Pending proceedings when law changed. See West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1966 section 4 (1) (e). "The repeal of an Act shall not affect any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture  or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if repealing Act had not been passed." PLD 1961 Lah. 1049 Akhtar. (SC) PLD 1961 SC 523 Sugni Chand v. Pakistan.
Repealed law. Proceedings started under repealed law are to be decided by repealed law. (DB) ILR 1941 Lah 773 (AIR 1941 Lah 175, Karim Shah v. Mt. Zinat Bibi).
Repeal of law by efflux of time, e.g. Suppression of Terrorist Activities Ordinance, proceedings pending or already taken not to be affected by virtue of Article 264 read with Art. 89 of the Constitution of Pakistan (DB) PLD 1990 Cr.C. (Kar) 467. Sher Muhammad.
Punishment after amendment in law : Accused is to be punished according to the law applicable at the time when offence was committed. He cannot be awarded more server punishment just because during the pendency of the case quantum of punishment was enhanced, by amended law. PLJ 1985 SC 542. Muhammad Ashraf.
Amending Act or ordinance when repealed does not undo the amendment already effected in the amended statute. Section 249 - A Cr.P.C was inserted by Ord. XXXVI of 1977. It was repealed by Ord. XXVI of 1981. Section 249-A, Cr.P.C remains in force after the appeal of Ord. XXXVI of 1977 NLR 1984 Cr. 244 Ch. Sami Ullah.
Different view of law taken  by Court subsequently furnishes no ground for reopening a case long since decided and finally closed (SC) 1968 SCMR 405 Khushi Ram.
Renunciation of law by Supreme Court; new interpretation of law to have effect but not on cases past and closed. PLJ 1985 SC 370. Roshan Ali v. Noor Khan.
Law is not retrospective unless it is expressly or by necessary intendant made so (SC) PLD 1968 SC 313 Mir Abdul Baqi Baloch v. Pakistan.
Repeal of enactment. Substantive rights vesting in any person under repealed enactment, held not lost or affected by repealing enactment. "Law altered during pendency of action. Rights of parties to be decided according to law that existed when action began and not that existing at the date of judgment or order. (SC) PLD 1971 SC 252 Rafi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner.
Law changed. Right of parties are to be decided according to law existing at the time of commencement of action. (DB) PLD 1980 Lah. 778. Fakhar-ud-Din v. Hasin-ud-Din. 
Procedural law when repealed and replaced by new law, new procedure is to be adopted at once (FB) PLD 1958 Lah. 853. Muhammad Bashir v. West Pakistan. (SC) 1972 SCMR 173, Muhammad Abdullah v. Imdad Ali.
Procedural law is retrospective in effect unless otherwise expressly not made so. (DB) PLD 1980 Lah. 175 Muhammad Ali.
Procedural law has retrospective effect and is attracted forthwith to the pending proceedings. 1993 SCMR 1276, The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd.
Procedural law. "Such proceeding carries their own law with them i.e. "they should be decided under the law as it was at the time when they were instituted; notwithstanding the repeal of those provisions (SC) PLD 1961 SC 523 Sugni Chand.
Appeal is not matter of procedure. Criminal Appeal is a `vested' right on the date of commencement of lis or proceedings and are governed by law prevailing on such date of decision of such lis or proceedings. This right can be taken away only by express provision or necessary intendant. (FB) PLD 1962 Lah. 662 Ghazi etc.
There is no vested right in procedure. Alterations in the form of procedure are always retrospective unless there is some good reason or other why they should not be so. The procedure to be followed is one which is in force when the trial commences and not the date of the commission of the offence. (FB) PLD 1962 Lah. 662 Ghazi.
Amendment in procedural law is retrospective in operation. (FB) PLD 1966 Pesh. 108 Fazal Mehmood. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 681 State v. Maulvi Muhammad Jameel rel.
Special Procedure. Where a special law creates a special offence and a special procedure for its trial such procedure must be followed and not ordinary procedure. (SC) 1971 SCMR 585 State v. Hamtho.
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)  gives exclusive jurisdiction to Family Courts to decide questions of maintenance. It affects proceedings under section 488, Cr.P.C. even commenced before and pending at the time of its coming into force. The Family Courts Act changes the forum. It is procedural in nature and hence affects the proceedings retrospectively (SC) PLD 1969 SC 187 Adnan. Afzal v. Capt. Sher Afzal PLD 1969 Pesh. 62 approved.
Cases decided before Amendment Ordinance (XX of 1980) by Sessions Court under Zina Hudood Ordinance, appeal to High Court competent. 1983 SCMR 935 Muhammad Aslam.