value and could not be relied upon as the possibility of the substitution of the empty could not be ruled out.
|47||PLD 1992 Peshawar 71||Essentials of 249-A|
That the Court after hearing the prosecutor and the accused, if considers that the charge is groundless or there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence, may acquit the accused. Trial Court had acted in haste in acquitting the accused u/s 249 A, Cr.P.C: at the very initial stage without affording the complainant any opportunity to prove her allegations against accused Order of acquittal was consequently set aside.
|MST. SAID KHANUM|
MUNSIF KHAN AND 7 OTHERS
|48||1991 MLD Peshawar 631|
Confession of accused person has to be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole particularly when there is no ocular evidence.
|SHAKIL KHAN |
|49||PLD 1983 Pesh 81||Grievous Hurt|
Injuries of complainant more serious than those on accused, but nothing on record to show as to who commenced aggression ---Benefit of doubt regarding their presence at time of occurrence extended to two of accused on same evidence Held, remaining accused also entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.
|MIRDAD AND ANOTHER|
|50||1982 PCrLJ 58||Private defense|
No cogent evidence to indicate that mother of accused was being beaten by deceased when accused arrived and stabbed him nor plea of self-defense finding corroboration from prosecution evidence --Accused also suffering no injury at all during occurrence negating accused's apprehension of death or any grievous injury at hand of deceased Plea of self-defense held, would not prevail in circumstances.
|51||1982 PCrLJ49||Post Arrest Bail in Murder Case|
Versions given by parties in cross cases as well as other material on record silent regarding their own part in incident resulting in death of one person. Both parties condemning each other to have aggressed upon it and evidence as to how whole affair started and which side responsible for starting aggression yet to be adduced at trial Held: A fit case for further enquiry as envisaged by S. 497 (2), Cr. P. C. Bail allowed, in circumstances.