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. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Rehmanuddin vs The State1999 MLD 3219 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-09Read full judgment →
• Rehana Jamal and 2 others vs Muhammad Asim1999 CLC 781 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-04Read full judgment →
• Reference Made by District and Sessions Judge, Karachi vs The State1999 PLD Karachi 96 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
• Raza Hussain and others vs Muhammad Khan and others1999 CLC 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-12
  specific performancepardanashin ladyadvocate and clientfiduciary relationshipburden of prooffree consentprofessional ethicsequitable discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of land filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants against the heirs of the vendor, Mst. Sherbano. The deceased plaintiff, who was also the vendor's advocate, had entered into agreements to purchase land, part of which was originally purported to be sold by the vendor's grandson, subsequently ratified by the vendor herself. The trial court dismissed the specific performance claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the illiterate, elderly vendor executed the agreements with full knowledge, comprehension, and free consent, though it awarded a partial money decree. The core legal questions involved the extent of protection afforded to illiterate or pardanashin women, the fiduciary relationship and heavy onus of proof resting on an advocate contracting with a client, and whether specific performance should be denied under equitable discretion. The Sindh High Court held that the heavy onus to prove free consent and full understanding was not discharged by the advocate-plaintiff, given the unequal fiduciary relationship, and that the transaction was rightly held unenforceable. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an illiterate or vulnerable female vendor's agreement of sale requires the person taking advantage of it to prove that she acted with free consent and full understanding of its implications?
  • What is the nature of the burden of proof when an advocate enters into a property transaction or contract with their client?
  • Can specific performance of a contract be refused in the exercise of equitable discretion where a lawyer acquires an interest adverse to or deals improperly with a client?
  • Does the mere ability of an illiterate woman to understand ordinary property matters deprive her of the protective judicial norms established for vulnerable sections of society?
  Read full judgment →
• Rauf Akhter Farooqui vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary1999 PLC (C.S.) 1474 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-26Read full judgment →
• Rana Mamoon Rasheed vs Kokab Noorani Okarvi and 4 others1999 PLD Karachi 257 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-04
  Constitutional petitionHandwriting expertQanun-e-ShahadatMode of proofMaintainabilityVoid orderCivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge, which refused to refer a disputed surrender deed to a handwriting expert. The petitioner contended that the refusal was contrary to law under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. The core legal question was whether the court was compelled to seek expert opinion and whether the impugned orders were void, thereby justifying constitutional intervention. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the trial court possesses discretion in selecting the mode of proof for handwriting and signatures. The Court affirmed that Article 84 does not mandate expert opinion; rather, a court may rely on other modes, such as witness testimony, admission, or internal evidence. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the original document was not produced, rendering the request for expert verification of a photocopy improper. Finally, the Court ruled that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked against orders of a competent court merely for alleged errors, as such orders are not void or coram non judice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court legally compelled to refer a disputed document to a handwriting expert under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat?
  • Can a party seek verification of a signature by a handwriting expert using only a photocopy of a document?
  • Does an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by a competent civil court render an order void for the purpose of invoking constitutional jurisdiction?
  • What are the permissible modes available to a court for determining the genuineness of a signature or handwriting?
  Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs Province of Sindh and others1999 MLD 2554 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Ali vs Javed Industries and others1999 CLC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-08
  jurisdictionbanking disputedishonoured chequesrecovery suitsummary procedureloan or financeborrower or customer
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction raised by defendant No. 7, a bank, contending that the suit should be transferred to the Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 because it involved dishonoured cheques issued by the bank. The plaintiff instituted an ordinary suit for recovery of money based on an investment made with defendant No. 1 and secured by post-dated cheques endorsed good for payment by the bank. The core legal question was whether a transaction involving the issuance and subsequent dishonour of cheques endorsed good for payment by a bank constitutes a banking matter under the 1997 Act. The Sindh High Court held that the suit does not fall within the purview of the Banking Court as none of the parties are borrowers or customers who obtained a loan or finance as defined under the Act. The key principle laid down is that to attract the jurisdiction of a Banking Court, the transaction must strictly involve the relationship of a borrower or customer and the extension of a loan or finance, and the mere issuance or endorsement of cheques by a bank does not convert an ordinary civil claim into a banking dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does a suit based on dishonoured cheques endorsed good for payment by a bank fall within the jurisdiction of a Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  • What are the essential requirements to bring a transaction within the purview of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  • Does the mere issuance of cheques drawn on an account holder's account and endorsed good for payment by a bank amount to a loan or finance transaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Raji Aviation (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive Officer vs Khawaja M.1999 YLR 2551 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Rajesh Kumar vs Chief Minister, Government of Sindh and 6 others1999 CLC 717 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-17Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Afzal vs The State1999 PLD Karachi 349 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-02Read full judgment →
• Raja Faizul Hasan Faiz and 6 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government, Finance Division, Islamabad and another1999 PLC 11 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
• Rais Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 627 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Rahim alias Rehmak vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-24Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Tabani vs Ghulam Haider Mohtram1999 MLD 2915 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-15
  specific performancerejection of plaintcourt salebanking courtlis pendensinterim injunctionabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for an interim injunction and a suit for specific performance concerning an agreement to sell a residential property, which was subsequently sold to a third party through execution proceedings in a Banking Court pursuant to a mortgage decree. The core legal question was whether a suit for specific performance is maintainable against a bona fide auction purchaser who acquired the property through a valid court-sale prior to the institution of the suit, and whether the plaint could be rejected based on admitted documents outside the plaint. The Sindh High Court held that specific performance cannot be granted against a property lawfully alienated through a court-sale and that the continuation of such a suit constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The Court established that while deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, courts can consider materials and documents beyond the plaint if their veracity is admitted by the plaintiff, and that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 does not apply where the competing interest arose prior to the filing of the suit and without registered notice under Section 52-A.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for specific performance be maintained against a third-party purchaser who acquired the property through a valid court-sale before the institution of the suit?
  • Under what circumstances can a court look into documents outside the plaint when considering the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to a property interest that arose prior to the filing of the suit?
  • Can a court exercise its power to reject a plaint suo motu when the continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Rafi Danish vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 291 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
• Rafaqat Ahmed and others vs The State and others1999 YLR 2627 · Sindh High Court · 1999-06-03
  bail applicationnarcotics traffickingstatement of co-accusedpolice confessioninadmissible evidencejurisdiction to grant bailrecovery of contraband
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal bail applications concern the pleas for bail filed by accused persons implicated in narcotics trafficking solely on the basis of statements made by co-accused persons during police investigation, where no contraband was recovered from the applicants themselves at the time of the alleged raids. The core legal question involved is whether an accused can be denied bail and held solely on the uncorroborated confessional statement of a co-accused recorded before a police officer, and whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to grant bail despite restrictive clauses in special narcotics legislation. The Sindh High Court held that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and that the prosecution failed to connect the applicants to the crime through any tangible evidence. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that its constitutional and inherent jurisdiction to grant bail in appropriate cases is not completely ousted by special statutes. Consequently, the bail applications were allowed and the applicants were granted bail subject to furnishing required securities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail is completely ousted by Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act?
  • Is a confessional statement of an accused made before a police officer admissible in evidence under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Can an accused person be denied bail solely on the basis of an uncorroborated statement of a co-accused implicating them during police investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Raees Ahmed vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 2253 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Quiles Saz TOMAS/Accused vs The STATEOpponent1999 MLD 2038 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-13Read full judgment →
• Quetta Textile Mills Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others1999 CLC 755 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-28
  bank guaranteeprovisional assessmentcustoms dutystatutory limitationcontractual liabilityconstitutional petitionlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the demand by Customs authorities for the encashment of bank guarantees issued in 1976 regarding provisionally assessed imported goods. The core legal questions were whether the authorities could enforce bank guarantees after their explicit validity period had expired and whether a provisional assessment under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 becomes final if not concluded within the statutory timeframe. The Court held that the demand for encashment was invalid and without lawful authority. It ruled that the bank guarantees had expired, releasing the bank from liability, and that the Customs authorities failed to adhere to the contractual terms. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, if a provisional assessment is not finalized within the prescribed statutory period, it becomes final by operation of law. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notice void, emphasizing that state functionaries must adhere to contractual terms and statutory time limits. The petitioner was deemed an aggrieved party with standing to challenge the notice.

  Questions settled

  • Can Customs authorities enforce a bank guarantee after the expiry of the period specified in the guarantee?
  • Does a provisional assessment under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969 become final by operation of law if not finalized within the statutory period?
  • Does an importer have locus standi to challenge a notice issued to a bank for the encashment of a guarantee furnished on the importer's behalf?
  • Is a clause in a contract limiting the time for enforcement of a guarantee valid under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Quetta Textile Mills Limited, Karachi vs The Federation of Pakistan And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 718 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Qayamuddin vs Mst. Gulerana1999 YLR 877 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Qamrul Islam vs Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan1999 MLD 1805 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Qadeer Ahmed vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, the Trade1999 YLR 96 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-26
  trade markprior useropposition proceedingsregistrationclass 34appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenge a consolidated common order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks disposing of multiple opposition matters relating to trademark registrations in class 34. The core legal question concerns the determination of the 'prior user' of the disputed trademark in point of time and the validity of the proceedings before the Registrar. The court held that the respondent No.2 successfully established prior use since 1984 through sales figures and evidence, whereas the appellant failed to substantiate prior user through tax returns or copyright certificates. The court laid down the principle that registration of a trademark must be granted to the party who establishes continuous prior use in point of time, and that procedural objections regarding partnership or oppositions filed by a person under the Trade Marks Act do not vitiate the proceedings where the statute permits 'any person' to file opposition.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as a prior user of a trademark in point of time?
  • Can an opposition to a trademark registration be maintained by a partner or individual under the Trade Marks Act 1940?
  • Does the failure to file tax returns or copyright certificates weaken a claim of prior user for a trademark?
  Read full judgment →
• Prudential Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Hydari Ghee Industries Ltd. and 91999 MLD 1694 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-27
  banking recoverypledgeleave to defendguaranteemark-upbailmentcontract of guaranteebanking court
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit concerns a banking company's recovery claim against a principal borrower and several guarantors for outstanding debts arising from Letters of Credit and Running Finance facilities. The core legal questions involved whether the bank could charge mark-up without an express agreement, whether the bank’s inability to immediately return pledged goods (due to existing court or customs restraints) barred the recovery suit, and whether unauthorized insertion of dates in a guarantee deed invalidated the instrument. The Court held that while mark-up cannot be charged absent an agreement, this claim is separable from the principal debt. Regarding the pledge, the Court ruled that a pledgee is not barred from suing for the debt simply because pledged goods are currently under restraint, provided they are not lost or misappropriated; the burden of proving negligence in the care of pledged goods rests on the pledgor. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that filling in blank dates in a guarantee does not invalidate the deed where execution is acknowledged. Consequently, the defendants' applications for leave to defend were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bank claim mark-up on a debt in the absence of an express agreement between the parties?
  • Does a pledgee's inability to immediately return pledged goods due to third-party restraints bar a suit for recovery of the debt?
  • Does the unauthorized insertion of dates into a previously blank guarantee deed invalidate the guarantee?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish negligence in the care of pledged goods under the Contract Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary, Irrigation through Deputy1999 YLR 2654 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-17Read full judgment →
• Progressive Fibres Ltd. vs Messrs Hyusung Corporation and others1999 YLR 478 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-26
  letter of creditinjunctionsale of goodsmitigation of lossforeign companyattachment before judgmentbreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff against foreign and local defendants in a suit for recovery of damages and permanent injunction arising out of a commercial contract for the supply of polyester chips under a letter of credit. The core legal questions concern whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of non-conformity of goods to justify an injunction against the encashment of the letter of credit and whether security for appearance or property could be demanded from a foreign defendant under the Civil Procedure Code. The Sindh High Court dismissed both applications, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the goods were outside the agreed chemical specification variance, that consumption of the entire consignment negated any claim of mitigating losses, and that injunctions against letters of credit require strong reasons, particularly given international trade reputational concerns. Furthermore, the court held that an order under Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be issued solely because a defendant is a foreign company without local assets where the plaintiff entered the contract with that knowledge. The key principle laid down is that a buyer cannot consume allegedly sub-standard goods while claiming to reject them or mitigate losses, and international letters of credit will not be restrained without exceptional grounds of fraud or manifest breach.

  Questions settled

  • Can a buyer consume the entire quantity of delivered goods and subsequently claim to have done so for mitigation of loss while alleging the goods were sub-standard?
  • Under what circumstances can a court restrain the encashment of an international letter of credit?
  • Whether an order under Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be issued against a foreign defendant solely on the ground that it lacks tangible assets in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Prince Glass Works Limited vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan1999 YLR 938 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-24Read full judgment →
• Premier Insurance Company vs China National Foreign1999 YLR 781 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority Bin Qasim, Karachi vs Mst. Zohra Latif and 31999 MLD 2587 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-20Read full judgment →
• Pir Bakhsh and 4 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 111 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-21
  post-arrest bailArms Ordinanceconscious possessionprohibitory clauseillicit weaponspolice witnessestransport of armsexceptional circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This post-arrest bail application arose from a routine search of a truck by Excise Inspectors on the National Highway, during which a large quantity of unlicensed, semi-automatic, sophisticated weapons and ammunition concealed in iron trunks under household articles, alongside small quantities of narcotics, were recovered. The applicants—comprising the driver, cleaner, and owners of the luggage—argued that the weapons were not in their conscious and exclusive possession, no independent witnesses were associated, and the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The Sindh High Court rejected the bail application, holding that drivers and passengers transporting illegal arms in a vehicle under a bill of lading cannot disclaim liability when weapons are hidden in concealed luggage. The Court laid down that even in offences carrying less than ten years' imprisonment under Section 13(c) of the Arms Ordinance, bail may be refused where exceptional circumstances exist—specifically, the public threat posed by terrorism and the transport of illicit semi-automatic weapons.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be refused under Section 497 Cr.P.C. even if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
  • Can drivers and luggage owners escape criminal liability for illegal arms concealed within vehicle cargo under a bill of lading?
  • Does the non-association of independent private witnesses at the time of recovery automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the testimony of official excise or police personnel sufficient at the bail stage without independent private mashirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Phalippine Airlines Inc. vs Paramount Aviation (Private) Limited and others1999 PLD Karachi 227 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-29
  general sales agencyagency coupled with interestinterim injunctioncounter-claimrevocation of agencycontract of agencyspecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for the recovery of funds by the plaintiff airline against its former General Sales Agent (GSA), and a counter-claim by the defendant seeking a declaration that the termination of their agency agreement was unlawful, alongside a claim for damages and an injunction. The core legal question was whether the agency agreement, which had expired, was coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, thereby preventing unilateral termination and justifying an interim injunction. The Court held that the defendants failed to establish that the agency was coupled with an interest in the subject matter of the agency itself. The Court affirmed that a contract of agency is generally revocable, and investments made by an agent to perform the agency's duties do not constitute an interest in the subject matter. Consequently, the Court declined the prayer for an interim injunction, ruling that the agency was validly terminated upon the expiry of the agreement, and that granting an injunction would improperly affect third-party rights without them being joined as parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agent's investment in infrastructure and staff to perform agency duties create an interest in the subject matter of the agency under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a defendant maintain a counter-claim in a written statement that constitutes an independent cause of action?
  • Is a contract of agency generally revocable even if the agent has incurred expenses in establishing the business?
  • Can a court grant an interim injunction against the termination of an agency agreement if the agent fails to establish an interest in the subject matter of the agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Peace Developers through Managing Partner vs Karachi Metropolitan1999 YLR 1823 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-12Read full judgment →
• Papoo alias Dost Muhammad and others vs The State1999 YLR 691 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, Hyderabad vs Messrs China International Water and Electric Corporation, Karachi and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 235 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Government of Sindh And Others1999 P C.T.L.R. 686 · Sindh High Court · 1999-12-04Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs Khaliq Raza Khan1999 YLR 825 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Security Printing Corporation vs Majeed Nizami, Editor1999 YLR 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Premier Insurance Co. of Pakistan Ltd. and 2 others1999 MLD 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Molasses Company vs Ahmed Investment (Pvt.) Limited1999 CLC 1920 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Insurance Corporation, Karachi vs (Haji) Ghaffar (Since1999 P.C.T.L.R. 726 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Insurance Corporation vs Haji Ghaffar through Legal Heirs1999 CLC 1190 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Insurance Corporation vs Asian Mutual Insurance Co.Ltd1999 MLD 3298 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Insurance Corporation and another vs Messrs Haji Habib &1999 MLD 2866 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-09Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial and Intellectual Property Rights Association1999 CLC 477 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Edible Oils Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs Universal Transport1999 YLR 1828 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-27Read full judgment →
• Pak Libya Holding Company vs Messrs Mohib Textile Mills Ltd.1999 YLR 473 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Owaisco vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PLD Karachi 472 · Sindh High Court · 1999-09-14
  constitutional petitionjudicial reviewpublic procurementcontractual obligationsarbitrary actionpublic trustaudit reportjoint venture agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging purchase orders for security printing inks issued by the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation (Respondent No. 2) to SICPA Ink Pakistan (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner, whose lower bid was ignored, alleged collusion, lack of transparency, and arbitrary award of contracts under a Joint Venture Agreement. The respondents contested the maintainability of the petition, arguing it concerned purely contractual obligations. The Sindh High Court held that while purely contractual disputes are generally excluded from writ jurisdiction, judicial review is competent where state functionaries act arbitrarily, unfairly, or in violation of public trust. Relying on a Special Audit Report by the Auditor-General of Pakistan that exposed massive financial losses, overcharging, and undue favoritism toward Respondent No. 3, the Court declared the transactions non-transparent. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the federal government and the corporation to implement the Audit Report's recommendations, including recovering losses and rescinding the Joint Venture Agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable in matters involving contractual obligations of state-owned entities?
  • Can the High Court exercise judicial review to strike down public contracts awarded arbitrarily or in violation of the principles of transparency and fairness?
  • What is the legal standard for the exercise of discretionary power by public functionaries in awarding commercial contracts?
  • Can the High Court rely on and direct the implementation of a Special Audit Report of the Auditor-General of Pakistan to remedy financial irregularities in a state-owned corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin and 11 others vs Abdul Waheed and another1999 MLD 2844 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-04
  rejection of plaintres judicatadeclaratory suitpermanent injunctioncause of actionOrder VII Rule 11Section 42 Specific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose out of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by Defendant No. 1 seeking rejection of the plaintiffs' plaint in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Defendant No. 1 argued that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, as the core issues regarding an endorsement on a P.T.D. site plan and rights over a wall and access doors had already been heard and decided in a prior suit (Suit No. 101 of 1985). The Sindh High Court examined the averments in the present suit alongside the judgment in the previous suit. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to show any fresh or distinct cause of action, and that the reliefs sought were barred by res judicata and Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent suit for declaration and injunction is barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the underlying issues and reliefs were explicitly heard and decided in a prior suit between the same parties?
  • Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff merely elaborates on previously decided facts without establishing a fresh or distinct cause of action?
  • Whether a suit for declaration regarding property transferred to another party is maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 where the plaintiff fails to demonstrate any existing right, title, or legal character in such property?
  Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin alias Haji Memon vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 148 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
• Noman Ansari and another vs Mst. Mukhtar Begum and 3 others1999 MLD 3269 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-28Read full judgment →
• Nizam Hashwani vs Hashwani Hotels Limited and 14 others1999 CLC 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-05
  company directors electioncivil court jurisdictioninterim injunctionshare qualificationnotice periodextraordinary general meetingCompanies Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former director and current shareholder of the first defendant company, filed a suit challenging the election of nine directors held at an Extraordinary General Meeting, seeking prohibitory and interim injunctions under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a civil suit regarding company election disputes in light of the Companies Ordinance 1984, the mandatory notice period for general meetings under section 159(7), and the statutory requirement of share qualification for directors under section 187(h). The Sindh High Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted unless expressly or impliedly barred, and that the plaintiff established a prima facie case regarding statutory non-compliance and violations of the Articles of Association. The court granted the interim injunctions, laying down the principle that civil courts may intervene in company affairs where the majority deprives the minority of lawful rights, acts ultra vires, or violates principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a suit regarding company elections and management is barred by the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • How is the twenty-one-day notice period for an Extraordinary General Meeting under section 159(7) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 to be calculated?
  • Is a person who is not a member of a company eligible to be appointed as a director under section 187(h) of the Companies Ordinance 1984 as a nominee of a shareholder company?
  • Under what circumstances can a Civil Court interfere in the internal management and affairs of a company?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed and others vs Messrs Hospital Supply Corporation and others1999 MLD 13 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-24
  Fatal Accidents Actnegligenceres ipsa loquiturmotor vehicle insurancevicarious liabilitylegal heirscompensationroad accident
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a suit for the recovery of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, filed by the parents, brothers, and sisters of a deceased employee who died in a vehicular road accident caused by the alleged rash and negligent driving of the employer's vehicle. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of the suit by brothers and sisters as legal heirs, the applicability of the maxim res ipsa loquitur regarding the burden of proof for negligence, the scope of the employer's vicarious liability, and the extent of an insurance company's liability under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court held that under the Fatal Accidents Act, only specific relatives such as parents, spouses, and children can claim compensation, thereby excluding brothers and sisters. It further held that the defendants failed to establish the absence of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, rendering the employer and driver jointly and severally liable, while the insurance company's liability is statutorily capped at Rs.20,000.

  Questions settled

  • Are brothers and sisters of a deceased person entitled to claim compensation as beneficiaries under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
  • Does the maxim res ipsa loquitur shift the burden of proof onto the defendants to show an absence of negligence in fatal accident claims where the cause of the accident lies solely within their knowledge?
  • Does the acquittal of a driver in a criminal trial under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute conclusive proof of the absence of negligence in a civil suit for damages?
  • What is the extent of an insurance company's liability towards passengers carried in a vehicle under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939?
  • Does the receipt of an amount under a Group Insurance Scheme by a nominee bar the legal heirs from recovering compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
  Read full judgment →
• New Standard Furniture Emporium vs Mst. Ejaz Fatima1999 MLD 2925 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
• Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 YLR 1984 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-12Read full judgment →
• Nawabuddin alias Nawab 'Bin vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 379 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Naveed Jeol alias Guddo vs The State1999 MLD 346 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-02Read full judgment →
• National Tanker Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Federal1999 YLR 650 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• National Tanker Company (Pvt.) Ltd. And Another vs Federal1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1455 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Refinery Ltd. vs Anaud Power Generation Ltd. and others1999 YLR 1673 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
• National Development Finance Corporation vs Moona Liza Fruit1999 YLR 500 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-30
  banking suitrecovery of loanpersonal guaranteeinchoate documentsadditional interestpenalty for breach of contractlimitation actmortgage decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a banking suit filed by the National Development Finance Corporation against the defendants for the recovery of financial facilities, enforcement of personal guarantees, and the sale of mortgaged, pledged, and hypothecated properties. The core legal questions involved whether the personal guarantees and charge documents were manipulated or unauthorizedly filled in, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim penal 'additional interest' upon default. The Sindh High Court held that the defendants failed to establish forgery or unauthorized completion of inchoate documents, that the suit was not time-barred by virtue of statutory exemptions from the Limitation Act, and that a stipulation for increased or additional interest upon default constitutes a penalty under section 74 of the Contract Act. The court laid down the principle that a plaintiff claiming additional interest as a penalty upon breach of contract must prove reasonable compensation by evidence; in the absence of such evidence, only nominal or token compensation may be awarded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank has the authority to fill in or complete inchoate charge documents and guarantees in accordance with the agreement between the parties?
  • Does a stipulation for increased or additional interest upon default constitute a penalty under section 74 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is a plaintiff claiming additional interest as a penalty required to adduce evidence to prove reasonable compensation for breach of contract?
  • Do the provisions of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to suits filed or transferred to a Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and others vs Muhammad Akram and others1999 MLD 3160 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and others vs Karachi Development1999 PLD Karachi 260 · Sindh High Court
  banking suitsrecovery of loanOrder XXIX Rule 1 CPCinstitution of suit by corporationpower of attorneyboard resolutionArticles of Associationmaintainability of suitdebenture financing
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of twenty connected banking suits filed by a syndicate of nationalised banks (NBP, HBL, UBL, and MCB) against the Karachi Development Authority (KDA), KMC, KWSB, and the Government of Sindh for the recovery of loans disbursed under debenture agreements for the Greater Karachi Bulk Water Supply Scheme (Phase III). The core legal question addressed was whether the suits were competently instituted and maintainable on behalf of the plaintiff banking corporations, particularly concerning the authority of the principal officers and attorneys who instituted the actions and signed the plaints. The Sindh High Court held that while the formal signature and verification under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is a curable irregularity, the authority to institute legal proceedings on behalf of an incorporated body goes to the root of competence. Finding that the plaintiff banks failed to prove their Memorandum and Articles of Association, requisite board resolutions, or statutory bye-laws authorising the institution of suits by the attorneys, the High Court held all twenty suits to be incompetently instituted and dismissed them as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the lack of authority to institute a suit on behalf of a corporate body is an incurable defect rendering the suit non-maintainable?
  • Whether compliance with Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 alone is sufficient to prove a person's competence to institute a suit on behalf of a corporation?
  • Can a court pass a decree based on alleged admissions if the suit itself is found to be incompetently instituted and not maintainable?
  • Is the production and proof of a Board of Directors' resolution or relevant Articles of Association mandatory to establish the authority of an attorney to institute legal proceedings on behalf of a bank or incorporated company?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah Paracha vs The State1999 MLD 2013 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Nasir Javed vs Syed Kazim Ali and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 200 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed alias Naseera vs The State1999 MLD 2018 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Naseem Akhtar Alias Jalees And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 256 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• Nan Fung Textiles Ltd. vs Nichimen & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd.1999 YLR 2226 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
• Naimul Hassan Khan vs The Aga Khan University Medical Centre1999 CLC 1905 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-02Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Umar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 606 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-03
  suspension of sentencegrant of bailinherent jurisdictionhardshipstatutory barunconscionable delaySpecial Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the appellant seeking suspension of sentence and grant of post-conviction bail pending his appeal. The appellant had been convicted by the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities under Sections 302 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The legal question concerned whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suspend a sentence awarded by a Special Court, given the statutory bar under Section 7(1) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 prohibiting Section 426 powers. The High Court held that while Section 7(1) excludes Section 426, the inherent powers under Section 561-A remain intact to prevent abuse of process and address cases of unconscionable hardship. Observing that the statutory expectation of disposing of the appeal within three months was violated due to a 20-month delay, coupled with weak identification evidence on record, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail upon furnishing a surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 7(1) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 bar the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to suspend a sentence?
  • Can delay in the disposal of an appeal before the High Court constitute a ground of hardship warranting invocation of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances can post-conviction bail be granted by the High Court in appeals arising from Special Courts established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Burney vs The State1999 MLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-05Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed vs The State1999 YLR 2513 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
• Nabi Dino and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 2576 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-30Read full judgment →
• N.D.F.C. vs Anwar Zaib White Cement Ltd. and others1999 MLD 1888 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-28
  banking recoveryleave to defendlimitation actpenal interestliquidated damagesappropriation of paymentsstatement of accountpast transactions
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a banking suit instituted by the National Development Finance Corporation (NDFC) against Anwar Zaib White Cement Ltd. and others for the recovery of outstanding dues amounting to over Rs. 1.4 billion across nine different credit, financing, and guarantee facilities. The core legal questions involve claims of limitation, validity of additional/penal interest, compounding of mark-up, legality of liquidated damages and commitment fees, the proper mode of appropriation of payments under section 59 of the Contract Act, and whether non-verification of the statement of account entails the rejection of the plaint under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The court held that while past transactions enjoy an extended limitation period upon the promulgation of the 1997 Act, penal interest, commitment fees, and liquidated damages cannot be awarded in the absence of proved loss and statutory backing. The court dismissed the application for leave to defend and partially decreed the suit with modifications regarding admissible components of the claim, establishing key principles on the interpretation of limitation provisions for past transactions, the unenforceability of unconscionable penalty clauses, and the non-mandatory requirement of verifying the statement of account on oath.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the proviso to section 22(2) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 has the effect of reviving time-barred remedies for past transactions?
  • Can a banking company claim additional or penal interest in the absence of proof of actual loss sustained?
  • Whether failure to verify the statement of account on oath entails the summary rejection of the plaint under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  • Are parties bound by a mutually agreed mode of appropriation of payments despite contrary directions given by the debtor at the time of making a payment?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s.) Dada Soap Factory And Others vs Collector of Customs1999 P.C.T.L.R. 411 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Data Textile Limited Through Director vs Karachi Exchange AndPTCL 1999 CL. 407 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Alcatel Pakistan Limited vs The Collector of Customs, Preventive1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1363 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muzaffar Aleem vs Iqbal Ahmed1999 MLD 3178 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Messrs Perwani Export & Import1999 YLR 975 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-14
  banking suitleave to defendliquidated damagesrepayment in instalmentsmortgage decreemark-up
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.34,359,000 against the defendants on the basis of finance facilities and mortgage security. The defendants filed an application for leave to defend under section 10 of the Banking Companies Act, 1997, raising objections regarding mark-up beyond the agreed period and liquidated damages. During proceedings, the parties agreed on a revised principal and mark-up total of Rs.22,980,800. The core legal questions revolved around the legality of claiming predetermined liquidated damages without proving actual loss and the conditions for granting payment instalments under the Banking Companies Act, 1997. The court held that a bank cannot charge liquidated damages without proving loss under section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, and that the power to grant instalments under section 15(2) of the Banking Companies Act, 1997 is conditional upon the inadequacy of security and specific statutory requirements, which were not met here. Consequently, the court rejected the leave to defend application and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bank claim predetermined liquidated damages from a customer without proving the actual loss suffered?
  • What are the conditions required for a court to allow repayment of a loan or finance in instalments under the Banking Companies Act, 1997?
  • Whether the court can grant instalments or write off mark-up in excess of statutory limits without the written consent of the banking company?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Irshad Steel through Proprietor1999 M L b 3362 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Ali and 2 others vs Inayat Ali1999 YLR 2149 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain vs Muhammad' Ismail and another1999 YLR 1695 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ali and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 506 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-28Read full judgment →
• Munsib Khan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1264 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 2060 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Munawar A. Shaikh and 51 others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-22Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali and others vs Government of Sindh and others1999 CLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmed alias Muhammad Mukhtar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 222 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-13
  unlicensed weaponSection 103 CrPCrecovery of weaponindependent witnessesSection 342 CrPCballistic examinationexhibiting evidencebenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Judge Court No. II Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions were whether the search and recovery of the unlicensed weapon complied with mandatory statutory safeguards, and whether procedural lapses rendered the conviction unsustainable. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, finding that the recovery was conducted at 4:00 p.m. in a thickly populated residential area without associating any independent private witnesses or occupants of the house, in direct violation of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court further noted that the recovered weapon was never sealed at the spot, sent for ballistic examination, or properly exhibited in evidence. Additionally, the recovered weapon was not shown or put to the appellant during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that such mandatory failures created serious doubt in the prosecution case, entitling the accused to acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does recovery of an unlicensed weapon from a populated residential area without associating independent private witnesses violate the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a conviction under Section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance sustainable where the recovered weapon was neither sealed at the spot, sent for ballistic examination, nor properly exhibited in evidence?
  • What is the effect of failing to confront the accused with the alleged recovered crime weapon during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair Qureshi vs Munir Hussain Shirazi and 3 others1999 YLR 955 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 501 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-27
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailnarcotics casemandatory bailabscondencejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Yousuf, who was detained in connection with a narcotics case under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The applicant sought bail on the ground of statutory delay, which had been previously refused by the Sessions Court due to the perceived likelihood of the applicant absconding, citing the conduct of co-accused who had jumped bail. The core legal question was whether the mandatory language of the third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding statutory delay, overrides judicial discretion based on the apprehension of abscondence. The High Court held that once the statutory requirements for bail are satisfied and the accused is not responsible for the delay, the court is obligated to grant bail. The court affirmed that the word 'shall' in the statute is mandatory, not discretionary. The principle laid down is that where the legislature has prescribed specific conditions for bail, courts must exercise discretion in accordance with the legislative will, and apprehension of abscondence cannot defeat the statutory right to bail once conditions are met.

  Questions settled

  • Does the word 'shall' in the third proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, impose a mandatory obligation on the court to grant bail upon the fulfillment of statutory conditions?
  • Can a court refuse bail on the ground of apprehended abscondence when the statutory requirements for bail under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are otherwise met?
  • Should an accused be penalized for delays in trial caused by the illness of their counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi and others vs Government of Sindh and others1999 YLR 1224 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Bangali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1718 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younis and 9 others vs Government of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner Badin and 3 others1999 MLD 2790 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 633 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Mohsin Ali and another1999 CLC 1173 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-10
  ejectment proceedingsSection 12(2) CPCfraud and misrepresentationabuse of processexecution proceedingslandlord and tenantrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Rent Controller, which sought to set aside an ejectment order obtained by a landlord against a tenant. The core legal question was whether the ejectment order was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, thereby entitling the appellant—who was not a party to the original rent proceedings but claimed an interest in the premises—to have the order set aside. The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant failed to establish any elements of fraud or misrepresentation. The Court observed that the appellant had full knowledge of the ongoing rent proceedings and that the applications were filed merely to abuse the court's process and delay execution. The Court affirmed that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be used to protract execution proceedings on baseless grounds, and that questions of title are irrelevant in rent-related ejectment proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be used to challenge an ejectment order based on unsubstantiated allegations of fraud?
  • Is the question of title to a property relevant in rent-related ejectment proceedings?
  • Does a person with knowledge of rent proceedings who fails to join as a party have standing to challenge the final ejectment order under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob through Attorney Amir Yaqoob vs Nazirullah Khan1999 CLC 868 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State1999 MLD 457 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs K.B.C.A.1999 YLR 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Urs and 3 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Thatta and 51999 CLC 921 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-11Read full judgment →