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.

• Muhammad Uris vs Mst. Haleeman and others1999 P Cr. L J 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tausif vs Gulzar Hussain and others1999 YLR 1232 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-17Read full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain vs The State1999 YLR 385 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Talib vs Karachi Development Authority and 4 others1999 CLC 813 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-13
  constitutional petitionnatural justicecancellation of allotmentres judicataconstructive res judicataproperty rightsKarachi Development Authorityadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the Karachi Development Authority's (KDA) order cancelling the petitioner's commercial plot allotments. The core legal questions concerned whether the KDA could unilaterally cancel allotments without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for a hearing, whether the Prime Minister possessed the legal authority to direct such cancellations, and whether the principles of res judicata barred the re-litigation of issues previously decided by the Court. The High Court held that the cancellation order was illegal, void, and without lawful authority. The Court established that administrative authorities must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring notice and a hearing before depriving a citizen of property rights. It further ruled that the Prime Minister lacks the authority to order the cancellation of land allotments. Additionally, the Court affirmed that principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply to prevent the re-litigation of issues already settled in prior judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, restoring the petitioner's rights and interests in the plots.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority cancel an allotment of land without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for a hearing?
  • Does the Prime Minister possess the legal authority to direct the cancellation of land allotments made by a development authority?
  • Do the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply to petitions filed before the High Court?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to relief under Article 199 of the Constitution when an administrative order is passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sohail Khan vs The State1999 YLR 755 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mst. Ulfat Jehan, Widow of Ghulam Fakhruddin1999 YLR 2640 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs The State and others1999 MLD 692 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Murtaza vs Habib Bank Limited through Principal1999 MLD 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheed vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1279 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique and anothers/Accused vs The State1999 MLD 1991 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and others vs Town Committee, Digri and others1999 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Samina Kausar1999 MLD 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Quddsia Muzaffar and another1999 CLC 505 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1999 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-25
  post-arrest bailextortioncrimes against societyterrorismlaw and orderjudicial discretioncriminal justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused charged with firing upon police officers, obstructing public duty, and engaging in forcible extortion in Karachi. The applicant sought post-arrest bail, arguing that the offenses did not fall within the prohibited clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as they carried sentences of less than ten years, and noting the absence of incriminating recoveries or identification parades. The State opposed the application, citing the applicant's status as a hardened criminal and the terrorized state of the locality preventing independent witnesses. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that courts cannot remain oblivious to the prevailing law and order situation and the rise in crime. The court affirmed the principle that in exceptional cases involving crimes directed against society at large—such as terrorism and extortion—bail may be declined even for offenses carrying less than ten years' imprisonment. This decision aligns with the precedent that courts must exercise caution when dealing with criminal acts that threaten the broader public interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be denied for offenses carrying less than ten years' imprisonment in exceptional circumstances?
  • Are crimes directed against society at large a valid ground for refusing bail?
  • Should courts consider the prevailing law and order situation when adjudicating bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Akhtar Ahmed and anothers1999 MLD 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Abdul Rauf1999 MLD 2592 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 453 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Messrs Bawany Sugar Mills Ltd. through Managing Director and others1999 MLD 3273 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim alias Usman vs The State1999 MLD 440 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Zar Kalim1999 PLD Karachi 453 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed vs The State1999 MLD 2043 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Akhtar vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and 3 others1999 MLD 1204 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs The State1999 MLD 3253 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs Syed Manzoor Ali and 2 others1999 MLD 3450 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd .1999 YLR 1287 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem Khan vs The State1999 MLD 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 386 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad MUBINAccused/ vs The State1999 MLD 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Juma and 4 others vs The State and another1999 YLR 333 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jehangir vs The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1999 CLC 939 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 328 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 2 others vs The State and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1708 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Khan vs Mst. Khalida Parveen and 3 others1999 MLD 419 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 46 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Liaquat Dawood Kukda1999 MLD 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-28
  rent evictionwilful defaultstatutory tenanttender of rentdeposit of rent in courtSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenges an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, which directed the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises due to alleged default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the tenant committed "wilful default" by failing to pay rent within the statutory grace period, despite claiming he attempted to tender payment via money orders and subsequently deposited the rent in court. The Court held that the eviction order was unsustainable. It found that the tenant had made bona fide attempts to pay rent through money orders, which the landlord refused, and subsequently utilized the statutory mechanism to deposit the rent in court. Consequently, no "wilful default" was established. The Court emphasized that where a tenant actively attempts to fulfill their payment obligations and resorts to court-sanctioned deposit procedures upon the landlord's refusal, such actions negate the charge of wilful default. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside, establishing that timely attempts to tender rent, followed by court deposits, satisfy statutory obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's attempt to pay rent via money order, followed by a court-sanctioned deposit upon refusal, constitute wilful default?
  • Can a landlord claim default in rent payment when the tenant has initiated proceedings to deposit rent in court under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a tenant protected from eviction for non-payment of rent if they deposit the rent in court within the statutory grace period?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Khan vs Ismatullah Khan and anothers1999 MLD 2598 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 191 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1999 YLR 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Pathan vs The State and 3 others1999 PLD Karachi 121 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-02
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powersinterim challanabuse of processcriminal procedurebail before arrestharassment of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the quashment of criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was not named in the FIR or subsequent interim challans. The core legal questions concerned the validity of "supplementary interim challans" and whether a court can compel an accused to attend proceedings when no evidence exists against them. The Court held that the submission of "supplementary interim challans" is not warranted by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and trial courts must not mechanically accept such filings. Emphasizing that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are co-extensive with trial court powers under Sections 249-A and 265-K, the Court ruled that it may intervene directly to prevent the abuse of process. Finding no evidence against the applicant and noting that compelling his attendance caused unnecessary harassment, the Court quashed the proceedings against him, while allowing the trial to continue against the remaining accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is the submission of a 'supplementary interim challan' warranted by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 directly without the applicant first approaching the trial court under Section 249-A or 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a trial court have the authority to compel an accused to attend proceedings when no evidence or accusation exists against them in the FIR or challan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooque Azam vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.1999 YLR 532 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Messrs T.J. Ebrahim & Co. and Alliance Motors1999 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-05
  companies ordinancewinding upintra-court appealsupreme court appealcompany paid-up capitalofficial assigneejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court disposes of three intra-court appeals involving common questions of law regarding the interpretation of section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question was whether appeals against orders passed during the winding-up of a company fall under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 10 of the Ordinance. The court held that subsection (1) of section 10 is not restricted solely to challenges against the initial winding-up order itself, but broadly covers all appeals arising from companies that have already been ordered to be wound-up, requiring such appeals to lie to the Supreme Court depending on the company's paid-up capital. The key principle laid down is that once a company is ordered to be wound up, subsequent orders passed in the proceedings fall within the ambit of section 10(1) to ensure finality and protect the rights of investors and creditors.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 apply only to challenges against the initial winding-up order?
  • Where does an appeal lie against an order passed after a company has been ordered to be wound up under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • What is the distinction in scope between subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 10 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq and 8 others vs Muhammad Noor and 5 others1999 MLD 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 2570 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Chottey Khan vs Muhammad Muneer Khan1999 CLC 1895 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division Matli, District Badin and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 366 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-31
  inherent jurisdictionquashment of proceedingsland disputerevisional jurisdictionSection 145 CrPCabuse of processalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought quashment of proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, initiated by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate regarding a land dispute, by invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A could be invoked to challenge a Magistrate’s order under Section 145 when the alternative remedy of revision before the Sessions Court under Section 435 read with Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, remained available. The Court dismissed the application in limine, holding that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A is not an alternative or additional jurisdiction to be used when other remedies exist. The key principle laid down is that inherent powers are preserved solely to redress grievances where no other procedure is available; they cannot be utilized to bypass the ordinary course of criminal procedure or to interrupt the statutory revisional process provided by the Code. Since the Sessions Court could effectively grant the relief sought, the application was deemed incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked when an alternative remedy of revision is available?
  • Is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court an alternative or additional jurisdiction to the ordinary course of criminal procedure?
  • Does the High Court have the power to quash proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the petitioner has bypassed the Sessions Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Butt vs Anis Ahmed Khawaja and 3 others1999 CLC 1663 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azeem vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 308 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-18
  post-arrest bailattempted robberyprohibitory clausestatutory ground for bailnon-bailable offencesHudood Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by the accused, Muhammad Azeem, who was arrested for an alleged attempt to commit robbery involving a taxi. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given that no actual harm was caused to the complainant, the offence charged fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the accused had already been incarcerated for over a year. The Court held that since the incident constituted an attempt to commit robbery and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, the grant of bail was the rule rather than the exception. Relying on the principle established in Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State, the Court determined that for offences punishable with less than ten years imprisonment, bail should be granted unless exceptional circumstances exist. Consequently, the Court admitted the accused to bail upon furnishing security, emphasizing that the offence did not attract the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for non-bailable offences punishable with less than ten years imprisonment?
  • Does an attempt to commit robbery under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted bail if they have been in custody for over a year for an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Sindh and 4 others1999 CLC 280 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State1999 YLR 1567 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atique Khan vs Excise & Taxation Officer and others1999 MLD 3288 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Zaki And 2 Other1999 CLC 1587 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Banatwala and another vs The State1999 YLR 2539 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Mumtaz vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 283 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-17
  post-arrest bailrobberymotorcycle snatchingidentification paradefurther inquiryindependent witnessesmashirnama
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant, Muhammad Asif Mumtaz, who was charged under section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly snatching a motorcycle at gunpoint. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of his arrest, the lack of weapon recovery, and non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding independent witnesses. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant was apprehended on the spot at the outcries of the informant, an identification parade was unnecessary. However, the court found that the absence of weapon recovery, the failure to arrest the co-accused, and the lack of independent mashirs under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that the informant alone signing the recovery memo does not satisfy the mandatory requirement for independent witnesses under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an identification parade is necessary when an accused is arrested on the spot during the commission of the offense?
  • Does the signature of the informant on the mashirnama satisfy the mandatory requirements of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the absence of weapon recovery and non-compliance with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make the case one of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Solangi vs The State and others1999 P Cr. L J 48 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 376 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 1977 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashique vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 248 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asar Hussain vs Karachi Development Authority, Karachi1999 CLC 1121 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Ali Khan vs Mst. Khatoon Bai1999 CLC 1627 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arab vs The State1999 MLD 366 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anes Khan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 567 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anees Khan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1999 MLD 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Lakhani vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary1999 YLR 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbar Langra and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Tauqir vs Rafiq Ahmad1999 CLC 795 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-10
  tentative rent orderdefault in rent depositwilful defaultejectmentcantonments rent restrictionextension of time
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, challenging an order passed by the Additional Controller of Rents directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises for failing to comply with a tentative rent order. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant committed a wilful default in depositing arrears of rent and subsequent monthly rent within the stipulated timelines under section 17 of the Act, and whether such delay is condonable. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant committed clear default in depositing the full arrears and the subsequent monthly rent within the prescribed deadlines, and that the Rent Controller possesses no power to extend time or condone delays in rent deposits. The court established the principle that even a single day's delay in depositing rent constitutes a default under section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, unless proven to be unavoidable and beyond the tenant's control. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to deposit rent within the timeline specified in a tentative rent order constitutes a wilful default under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the power to extend time or condone a delay in depositing rent under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Does even a single day's delay in depositing rent amount to a default under section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and anothers vs The State1999 YLR 196 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State and others1999 P Cr. L J 1725 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Siddiqui vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 554 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 33 others vs Government of Pakistan and 21999 CLC 745 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-16
  judicial reviewpublic tenderstate largessepublic policyabuse of discretioncontractual obligationsairport management
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, owners of vehicles and fork-lifters operating at the Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, challenged the decision of the Civil Aviation Authority (respondent No. 2) to award exclusive licensing contracts for entry permits to a private company (respondent No. 3) without inviting public tenders. The core legal question was whether a public body, in awarding commercial contracts, can bypass the requirement of public bidding through private negotiation, and whether such action constitutes an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the award of these contracts, which granted long-term exclusive rights, was not a genuine experimental arrangement but an arbitrary exercise of power. The Court ruled that the contracts were against public policy and public interest because they lacked transparency and fairness. The key principle laid down is that public authorities must exercise their power to award contracts honestly, fairly, and in the public interest, and that the departure from the rule of inviting public offers is subject to judicial review, particularly when such decisions appear to be an arbitrary distribution of state largesse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public authority can award commercial contracts through private negotiation without inviting public tenders?
  • Is the exercise of power by a public body in awarding contracts subject to judicial review?
  • Does the award of long-term exclusive contracts without public bidding constitute an abuse of discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed vs Assistant General Manager and anothers1999 MLD 2778 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aftab vs K.B.C.A.1999 YLR 529 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-14
  dangerous buildingdemolition noticeinjunctionstatutory interpretationdelegated legislationbuilding controlprocedural safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court resolves two applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning an ad interim injunction and a challenge to demolition notices issued by the Karachi Building Control Authority. The plaintiff, claiming ownership and possessory rights over certain premises, challenged notices issued under section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Authority Ordinance 1979 declaring the building dangerous and threatening demolition. The core legal question centered on whether the Karachi Building Control Authority possessed the statutory power to demolish dangerous buildings under section 14 of the 1979 Ordinance, and whether the procedure adopted complied with the law. The Court held that section 14 in its amended form (substituted by Sindh Ordinance No. 3 of 1982) does not confer power upon the Authority to carry out demolition directly when it forms an opinion that a building requires demolition; rather, it only empowers the Authority to require vacation and ejectment, while demolition is restricted to instances of failure to carry out required repairs. The key principle laid down is that delegated legislation cannot enlarge the scope of a statute, and the specific, restrictive procedure and constraints regarding dangerous buildings under section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Authority Ordinance 1979 must be strictly followed to prevent arbitrary action.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Authority Ordinance 1979 empower the Authority to directly demolish a building upon forming an opinion that it requires demolition?
  • Can delegated legislation or regulations enlarge the scope of powers conferred by the parent statute?
  • What is the correct statutory procedure to be followed by the Karachi Building Control Authority under section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Authority Ordinance 1979 regarding dangerous buildings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1999 YLR 220 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda through her Son and General Attorney vs Muhammad Nadir1999 MLD 3011 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-18
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needlandlord and tenantfixed tenure tenancyrent appealbusiness dislocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlady seeking to evict the respondent-tenant from a commercial shop for the personal bona fide use and occupation of her son. The core legal question was whether the landlady's requirement of the premises for establishing her son's business was in good faith and bona fide, and whether the tenant's potential business dislocation and financial hardship constituted valid grounds to deny eviction. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the landlady successfully established her personal and bona fide requirement, that the tenant's dislocation is a natural consequence not warranting a compassionate approach under the law, and that a landlord is not legally required to prove pre-existing financial resources or business preparation. The key principles laid down are that a landlord's absolute right to rehabilitate their family member through personal use of property cannot be defeated merely by the tenant's business inconvenience, and sufficient statutory safeguards under rent laws neutralize apprehensions of wrongful re-letting.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide use need to establish prior financial resources or business preparation for setting up the business?
  • Can a tenant resist an eviction application solely on the ground of financial loss, inconvenience, or dislocation of business?
  • Does the expiration of a fixed-term tenancy coupled with a contractual notice clause entitle the landlord to seek ejectment for personal use?
  • What statutory remedy is available to a tenant if a landlord fails to use the premises for the personal purpose for which eviction was obtained?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 238 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Ikram Samiullah vs Ghulam Jilani Dossul1999 CLC 239 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sultana Bibi and another vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1999 CLC 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Siddiqa Begum and others vs Irshad Ali Shah1999 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-28
  ejectment applicationwilful defaultpersonal bona fide requirementtime-barred rentburden of proofaffidavit evidencePugri systemlandlord-tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller dismissing an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The core legal questions concerned whether the tenant committed willful default in rent payment and whether the landlord established a personal bona fide requirement for the premises. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the tenant failed to provide satisfactory evidence of rent payment for the period from May 1974 to February 1975, thereby establishing default. Furthermore, the Court found the landlord’s personal bona fide requirement proved, rejecting the Rent Controller’s speculative conclusion that the eviction was a pretext for charging 'Pugri.' The Court laid down that a landlord is entitled to seek ejectment even on the basis of time-barred rent arrears, as limitation bars the remedy but not the right. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the landlord is the sole judge of the suitability of premises for their personal needs, and the burden of proving rent payment rests squarely upon the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek ejectment on the ground of default involving time-barred rent?
  • Does the existence of a 'Pugri' system in a locality automatically invalidate a landlord's claim of personal bona fide requirement?
  • Is a landlord the sole judge of the suitability of premises for their personal bona fide use?
  • Does the burden of proving payment of rent lie on the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim and anothers vs Vith Judicial Magistrate South and others1999 PLD Karachi 459 · Sindh High Court · 1999-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhter vs The State1999 MLD 577 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Khawaja vs Riaz Nasir Khawaja and anothers1999 MLD 2768 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Hashmi vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation through Managing Director1999 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana and anothers vs Messrs N. P. Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 YLR 230 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-18
  wilful defaultejectmentrent controllerburden of prooftender of renttenancyrent ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Rent Controller's order dismissing an ejectment application against a tenant for alleged default in rent payment. The landlord claimed two sets of default: one spanning April 1994 to February 1995, and another from March 1995 onwards. The High Court held that the Rent Controller erred by failing to frame issues regarding the first set of default, violating the duty under Section 19(5) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, to address the entire controversy. Regarding the second set of default, the Court held that the tenant failed to prove payment via cheques, as the cheques were never encashed and the tenant did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 10 of the Ordinance for tendering rent when the landlord refuses acceptance. The Court established that once a landlord denies receipt of rent, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove payment through affirmative evidence. Finding the tenant committed willful default, the Court allowed the appeal, ordering eviction while granting the tenant one year to vacate, subject to continued rent payment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a Rent Controller to frame issues covering the entire controversy between parties constitute a legal error?
  • Where a landlord denies receipt of rent, does the burden of proof shift to the tenant to prove payment?
  • Is a tenant who fails to follow the statutory procedure for tendering rent upon a landlord's refusal liable for default?
  • Can a tenant avoid the consequences of default by depositing rent only after the filing of an ejectment application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwar Kalhoro vs Mukhtiar Ali Kalhoro1999 P Cr. L J 1711 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sameera Rafiq vs Modleen (widow of Muhammad Rafiq)1999 YLR 1199 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sadrunnisa through her Legal Heirss vs Messrs Karimi Bidi Works1999 YLR 401 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana vs S.H.O., Police Station Belo, Mirpur Mathelo and others1999 P Cr. L J 638 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-09
  quashment of FIRconstitutional petitionadult female marriageconsent of walizino hudood ordinanceabductionmala fide investigationwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by an adult Muslim female seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under section 452/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 10 and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved were whether the High Court can quash an F.I.R. during investigation under its constitutional writ jurisdiction, whether cohabitation following a valid marriage without a Wali's consent constitutes Zina, and whether the petitioner qualified as an aggrieved person. The court held that the F.I.R. was mala fide, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the adult petitioner had contracted a valid Nikah of her own free will and no ingredients of abduction or Zina were made out. The key principles laid down are that a High Court may interfere with police investigation and quash an F.I.R. under Article 199 where proceedings are mala fide or without jurisdiction, and that an adult Muslim female possesses the legal capacity to contract a valid marriage without the consent of her Wali.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan while the matter is still under police investigation?
  • Does an adult Muslim female have the legal capacity to contract a valid marriage without the consent of her Wali?
  • Whether cohabitation between spouses married of their own free will constitutes Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a wife whose husband is being harassed by police on false charges considered an aggrieved person entitled to maintain a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum vs N.D.F.C. and others1999 YLR 1954 · Sindh High Court · 1999-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rafiqan through Attorney vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1999 CLC 1812 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rachel Joseph vs Aftabuddin Qureshi and others1999 P Cr. L J 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qadri Begum vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Cooperation, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 4 others1999 CLC 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-02
  cooperative housing societyrejection of plaintmandatory noticefinality of ordersspecific performancemala fidecivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, injunction, and specific performance regarding a residential plot, challenging orders passed by the Cooperative Societies authorities that restored the plot to the original allottee. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by the finality provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the failure to serve a mandatory notice under Section 70 of the Act rendered the suit incompetent. The Court held that the plaint must be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It established that Section 70 is a mandatory provision requiring prior notice before instituting a suit against a cooperative society, and the plaintiff’s failure to comply, coupled with the necessity of the society as a party, made the suit unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 64-AA of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, grants finality to orders passed in revision by the Provincial Government, barring civil court intervention unless specific, substantiated allegations of mala fides or lack of jurisdiction are proven, which were absent here.

  Questions settled

  • Is the issuance of a notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, a mandatory condition precedent for filing a suit against a cooperative society?
  • Does Section 64-AA of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, bar the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to challenge an order passed in revision by the Provincial Government?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for failure to serve a mandatory statutory notice?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish mala fides in pleadings under Order VI, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan vs Zahid Ali and another1999 YLR 2290 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazneen vs Judicial Magistrate, Larkana and 2 others1999 MLD 1250 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Narmeen S. Hussain vs The Administrator, Abandoned Properties1999 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-02
  abandoned propertyspecified personcitizenship of PakistanEast Pakistan domicileconstitutional petitionauction bidder rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Administrator and the Board of Trustees of Abandoned Properties declaring the petitioner's deceased mother as a 'specified person' and her plot as 'abandoned property' under the Abandoned Properties (Taking over and Management) Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved whether the deceased was a 'specified person' domiciled in East Pakistan who ceased to be a citizen of Pakistan, and whether the plot in question constituted 'abandoned property' despite incomplete formal transfer during her lifetime. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the deceased's domicile were unexceptionable under constitutional jurisdiction, that she had ceased to be a citizen of Pakistan under Section 16-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 for residing abroad without obtaining the requisite certificate, and that the deceased's rights as a highest auction bidder constituted an enforceable interest falling within the definition of abandoned property. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person residing abroad holding a Pakistan passport after December 16, 1971, without obtaining a certificate from the Federal Government, ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan under Section 16-A of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951?
  • Does the interest of a highest bidder in a public auction qualify as 'abandoned property' under Section 2(a) of the Abandoned Properties (Taking over and Management) Act 1975, even if formal title or execution of a lease was not completed during the lifetime of the bidder?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a person's ordinary residence or domicile be interfered with under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in the absence of perversity or misreading of evidence?
  • Whether an heir claiming property through inheritance from a deceased mother can simultaneously assert independent allottee status to defeat the classification of the property as abandoned property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musharaf Begum and another vs Abdul Wahab1999 CLC 1820 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maryam Hajiani vs Riaz1999 MLD 3225 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khursheed Begum vs Province of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Home Department, Karachi and 3 others1999 YLR 1608 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →