Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Khalid Abbas Khan Niazi vs Member, Income Tax (Judicial), Central1998 PTD 2767 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-18Read full judgment →
- Katbar and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants, Katbar and Ghulam Shabbir, sought pre-arrest bail after the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, dismissed their initial applications. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, along with others, arrived in a car due to a matrimonial dispute, and Ghulam Shabbir fired a pistol at the victim, Haji Arbab, causing fire-arm injuries, while Katbar shared a common intention. The core legal questions involved whether delay in lodging the F.I.R., simple nature of injuries, or lack of direct weapon attribution warranted pre-arrest bail, and whether the case fell within the prohibitory clause. The Sindh High Court held that mere delay or simplicity of injury caused by a fire-arm does not justify pre-arrest bail, especially when vicarious liability under section 34 is prima facie established and the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of section 324. Furthermore, the court emphasized that pre-arrest bail requires proof of mala fide or clear innocence, neither of which was established, and granting it would stifle police investigation. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does delay in lodging the F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Whether fire-arm injuries categorized as simple prevent the application of the prohibitory clause in an offense of attempted murder?
- Can an accused sharing a common intention and escaping with the principal offender be granted pre-arrest bail on the ground of lack of direct weapon attribution?
- What are the primary considerations for granting pre-arrest bail regarding mala fide involvement and innocence?
- Karim Charania vs Nabi Bux Bhurgari1998 MLD 812 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
- Kareem Bux vs P.O. Sindh and others1998 CLC 27 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenged an appellate judgment that modified a trial court's decree concerning the validity of an administrative order issued by an Assistant Commissioner. The core legal questions were whether an appellate court must record findings issue-wise, similar to a trial court, and whether a civil court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality of an administrative order that is allegedly coram non judice. The High Court held that the appellate court is not mandatorily required to record findings issue-wise, provided it addresses all material points raised. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court affirmed that civil courts, as courts of plenary jurisdiction, are empowered to entertain challenges against administrative or quasi-judicial orders that are coram non judice or passed without jurisdiction. It was further held that after the repeal of evacuee laws, revenue authorities lacked the jurisdiction to determine the legality of allotments made under those laws. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the Court emphasized that decrees must be precise and conform to the requirements of Order XX, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court mandatorily required to record findings issue-wise in the same manner as a trial court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Do civil courts have jurisdiction to challenge an administrative order that is coram non judice or passed without jurisdiction?
- Does an Assistant Commissioner have jurisdiction to determine the legality of an allotment made under the repealed rehabilitation laws?
- Must a decree prepared by a court be precise and conform to the requirements of Order XX, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Karachi Transport Corporation Workers' Union vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh Secretariat No,1, Karachi and 3 others1998 CLC 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
- Kamil Khan and another vs Government of Sindh through Deputy1998 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners filed a constitutional petition challenging an order by the Assistant Commissioner, Khipro, which cancelled mutation entries in the record of rights regarding their agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned whether the Assistant Commissioner acted without jurisdiction by cancelling entries after a seven-year delay without affording the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, and whether the High Court should exercise constitutional jurisdiction despite the availability of alternate remedies. The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner’s order was void ab initio and of no legal effect. It determined that the authority acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by failing to serve notice and exceeded its jurisdiction by condoning a significant delay without valid reasoning. The Court established that quasi-judicial authorities must act fairly and within their legal sphere, and orders suffering from inherent infirmities or lack of jurisdiction are not immune from judicial review. Furthermore, the principle of audi alteram partem is read into statutes, and constitutional petitions are maintainable when an impugned action is patently illegal, rendering alternate remedies inadequate.
Questions settled- Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to proceedings under the Land Revenue Act even if not explicitly provided?
- Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an order where the impugned action is patently illegal and void ab initio?
- Is an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority immune from judicial review simply because an alternate remedy of appeal exists?
- Does an Assistant Commissioner have the authority to condone a significant delay in an appeal without providing cogent reasons?
- Jaweed Khan vs The State1998 MLD 1671 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
- Jaro Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 800 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-09Read full judgment →
- Jano0 and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1587 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad vs P.O. Sindh and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 393 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
- Jamshed vs Agha Suhail and another1998 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenged an order of the trial court which dismissed applications to summon birth records and refer the accused to a new medical board for age determination. The accused, facing trial for murder, sought a separate trial under the Sindh Children Act, 1955, claiming he was under 16 at the time of the offence. The trial court had previously referred the accused to a medical board, which certified his age as 21-22 years based on radiological and physical examination. The applicant argued the birth certificate should prevail and the medical board's findings were insufficient. The High Court held that the medical board's report, based on radiological examination, constitutes the best evidence for determining age, superseding school or birth certificates. The court affirmed that while a plea of minority can be raised at any stage, including the appellate stage, the medical evidence here was conclusive. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the trial court's order, dismissed the revision, and upheld the trial court's decision to rely on the medical board's findings.
Questions settled- Is a medical board's report based on radiological examination preferred over a birth certificate for determining the age of an accused?
- Can a plea of minority under the Sindh Children Act, 1955 be raised at the appellate stage if not raised during the trial?
- Is a trial court required to summon birth records if a medical board has already determined the age of the accused?
- Jama Masjid City Courts vs Safdar Ali through His L.RS And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 479 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-02Read full judgment →
- Ismail vs Ahmed Bux & Sons1998 MLD 940 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-26Read full judgment →
- Ismail Magsi and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-15Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ali Shaikh and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmed vs The General Manager and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-16Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ahmad Shahid vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-18Read full judgment →
- Irfan Zamir Butt vs The Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through its1998 CLC 958 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
- Iqbal Brohi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2066 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application was filed by the applicant/accused who was facing trial for murder and theft under Sections 302 and 381 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought post-arrest bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing that he had been in custody for over two years. The prosecution opposed the bail, contending that the delay was partly caused by the defense's adjournment requests, the applicant was a proclaimed offender who had absconded, and the brutal nature of the crime fell under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1). The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that a mathematical calculation of delay is inappropriate where the defense contributed to the postponement of trial. The Court further ruled that the third proviso is controlled by the fourth proviso, and an accused is disentitled to statutory bail if the crime is exceptionally brutal or if the accused's conduct as a fugitive from law warrants such exclusion.
Questions settled- Can statutory bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be calculated using a strict mathematical subtraction of defense adjournments?
- Does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 control and restrict the benefit of statutory bail under the third proviso?
- Whether unexplained noticeable abscondence as a proclaimed offender disentitles an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can a High Court summon a Special Public Prosecutor to assist the Court in a bail application without causing prejudice to the accused?
- Investment Corporation of Pakistan (I.C.P.) and otherss vs Messrs1998 CLC 731 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-08Read full judgment →
- Investment Corporation of Pakistan (I.C.P.) and otherss vs Messrs1998 CLC 579 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
- Investment Corporation of Pakistan (I. C. P.) vs Messrs Noor Silk Mills1998 CLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a winding-up petition filed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 by the Investment Corporation of Pakistan against Messrs Noor Silk Mills on the grounds of inability to pay debts and disappearance of substratum, alongside an application by United Bank Limited for impleadment as an intervenor. The core legal questions relate to whether a decree-holder bank should be impleaded in winding-up proceedings and whether temporary financial distress and disputed liability warrant the winding-up of a functioning company. The Sindh High Court held that a decree-holder is merely in the position of an ordinary creditor with alternative execution remedies and need not be impleaded, and further held that winding-up is not a substitute for recovery suits where the company maintains substantial assets, is recognized as a sick unit striving to overcome industry-wide crises, and where the petitioning creditor's debt claims are disputed and unverified. The key principles laid down are that creditors with independent recovery remedies cannot intervene as parties in winding-up petitions, and winding-up orders will be refused when deemed unjust or inequitable against a viable enterprise.
Questions settled- Whether a decree-holder bank is entitled to be impleaded as a party in a company winding-up petition?
- Is the mere existence of a large unpaid claim by a financial institution sufficient ground to order the winding-up of a company?
- Can a winding-up petition be maintained where the petitioning creditor's claimed debt is disputed and lacks statutory notice of demand?
- Whether it is just and equitable to wind up a company that is actively struggling against industry-wide financial crises and possesses sufficient assets?
- In re: M. Aslam Motiwala vs Not1998 MLD 1254 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
- Iftikhar Siddiqui vs Clifton Cantonment Board and others1998 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages against the Clifton Cantonment Board concerning the construction of a commercial building. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from taking coercive action or demolishing the construction, claiming that his revised building plan for additional floors stood unconditionally sanctioned by operation of law due to the Board's failure to decide it within the statutory period under section 181(6) of the Cantonment Act, 1924. The Sindh High Court examined whether the deeming provision for unconditional sanction applied to additional construction and whether a mandatory injunction could be granted at the interim stage. The Court held that while the plan for construction up to the third floor was undisputed and defendants should be restrained from demolishing it, the benefit of the deeming clause for additional storeys raised complex questions regarding master plans and whether additional construction falls within 'erection or re-erection'. Consequently, the Court held that interim mandatory injunction for constructing additional floors could not be granted as it amounted to final relief, and ordered maintenance of status quo regarding the upper three floors pending a full trial.
Questions settled- Whether a building plan stands unconditionally sanctioned under section 181(6) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 upon the expiry of the statutory period following a reminder notice?
- Can a mandatory interim injunction be granted directing the Cantonment Board to permit the construction of additional storeys pending the final disposal of the suit?
- Does the deeming provision for unconditional sanction under section 181(6) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 apply equally to plans for additional construction as it does to the initial erection or re-erection of a building?
- I.C.P. and others vs Messrs Chiniot Textile Mills Ltd.1998 PLD Karachi 316 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for the recovery of finance through Term Finance Certificates involving a consortium loan agreement. The core legal questions relate to the permissible limits of mark-up under Islamic banking principles, the discharge of guarantors under section 133 of the Contract Act 1872 due to proposed re-scheduling, the effect of an un-rebutted affidavit, and the conditions for granting payment in instalments under the relevant banking legislation. The Sindh High Court held that under Islamic banking, mark-up cannot be claimed beyond the contract period and extra charges resembling penalties cannot be enforced, as they convert the transaction into interest. The court further held that a mere unaccepted offer of re-scheduling does not discharge guarantors, and that written agreements cannot be varied by oral assertions in affidavits pursuant to Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The suit was ultimately decreed in favor of the plaintiffs after adjusting repayments and calculating the lawful mark-up.
Questions settled- Whether a mark-up based facility under Islamic banking permits claiming mark-up beyond the stipulated contract period?
- Does a mere unaccepted offer to re-schedule a finance facility discharge the guarantors from their responsibility under section 133 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Can the terms of a written agreement be varied or modified by oral assertions contained in an uncontroverted affidavit in view of Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
- What conditions must be satisfied before a court can order the repayment of a decretal amount in instalments under section 5(2) of Act XV of 1997?
- I.B.M. Semea Spa Ltd. vs Egs (Pvt.) Ltd.1998 CLC 1399 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-11Read full judgment →
- Hussunuddin and another vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 187 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
- Hoechst Pakistan Ltd. And others vs Maqbool Ahmed and another1998 CLC 134 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a Revision Application filed against an interim order passed by a Senior Civil Judge, which suspended the termination of the respondent's employment. The core legal questions were whether the High Court retained revisional jurisdiction following the 1994 amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the trial court acted illegally by granting an interim injunction without hearing the employer. The Court held that the Revision Application was incompetent before the High Court, as the 1994 amendment vested such revisional powers in the District Court. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the trial court possessed the authority under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to issue interlocutory orders to prevent the defeat of justice. The Court established that even in private sector employment governed by the master-servant principle, the rule of audi alteram partem applies, requiring an opportunity for a hearing, particularly when termination is based on allegations of misconduct like defalcation, rather than being a termination simpliciter. The application was dismissed, directing the petitioner to seek remedies in the lower courts.
Questions settled- Does the High Court retain revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 following the 1994 amendment?
- Can a trial court grant an interim injunction under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to suspend a termination order?
- Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to the termination of an employee in a private sector master-servant relationship when allegations of misconduct are involved?
- Must a Revision Application be filed in the District Court rather than the High Court when concurrent jurisdiction exists under the principle of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Hazzaro alias Hazzaroo and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 335 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-20Read full judgment →
- Hawaldar Sawar Khan through General Attorney vs Province of Sindh, Revenue Department through Deputy Commissioner, Shikarpur and 5 others1998 CLC 382 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two separate civil revision matters. The first matter involves a revision application against the concurrent dismissal of a civil appeal and rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, for failing to exhaust departmental remedies before the revenue authorities as mandated by Section 11 of the Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. The Sindh High Court held that where a plaint is incompetent on its face and statutory remedies are bypassed, the court has the duty to reject it at its infancy by exercising powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The second matter, decided by the Peshawar High Court, arises from an objection petition under Order XXI Rule 99 and Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, read with Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, against the execution of a final decree for possession. The Peshawar High Court held that the protection under Order XXI Rule 99 is contingent upon the objector proving good faith and bona fides, and an objector who remained a passive spectator despite knowledge of the proceedings and association with spot inspections has no locus standi to resist execution.
Questions settled- Whether a civil suit is maintainable when a plaintiff fails to exhaust statutory remedies before the revenue authorities as required by the Sindh Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876?
- Can an incompetent plaint be rejected by the court at its infancy by invoking inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- What is the burden of proof on an objector claiming protection against dispossession under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Does an executing court have the jurisdiction to go behind the original judgment and decree while determining questions of fact under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Haseeb Express (Pvt.) Ltd./Decree-Holder vs Azerbaijan Hava Yollari1998 CLC 1390 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-11Read full judgment →
- Haroon Nara and another vs Abdul Karim Maniya1998 CLC 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-23Read full judgment →
- Haleema Bai vs Ahmed and 2 others1998 MLD 1776 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Yaqoob through Legal Heirs vs Shah Nawaz1998 CLC 21 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges a lower court decree for specific performance of a land sale agreement. The core legal question is whether a suit for specific performance is time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the agreement specifies a performance date, irrespective of whether time is of the essence. The Court held that the suit was time-barred. It rejected the respondent's argument that the first part of Article 113 applies only when time is of the essence. The Court ruled that where a date for performance is fixed in an agreement, the three-year limitation period commences from that date. The Court clarified that the concept of 'time being of the essence' under Section 55 of the Contract Act 1872 pertains to the remedies available for breach, such as voidability versus compensation, and does not override the clear statutory mandate of Article 113, which requires limitation to be calculated from the specified date of performance.
Questions settled- Does the first part of Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply only when time is of the essence of the contract?
- When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance commence if a specific date for performance is mentioned in the agreement?
- Does the failure to perform a contract by a specified date automatically make the contract voidable regardless of whether time was of the essence?
- Can a party rely on the second part of Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the agreement contains a specific date for performance?
- Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 850 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-07Read full judgment →
- Haji Kassam (Deceased) through Its Legal Representatives vs SyedK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 149 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-11Read full judgment →
- Haji Janna T Gul vs The State and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 375 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Qadir And Other vs Ghulam Ahmad And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 665 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Qadir and 2 others vs Ghulam Rasool and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-23Read full judgment →
- Haji Bagh Ali through Legal Heirs and 9 others vs Messrs Habib Bank1998 CLC 1205 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
- Haider Abbas vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 627 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court addresses the scope and applicability of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, concerning employees of corporations and statutory bodies, specifically whether a trainee executive or contract employee of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan falls within the definition of a civil servant under the said provision, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the term 'post' and the effect of the deeming provisions in Section 2-A. The court held that Section 2-A is a remedial provision designed to provide broad relief, encompassing ad hoc, temporary, and contractual employees, irrespective of traditional exclusions in civil servant definitions. Consequently, such employees are deemed civil servants, and their service disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The key principle laid down is that Section 2-A creates a new category of civil servants by statutory fiction, overriding standard exclusions like contract employment, and ousting the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in favor of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 include contract and temporary employees within the definition of a civil servant?
- Does the declaration of service under a corporation as service of Pakistan require a constitutional amendment or can it be done via ordinary legislation?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to employees of statutory corporations following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Do traditional exclusions from the definition of civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 apply to persons deemed civil servants under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Hafiz Mansoor Ahmad and others vs Messrs Rajput Films Corporation1998 CLC 963 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-01Read full judgment →
- Hafeezullah Khan and 2 otherss vs AlHaj Chaudhri Barkat Ali and 21998 PLD Karachi 274 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the learned Single Judge declining interim relief in a suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, who operated transport services, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant No. 1 for violating mutual agreements regarding vehicle departure timings and route operations. The core legal questions involved whether the agreements lacked consideration, whether they were specifically unenforceable barring an interim injunction, and if a party could unilaterally retract from contractual obligations. The Sindh High Court held that the agreements were supported by valid consideration in the form of mutual restrictions, forbearances, and space-time advantages, and that the conclusion regarding specific enforceability was unfounded at the interim stage without evidence. The Court ruled that interim injunctions should protect lawful contractual obligations against unilateral breach and that courts must lean toward upholding contracts. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the respondents were restrained during the pendency of the suit from retracting their obligations under the agreements.
Questions settled- Does the concept of consideration in a contract necessarily require a monetary benefit or an amount susceptible to accurate valuation in terms of money?
- Whether an interim injunction can be refused on the ground of specific unenforceability without identifying the specific clause of the Specific Relief Act barring enforcement?
- Can a party to a lawful mutual agreement unilaterally and wilfully disclaim contractual obligations during the pendency of a suit?
- Is an interim injunction available under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a permanent injunction is sought to prevent the breach of a contract?
- Habib Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 391 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
- Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd., I.I.Chundrigar Road, Karachi vs Messrs Tariq Cotton Mills Ltd., M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi1998 PLD Karachi 238 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-18Read full judgment →
- Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd. vs Gulzar Ahmed1998 CLC 1419 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-02Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. vs Asghar Ali and others1998 CLC 353 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-14Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Mohsin Ahmed Habib and others1998 CLC 1601 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-27Read full judgment →
- Gulab vs Karachi Port Trust and others1998 MLD 2088 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-06Read full judgment →
- Gul Sher and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-02Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad vs Gul Muhammad Alias Muhammad AbbasK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 446 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad Intervenor vs Gul Muhammad alias Muhammad Abbas1998 PLD Karachi 55 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
- Golden Eagle Enterprises through Authorized Representative Faiz Akbar1998 MLD 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
- Global Produce, Limited vs Habib Credit & Exchange Bank, Limited And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 514 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-04Read full judgment →
- Global Produce Limited vs Habib Credit & Exchange Bank Limited and 61998 CLC 165 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-03Read full judgment →
- Global Container Lines Ltd vs American President Lines Ltd1998 CLC 360 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 968 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two accused, Ghulam Nabi and Irshad Ali, who were charged with murder and denied bail by the trial court, despite the investigating officer finding them innocent and recommending their exclusion from the charge-sheet. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to post-arrest bail given the conflict between the police investigation report and the ocular evidence, and the apparent discrepancy between the medical evidence and the prosecution's version of the incident. The Court held that while the opinion of an investigating officer is not binding, it is a relevant factor. Upon a tentative assessment, the Court observed a significant discrepancy between the alleged distance of firing and the medical findings of charring, which suggested a closer range. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused might not be guilty, warranting further inquiry. Key principles laid down include that bail assessment must be tentative; the investigating officer's opinion is relevant but not binding; and bail should not be withheld solely due to the heinous nature of the charge.
Questions settled- Is the opinion of an investigating officer finding an accused innocent binding upon the court during bail proceedings?
- Can a court grant bail in a murder case based on a tentative assessment of discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence?
- Does the heinous nature of an offense alone justify the refusal of bail?
- Should the benefit of doubt arising from the prosecution's case be extended to the accused at the bail stage?
- Ghulam Mustafa and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1388 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1529 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and 24 others vs Superintending Engineer, Rice1998 PLC (C.S.) 87 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from the cancellation of an appointment of the petitioner's son as a Darogha (BPS-4) in the Irrigation Department, Government of Sindh, following his father's retirement. The core legal question concerns the lawfulness of cancelling a completed appointment order made under a preferential employment policy for children of retired employees, without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Sindh High Court held that the appointment was made against a clear permanent vacancy and created a vested right protected by the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, and that the cancellation order passed without notice violated the principles of natural justice and Article 4 of the Constitution. The Court laid down that an order passed in violation of natural justice is a nullity and can be remedied under Article 199 of the Constitution notwithstanding bar clauses, as the right to be treated in accordance with law is an inalienable constitutional right.
Questions settled- Does an appointment order made and acted upon create a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily recalled without notice?
- Whether an order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is a nullity correctable under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Can a previous dismissal of a constitutional petition in limine based on a mistaken factual premise operate as res judicata?
- Does the constitutional jurisdiction extend to setting aside administrative orders that violate due process despite general bars on service matters?
- Ghulam Muhammad Alias Guloo And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 98 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad alias Gul Muhammad vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Sindh Secretariat, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others1998 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam HYDERApplicant/accused vs Muhammad Sadiq and another1998 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hyder Solangi vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 60 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 394 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain Gul vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home1998 PLC (C.S.) 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 779 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 323 read with sections 337-A(1) and 337-E(ii)(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and chance eyewitnesses, the effect of suppressing injuries sustained by the accused, the evidentiary value of an unproved motive and delayed weapon recoveries, and the failure of the prosecution to address a counter-version and discrepancies concerning the identity of the deceased. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to fatal discrepancies in the identity of the deceased, suppression of injuries on the accused by interested witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, and an ignored counter-first information report. The court laid down the principle that where the prosecution suppresses injuries on the accused, fails to resolve major contradictions regarding the deceased's identity, and ignores a counter-version, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to their acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to clarify a glaring discrepancy regarding the parentage and identity of the deceased entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused by eyewitnesses render their testimony untrustworthy without strong independent corroboration?
- Whether the existence of a counter-version and a counter-FIR imposes a duty on the prosecution and the court to determine the actual aggressor?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish whose specific blow caused the fatal injury?
- Ghulam Asghar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 729 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Member (Judicial), Central Board Of Revenue, And OtherPTCL 1998 CL. 350 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ghotki vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1377 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ghazanfar Ally Effendi and 3 others vs Arif Effendi and another1998 CLC 1425 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
- Ghaffar Impex, Karachi vs Mst. Hajira1998 MLD 788 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-29Read full judgment →
- Fishermen's Cooperative Society Limited and 7 otherss vs The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sindh, Hyderabad and 3 others1998 CLC 1285 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
- Fazalur Rehman vs Muhammad Sadiquan1998 CLC 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-03Read full judgment →
- Fazal MUHAMMADApplicant vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 203 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
- Farid Khan and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2012 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
- Fareed Ahmed Langra vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance for possession of unlicensed weapons. The core legal questions involve the credibility of police-only recoveries without independent witnesses or station diary entries, the failure to put mandatory incriminating circumstances regarding licences to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the lack of sealing and ballistic reports, and improper trial procedures under special laws. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court held that non-production of the station diary, failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area, omission of material questions under Section 342 Cr.P.C., and lack of sealing and ballistic examination create insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that while special laws intend expeditious disposal, speed must not translate into legal haste ('justice hurried is justice buried'), and the burden remains strictly on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt without shifting it to the defence.
Questions settled- Does the non-production of the police station diary regarding the patrolling party's departure create a serious doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Is it mandatory to put questions regarding the possession of weapons and lack of licence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure of the police to associate independent public witnesses from a populated area during recovery vitiate the search proceedings?
- Whether the absence of sealing of recovered weapons on the spot and the lack of a Ballistic Expert report weaken the prosecution case?
- Faqih Alam vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 268 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 31(7) of the Drugs Act 1976 was directed against the appellant's conviction under Section 27(4) of the Act by the Drug Court at Karachi, which had sentenced him to a fine for supplying substandard Zinc Oxide Adhesive Plaster. The appellant challenged the conviction on three primary grounds: the competency of the prosecuting Inspector, the failure to implead his proprietary firm as a separate accused, and the delay in submitting the test report. The High Court found that the prosecuting Inspector was duly notified under Section 17 of the Act and that impleading the firm was unnecessary as the appellant was its sole proprietor. However, on the third ground, the Court observed that the Government Analyst's report was submitted well beyond the statutory sixty-day limit prescribed under Section 22(2) of the Drugs Act 1976 without any written explanation or extension of time. The Court held that the provisions of Section 22(2) are mandatory, and non-compliance therewith vitiates the conclusiveness of the test report, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a prosecution under the Drugs Act 1976 is competent if initiated by an Inspector whose appointment is notified under Section 17 but who is designated as a Divisional Drug Inspector?
- Is it mandatory to implead a sole proprietorship business concern as a co-accused alongside its sole proprietor under Section 34 of the Drugs Act 1976?
- What is the legal effect of a Government Analyst failing to submit a test report within the sixty-day period prescribed under Section 22(2) of the Drugs Act 1976 without obtaining an extension or providing written reasons?
- Faizoo and others vs Raees Baqar Khan and others1998 MLD 225 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
- English Laboratories (Private) Limited vs Messrs Chas a Mendoza1998 MLD 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
- Engineer Imam Ali Soomro vs Government of Sindh1998 PLC (C.S.) 311 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notification putting in abeyance the re-employment contract of the petitioner as Chairman of the Sindh Board of Technical Education. The core legal questions involved whether a retired civil servant re-employed on a contract basis acquires a statutory right to hold a fixed-tenure post under section 16(2) of the Sindh Board of Technical Education Ordinance, 1970, whether the rule of master and servant applies to such contractual appointments, and whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be invoked in such matters or if jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a contractual employee does not acquire a vested or statutory right in the post, is governed by the rule of master and servant, cannot enforce reinstatement or invoke constitutional jurisdiction for wrongful termination, and is restricted to claiming damages. The court laid down that contractual appointments of retired civil servants do not carry statutory tenure protections and are not amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a retired civil servant re-employed on a contract basis acquire a statutory or vested right to hold a fixed-tenure post under section 16(2) of the Sindh Board of Technical Education Ordinance, 1970?
- Is a contractual employee governed by the rule of master and servant, and does such a relationship bar a suit for reinstatement?
- Can a contractual employee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the event of termination or removal from service?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 preclude a civil servant from approaching the High Court regarding terms and conditions of service not involving fitness for a post?
- Emmay Zed Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1998 PLC 183 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International Ltd vs Messrs Osman Brothers and others1998 PLD Karachi 338 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves four applications filed by the defendants under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, and section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree dated April 30, 1990, passed in a recovery suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The plaintiff-bank instituted the suit for recovery of overdraft facilities based on a foreign judgment and original accounts. The core legal question was whether an application under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, C.P.C. or section 12(2), C.P.C. is maintainable to challenge an ex parte judgment and decree passed by a Special Banking Court, given the exclusive appeal mechanism under section 12(3) read with section 11 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The Sindh High Court held that the remedy of appeal against ex parte orders provided under section 12(3) of the 1979 Ordinance, combined with the finality and bar of jurisdiction under section 11, is exclusive in nature, thereby overriding and excluding the application of Order XXXVII, Rule 4, C.P.C. and section 12(2), C.P.C. Consequently, the court dismissed all four applications as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, C.P.C. is maintainable to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed by a Special Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does section 11 read with section 12(3) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 provide an exclusive remedy for challenging ex parte judgments, thereby barring applications under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the summary procedure provided under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to suits adjudicated by Special Courts under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a separate application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 barred by the finality attached to orders of Special Banking Courts under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Emirate Bank International vs Messrs United Group of Companies1998 CLC 743 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous application was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking condonation of delay in filing applications for leave to defend a summary suit for recovery originally instituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, or alternatively a declaration that the ten-day limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable due to subsequent legislative changes under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The core legal question concerned whether the retrospective repeal or disapplication of the Limitation Act under the 1997 Act could revive a right to apply for leave to defend that had already become time-barred under the pre-existing law, thereby divesting the plaintiff of a vested right to a decree. The Sindh High Court held that a statute of limitation cannot be construed retrospectively to revive a remedy or cause of action that has already become barred by lapse of time, as the expiration of the limitation period creates a vested right in favor of the opposing party. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for want of sufficient explanation and decreed the suit against a non-defending party.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, can apply retroactively to revive a remedy or right to apply for leave to defend that had already become barred under the pre-existing law?
- Does the disapplication of the Limitation Act under section 22 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, apply to cases where the limitation period for filing leave to defend had already expired prior to its promulgation?
- Does service of summons by publication in a daily newspaper constitute valid service under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, irrespective of whether the defendants read that particular language or newspaper?
- Whether the expiration of the statutory period for filing an application for leave to defend creates a vested right in favor of the plaintiff to obtain a decree under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Emirate Bank International vs (M/s.) United Group of Companies1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-08Read full judgment →
- Elahi Bux vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1756 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
- Ehsan vs The State1998 P Cr, L J 1548 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Sharif vs Province of Sindh through (a) Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-27Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Saleem Khan vs Amanullah Khan1998 CLC 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ayaz Hussain vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-02Read full judgment →
- District Council, Tharparkar through Chief Executive, Mirpurkhas vs Syed Muhammad Wali and another1998 CLC 911 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-11Read full judgment →
- Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi vs Mst. Zarina1998 MLD 1879 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought the rejection of a plaint filed by a temporary allottee of government-owned premises. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as a licensee of government property, could maintain a suit for declaration and injunction against the government, or if such a suit was barred by statutory provisions. The Court held that the respondent’s status was that of a licensee, not a tenant, and that she possessed no legal title to the premises. Consequently, the suit was barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and Sections 10 and 11 of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965. The Court established that government-allotted premises create a tenancy at will or license, terminable by the state without cause, and that courts are obligated to reject plaints that are legally incompetent from their inception. The appeal was allowed, and the plaint was rejected.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary allottee of government-owned premises holds the status of a tenant or a licensee?
- Is a suit for declaration and injunction maintainable by a licensee against the government regarding government-owned premises?
- Does the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965 bar civil suits against the government for the recovery of government property?
- Is a court obligated to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit is barred by law?
- Dil Murad and 7 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 378 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
- Convell Laboratories Ltd., Saida Sharif, Swat, Pakistan vs m. v.1998 CLC 1383 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Order 9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal questions were whether a suit, where evidence has already been recorded, should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of counsel, and whether an irregularity in a Vakalatnama regarding an advocate's name invalidates an application for restoration. The Court held that when evidence is concluded, a suit should generally be decided on merits rather than dismissed for non-prosecution, as the hearing of arguments is not strictly mandatory under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court found that an advocate's absence due to professional engagements in another courtroom constitutes sufficient cause for restoration. The key principles laid down are that dismissal for non-prosecution should be an exception, not a rule, and that clerical irregularities in a Vakalatnama are curable defects that do not invalidate legal proceedings or applications filed by counsel.
Questions settled- Should a suit be dismissed for non-prosecution if the parties are absent when the case is fixed for arguments after evidence has been recorded?
- Does the absence of an advocate due to professional engagements in another court constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of a dismissed suit?
- Can an irregularity in a Vakalatnama, such as the omission of an advocate's name, be cured at a later stage of proceedings?
- Is the hearing of arguments mandatory under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before a court can dispose of a case on merits?
- Ghulam Rasool and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 584 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal application sought the quashment of proceedings arising from an F.I.R. registered under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged violation of a prohibitory order issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the trial court could take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on an F.I.R. lodged by a subordinate official, rather than a formal complaint by the public servant who promulgated the prohibitory order. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings were legally flawed. The Court ruled that, pursuant to Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can only be taken upon a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or their superior. Since the F.I.R. was filed by a supervising Tapedar rather than the District Magistrate who issued the order, the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and were consequently quashed.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on an F.I.R. filed by a subordinate official?
- Who is authorized to initiate legal proceedings for the violation of an order promulgated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the requirement of a formal complaint under Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to offences under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Bux Ellahi vs Saadat Ali Baig through his Legal Heirs1998 MLD 43 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
- BULANDOAccused vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
- Brig. (Retd.) Aslam Hayat Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 400 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
- Bar B.Q. through Partner, Defence Society, Karachi vs Mrs. Hayat Rehman1998 PLD Karachi 5 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
- Bank of Credit & Commerce vs Messrs Global Produce1998 MLD 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns execution proceedings for a consent decree payable in installments. The core legal questions were whether the execution application was time-barred and whether the judgment-debtors could challenge the execution without complying with statutory deposit requirements. The court held that the execution application was within limitation because, for decrees payable in installments, the period of limitation commences from the date each installment falls due, rather than the date of the decree itself. The court further held that, pursuant to Order XXI, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, judgment-debtors are precluded from raising objections to execution without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security. Regarding limitation, the court established that payments made by one judgment-debtor are deemed to be made by all jointly in the absence of contrary evidence, thereby extending the limitation period for all. Finally, the court rejected technical objections regarding the substitution of the decree-holder, emphasizing that such objections cannot be used to evade liability or thwart the enforcement of a valid decree.
Questions settled- Does the limitation period for an execution application of an installment decree run from the date of the decree or the date each installment falls due?
- Can a judgment-debtor challenge the execution of a decree without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security?
- Do payments made by one judgment-debtor extend the limitation period for all co-judgment-debtors?
- Is a decree-holder required to certify payments received for adjustment to the court under Order XXI, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?