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.

• Munir Ahmad vs Mst. Rukhsana Khan1997 MLD 536 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muneer Alias Munawar Ali And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1622 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Begum vs Karachi Buildings Control Authority And 5 Other1997 MLD 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmed vs The State1997 MLD 1177 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. And Other1997 MLD 2763 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Gulfam Begum1997 MLD 697 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Abdul Razzak And 3 Other1997 MLD 472 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs The State1997 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tayyab vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1597 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Muhammad Yaqoob And 4 Other1997 MLD 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The State1997 MLD 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1997 MLD 1696 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs The State1997 MLD 1909 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Jam Kaim Ali And Other1997 MLD 2819 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-02
  election disputenomination paperconstitutional jurisdictionbar of jurisdictionelection petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent No. 1 for the Sindh Assembly elections on the ground that he was underage and thus unqualified to contest. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a constitutional petition against the acceptance of a nomination paper in view of the bar contained in Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Relying on the precedent in Election Commission of Pakistan v. Javaid Hashmi, the Court held that Article 225 ousts the jurisdiction of courts in election matters, requiring such challenges to be raised via an election petition. The Court distinguished the exception carved out in Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer, noting that in the present case, an efficacious alternate remedy was available through an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and no irreparable injury or disenfranchisement of the petitioner occurred. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition without entering into the factual controversy regarding the candidate's age.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition against the acceptance of a nomination paper during an ongoing election process?
  • Does Article 225 of the Constitution completely oust the jurisdiction of courts in regard to election matters prior to the completion of the election?
  • Can an aggrieved party invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court during the election process when an alternate remedy by way of an election petition is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1997 MLD 2734 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raees vs Imamud Din1997 MLD 530 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Quaid Wahab vs Mst. Nuzhat Aziz And 2 Other1997 MLD 3091 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Haji Saleh and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naqi vs Mst. Rashida Begum And Other1997 MLD 900 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State1997 MLD 3108 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mujahid vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mizan vs The State1997 MLD 279 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Shafi vs Mir Ghulam Rasool Talpur And Another1997 MLD 765 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Alias Goga vs The State1997 MLD 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jawaid vs The State1997 MLD 3141 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1997 MLD 3095 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad1997 PLD Karachi 347 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan vs The State1997 MLD 1896 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Noor Muhammad And Other1997 MLD 137 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Through Administrator And 2 Other1997 MLD 2304 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran Khan And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 742 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Shaheen Akhtar1997 MLD 2727 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1997 MLD 2743 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Mahar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State1997 MLD 2785 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Mst. Inayat Bibi And Another1997 MLD 909 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooque Jagerani vs Abdul Sattar And Other1997 MLD 903 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-04
  specific performancecivil revisionhandwriting expertremand of caseforged documentsappellate jurisdictionpossession of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application challenges an appellate court's judgment that set aside a trial court's decree for specific performance and remanded the case for a fresh decision after framing additional issues. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the remand order and the trial court's refusal to allow a handwriting expert to compare disputed signatures on the sale agreement. The High Court held that while the appellate court correctly exercised its power to remand and frame additional issues, the trial court had erred in failing to exercise its jurisdiction to verify the authenticity of the signatures. The Court affirmed the remand order but modified it to include a specific direction for the trial court to obtain specimen signatures of the defendant and the attesting witnesses for comparison by a handwriting expert. Additionally, the Court held that an issue regarding the alleged illegal and forcible possession of the land by the plaintiff must also be framed and determined by the trial court to ensure complete justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court have the power to frame additional issues and remand a case for a fresh decision?
  • Is a trial court required to allow a request for a handwriting expert to compare disputed signatures when forgery is alleged?
  • Can a court direct the production of specimen signatures for comparison with a disputed document to ensure complete justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and others1997 PLD Karachi 499 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State1997 MLD 2775 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Patel vs Hasham1997 MLD 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayoub and 3 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1340 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1997 MLD 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim and others vs Judge Special Courts and others-s1997 P Cr. L J 1890 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State1997 MLD 2545 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1997 MLD 2725 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Shujaet Ali Alias Shabban Baba1997 MLD 2025 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar alias Mullah vs Azmatullah and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad And Another vs Muhammad Umar And Other1997 MLD 2830 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Qazi vs Official Assignee/Liquidator1997 PLD Karachi 447 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Province of Sindh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Karachi And 2 Other1997 MLD 2461 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Alias Chand Mian vs The State1997 MLD 1875 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs The State1997 MLD 1182 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Shaikh vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Shaikh and another vs Rashid Ahmed Butt and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 584 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed vs The State1997 MLD 2687 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Dr. Abdul Aziz1997 MLD 2912 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Bhatti vs The State1997 MLD 1190 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-18Read full judgment →
• Mubin Ali Siddiqui Alias Hamayun vs The State1997 MLD 2479 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mubarik Shah Alias Mubarik Hussain And 3 Others vs Mst. Soofia Aftab1997 MLD 923 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaibunnisa Alias Zaitoon vs Federation of Pakistan1997 MLD 1706 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surriya Anis And Others vs Bunyad Ali1997 MLD 700 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shariffan Bibi vs Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation Through Chairman1997 MLD 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahida Ali vs Karachi Road Transport Corporation Through Chairman And Another1997 MLD 2682 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen vs Karachi Building Control Authority1997 PLJ Lahore 1466, 1997 PLD Karachi 659 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabana Niazi vs Muhammad Khalilur Rehman and 2 others1997 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-18
  custody of minorreview applicationinherent jurisdictioncriminal procedureHizanatGuardians and Wards ActHigh Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application challenged a previous High Court judgment that ordered the transfer of a minor's custody from the father to the mother under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to review its own final judgment in a criminal matter and whether the previous custody order was legally sustainable. The court dismissed the review application, holding that under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court is precluded from reviewing its own final orders in criminal proceedings. The court further clarified that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, cannot be invoked to bypass express statutory prohibitions or to function as an appellate court. The principle established is that the High Court lacks the authority to review its final criminal judgments, and custody orders passed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are interlocutory in nature and remain subject to final adjudication by the competent court under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power to review its own final judgment in a criminal matter?
  • Can the inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to review a final judgment?
  • Are custody orders passed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to the jurisdiction of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar vs The S.H.O., Police Station Phuleli, Hyderabad and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 752 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Loan and 5 others vs Messrs Kashmirian (Pvt.) Ltd. and 61997 PLD Karachi 376 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-20
  winding upcompanies ordinancemanagement deadlockjust and equitableprivate limited companypartnership principlesequal shareholdingofficial liquidator
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition under sections 290 and 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, filed by the legal heirs of the founder holding 50 percent shares in a private limited family company against the other 50 percent shareholders, seeking the winding up of the company or the appointment of an Official Liquidator. The core legal questions concern whether a complete deadlock in management, justifiable lack of mutual confidence, and the exclusion of equal shareholders from corporate affairs constitute just and equitable grounds for winding up a private company structured like a partnership. The Sindh High Court held that a clear case for winding up was made out due to a total management deadlock, failure to hold statutory meetings or elect a chief executive, and a complete breakdown of trust. The court laid down the principle that private limited companies functioning as family concerns are treated analogously to partnerships, where exclusion from management, deadlocks, and justifiable lack of confidence warrant dissolution on just and equitable grounds under company law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private limited company with equal shareholding can be wound up on the ground of a complete management deadlock?
  • Can the principles governing the dissolution of a partnership firm be applied to the winding up of a private limited company?
  • Does the exclusion of a shareholder from the management and affairs of a company constitute a just and equitable ground for its winding up?
  • Is a court empowered to consider subsequent events taking place after the institution of a winding up petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Begum vs Habib Gul And Another1997 MLD 2473 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-22
  tentative rent orderejectmentdefault in rentpower of reviewrent controllervoid orderlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant under section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether a Rent Controller possesses the power to review a tentative rent order and whether the appellant committed a default in depositing the rent. The Sindh High Court held that the Rent Controller has no inherent or conferred power of review under the Ordinance and that the second application and subsequent orders were void. The Court further found that no default in payment of rent had been committed by the appellant, as the deposit was made within the prescribed period and the finding regarding non-payment for a specific month was based on surmises and conjectures. The key principle laid down is that an order passed without jurisdiction or by way of review, where no such power is conferred, is void, and limitation does not run against void orders. Consequently, the ejectment order was set aside and the case was remanded for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Controller have the power to review an order under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether limitation runs against a void order passed by a Rent Controller?
  • How is the period of limitation computed for complying with a tentative rent order under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence based on imaginary defaults not borne out by the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadira Naeem vs Azizuddin and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09
  interim custody of propertysuperdaricriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil nature of disputelocus standiSection 561-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order of the Sessions Court, which had directed the return of seized household articles to the respondent, acting as attorney for the accused. The complainant, who claimed ownership of the articles based on an alleged sale agreement, argued that the accused was a fugitive from law and thus lacked locus standi. The Court examined whether the complainant was entitled to interim custody of the property. The High Court held that the dispute was primarily civil in nature, evidenced by a pending civil suit regarding the validity of the alleged sale receipt. Emphasizing that the articles were recovered from premises under the control of the accused's attorney, the Court affirmed that the property should be returned to the person from whose possession it was seized. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the complainant's claim and noting that the criminal proceedings were being misused to resolve a civil contractual dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal court the appropriate forum to resolve a dispute primarily involving the specific performance of a contract?
  • To whom should the interim custody of property seized by the police be entrusted when the underlying ownership is disputed?
  • Can an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to challenge an order regarding the interim custody of property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musharaf Begum And Another vs Abdul Wahab1997 MLD 1975 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-21
  specific performanceagreement to sellbreach of contractreadiness and willingnesscapital gain taxcivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of contract, possession, and permanent injunction concerning a plot of land based on an agreement to sell executed by the defendant. The core legal question revolved around whether the plaintiffs committed a breach of contract by failing to have the sale deed prepared and registered within the stipulated time, or whether the defendant defaulted by failing to obtain the requisite Capital Gain Tax Certificate and unlawfully repudiating the agreement. The court held that the defendant committed the breach of contract by falsely denying the agreement, failing to fulfill his legal obligations to clear taxes, and withholding performance, while the plaintiffs remained ready and willing to perform their part. The court established the principle that where a vendor fails to take preliminary steps required under an agreement—such as obtaining tax clearances—and dishonestly repudiates the contract, the purchaser cannot be held in default, and specific performance of the contract should be granted as a matter of judicious discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether specific performance of a contract can be granted when the vendor fails to obtain the necessary tax clearance certificates as stipulated?
  • Does the failure of a defendant to appear as a witness in a civil suit weaken their defense regarding an alleged breach of contract?
  • Whether a purchaser can be held in default for failing to present a sale deed for registration when the vendor has already repudiated the agreement?
  • How is the court's discretion exercised in suits for specific performance of immovable property contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mumtaz Begum and 8 others vs Shakil Hyder and 12 others1997 P Cr. L J 776 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-01
  inherent powersSection 561-A Cr.P.C.recall of ordercondemned unhearddismissal for defaultfinality of judgmentcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to recall a previous order of the High Court that dismissed their main application in their absence. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to review or recall a judgment where the party was effectively denied an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that while the general principle of finality attaches to criminal judgments under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, this does not preclude the Court from exercising its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rectify orders passed without jurisdiction or without providing an effective opportunity of hearing. The Court concluded that the petitioners were not afforded a fair chance to present their case due to their counsel's unavoidable absence. Consequently, the Court recalled the previous dismissal order to ensure substantial justice. The principle laid down is that the High Court may invoke its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process and secure the ends of justice in rare cases where a party was condemned unheard.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the inherent power under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall an order dismissing a case for default?
  • Does the bar under Section 369, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevent the High Court from reviewing an order passed without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers to rectify an order passed without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory provisions of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahjabeen vs Muhammad Imtiaz Ali1997 MLD 3237 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khatija Begum vs Muhammad Hanif1997 MLD 2783 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajiani Khatija Bai And 9 Others vs Karachi Building Control1997 MLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan vs Ameer Ali and others1997 PLD Karachi 292 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-03
  rejection of plaintagreement to sellcompulsory registrationcause of actionlimitation perioddeclaration of titlespecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arose from an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. filed by defendants Nos. 3 to 10 seeking the rejection of the plaintiff's plaint in a suit for declaration, possession, mesne profits, and damages. The core legal question concerned whether an un-registered agreement to sell confers ownership or a valid cause of action for a declaration of title after a lapse of many years, and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The court held that an agreement to sell immovable property worth Rs. 100 or upwards requires compulsory registration under the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act, and does not pass title or furnish a cause of action for a declaration of ownership after the expiry of the statutory period for specific performance. Furthermore, the court held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, and that Section 3 of the Limitation Act imposes a mandatory duty upon courts to dismiss time-barred suits regardless of whether the defense is pleaded. The key principle laid down is that an agreement to sell does not convey title, and plaints disclosing no cause of action or barred by limitation must be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unregistered agreement to sell immovable property confer ownership rights or title upon the vendee?
  • Whether a suit for declaration of title filed sixteen years after an agreement to sell discloses a valid cause of action?
  • Is it mandatory for the court to dismiss a suit barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act even if the defense of limitation is not specifically pleaded?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for a negative declaration and possession without possessing a valid right, title, or interest in the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bai And 7 Others vs Karachi Industrial Scrape Co. And Another1997 MLD 2268 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhat Nasreen vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 others1997 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-16
  constitutional petitionalternate remedyfamily courtsexecution of decreesalary attachmentrestitution of conjugal rightscitation of headnotes
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed against an order passed by a Family Court in execution proceedings which directed the attachment of one-fourth of the petitioner's salary for failing to join her husband in compliance with a restitution of conjugal rights decree. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable under Article 199 against an order of the Family Court when an alternate, efficacious remedy by way of an appeal is provided under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and whether reliance on headnotes of reported judgments instead of the actual text is appropriate. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy of appeal under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass such alternate remedies in the absence of any glaring or manifest illegality. The court also laid down that headnotes of law reports are prepared by editors for convenience and do not constitute part of judicial precedents, admonishing counsel against citing cases solely through headnotes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 is maintainable against an order of the Family Court when an appeal is available under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  • Can the headnotes of a reported judgment be cited as binding judicial precedent instead of the actual text of the judgment?
  • Whether a Family Court can order the attachment of a wife's salary during execution proceedings for failing to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asma Begum and 10 others vs The Commissioner, Karachi Division, Karachi and 4 others1997 PLD Karachi 13 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-16
  land acquisitionurgency provisionsconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsright to propertycompulsory acquisitionmarket valuenotice requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two successive constitutional petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated for laying an oil pipeline for the Hub River Power Complex. The core legal questions involve whether the mandatory requirements of section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were fulfilled, whether the urgency provisions under section 17(4) were properly invoked to dispense with section 5-A hearings, and whether the authorities could validly withdraw initial proceedings and issue a fresh set of notifications. The Sindh High Court held that while the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory and its absence vitiates proceedings, the accompanying requirement of serving notice of its substance is of an enabling character, and non-compliance merely precludes entry under section 4(2) rather than invalidating the entire acquisition. The Court further held that a faulty acquisition notification can be withdrawn and fresh proceedings initiated de novo, and that unauthorized entry and unlawful acts on private land entitle the aggrieved owners to damages. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, dismissing the first as infructuous and upholding the second set of notifications while awarding costs and compensation for illegal incursions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to serve a notice of the substance of a section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings?
  • Can the Government withdraw an earlier defective land acquisition notification and commence fresh proceedings de novo?
  • Whether the invocation of urgency powers under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act to dispense with section 5-A inquiries is open to judicial review?
  • Are petitioners entitled to damages and compensation for unauthorized entry and unlawful acts committed on their land during abortive acquisition proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ameena Begum vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. And Another1997 MLD 2842 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mst, Gulzaran vs Amir Bakhsh and 6 others1997 PLD Karachi 309 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
• MS. Atiqa Odho vs R.Lintas (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1997 PLD Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-22
  interim injunctionmodeling agreementcontract interpretationlivelihoodpropertyspecific reliefinjurious falsehood
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit filed by a leading model seeking a permanent injunction to restrain an advertising agency and a manufacturer from using her photographs and video images for advertising 'Lux Toilet Soap' after the expiry of an exclusive modeling agreement, along with a claim for royalty. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the contract's termination and property clauses—specifically whether the defendants acquired a perpetual right to use the model's images after the agreement's termination or if such use ceased upon termination, and whether the model was entitled to an interim injunction under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Sindh High Court held that while physical advertising materials produced during the contract belonged to the defendants, the right to exploit the model's personality and photographs expired upon termination, and contracts affecting one's livelihood must be interpreted cautiously in favor of the party whose livelihood is at stake. The court laid down that a model's photographs and TV images constitute property under the Specific Relief Act, and interim injunctions should be granted to protect a professional's livelihood from unauthorized continued commercial exploitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an advertiser can continue to use a model's photographs and TV images for commercial purposes after the expiry or termination of an exclusive modeling agreement?
  • Does the term 'property' under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 encompass a model's personality, photographs, and TV images?
  • How should contracts involving the livelihood of a party, such as a professional model, be interpreted in interlocutory proceedings?
  • What are the essential elements required to establish a case of injurious falsehood in respect of false advertising statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zahra Zaidi vs Major Iftikhar Ahmad Khan And Another1997 MLD 702 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Ghanwa Bhutto and anothers vs Government of Sindh and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 119 · Sindh High Court
  registration of FIRsecond FIRcross-versionconstitutional petitionmandamuscognizable offenceadequate alternate remedyprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (SHO), Clifton Police Station, Karachi, to register an FIR regarding the killing of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and Ashique Hussain Jatoi. Two FIRs regarding the incident had already been registered—one by an SHO alleging a police encounter and another based on a statement of an employee in police custody. The main legal questions were whether a subsequent/third FIR could be registered when prior FIRs existed for the same transaction, and whether the availability of an alternate remedy via a private complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 barred relief. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that there is no absolute bar against recording a subsequent FIR if the earlier reports do not reflect the true facts or if a distinct, genuine version disclosing a cognizable offence is presented. The Court directed the SHO to register the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Whether there is an absolute bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against registering a subsequent or counter FIR when an FIR in respect of the same occurrence has already been registered?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court, in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, direct the police to record a second or subsequent FIR?
  • Whether the availability of an alternate remedy by way of a private complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operates as an absolute bar to granting a writ directing the registration of an FIR under Section 154?
  Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux vs Shadan and others1997 P Cr. L J 1573 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30
  bail cancellationpost-arrest bailrule of consistencyplea of alibimisuse of bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the complainant seeking to set aside an order granting bail to accused Kabil and an order refusing to cancel bail granted to accused Akbar and Shadan in a murder case registered under Crime No. 5 of 1994. The core legal question involved whether bail granted on merits should be cancelled without proof of misuse of concession, and whether the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused's plea of alibi creates a dent in the prosecution case. The Sindh High Court held that bail once granted on merits cannot be cancelled merely on a different view of the material unless the accused has misused the concession of bail or tampered with evidence. The Court further laid down the principle that a well-reasoned bail granted to a co-accused based on a plea of alibi casting doubt on the prosecution case can serve as a ground for consistency, and cancellation of bail requires strong and exceptional grounds such as misuse of liberty.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail once granted on merits be cancelled without proof of misuse of the concession of bail?
  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when evaluating bail or its cancellation in criminal cases involving multiple co-accused?
  • Does a plea of alibi accepted for one co-accused cast doubt on the prosecution case regarding other co-accused for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mitho Khan vs Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh, Hyderabad and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-24
  duplicate grantrevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingscolonization of government landsqabooli landvoid grantcultivating possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh, whereby he interfered with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Colonization Officer and the Additional Commissioner, and restored a duplicate grant of agricultural land in favor of the private respondent. The core legal question was whether the revisional authority lawfully disturbed the concurrent findings of fact and upheld a subsequent duplicate land grant issued years after the original grantee had fully paid installments and acquired ownership rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The Sindh High Court held that once the original grant was fully paid up and assumed the status of Qabooli land, the land grant authorities became functus officio, rendering any subsequent grant over the same land void ab initio. The Court ruled that a revisional authority cannot arbitrarily upset concurrent findings of fact without proper inquiry or fresh evidence. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the orders favoring the original grantee were restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revisional authority can lawfully interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower revenue forums without holding an independent inquiry?
  • Does an allottee acquire absolute ownership rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 upon full payment of grant installments?
  • Can land grant authorities legally allot a piece of land to a second party when it is already in the lawful cultivating possession of a prior grantee who has paid all dues?
  • Whether the period of limitation applies to challenge an order of land grant that is void ab initio and constitutes a fraud on the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Sajida Kishwar vs Authority under the Payment and Wages Act1997 PLC (C.S.) 533 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Miss Naheed Khan vs Government of Pakistan and others1997 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-29
  Exit Control Listright to travel abroadpersonal libertypublic interestconstitutional petitionEhtesab processfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order passed under Section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance 1981 placing her name on the Exit Control List (ECL) and preventing her from travelling abroad, alleging a violation of Articles 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The respondents contended that her name was placed on the ECL in the public interest, as criminal and corruption proceedings under Sections 409, 420, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and references before the Ehtesab Bench were pending and contemplated against her. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under the Constitution, it can be restricted by law in the public interest. The Court held that despite the initial failure to communicate written grounds to the petitioner, the reasons subsequently disclosed in the counter-affidavit demonstrated a reasonable nexus with public interest, and no prejudice was caused.

  Questions settled

  • Does personal liberty guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include the right to travel abroad?
  • Can a citizen's right to leave the country be restricted under Section 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance 1981 in the public interest?
  • Is an order placing a person on the Exit Control List liable to be struck down solely because written grounds were not initially supplied, if reasonable grounds in the public interest are later furnished by the Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Rafique Baig And Others vs The State1997 MLD 2519 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-10Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Muqim Baig vs Muhammad Umar And 5 Other1997 MLD 916 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mir Zaman Khan vs Chand Jamia Masjid Committee Trust Through Chairman1997 MLD 863 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
• Michael Masih vs The State1997 MLD 3138 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mian Khurshid Ahmad vs Muhammad Azeem And 2 Other1997 MLD 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mian Farhan Rauf vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1219 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• Mian Ejaz Shafi and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others1997 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-06
  customs dutyservice chargepith and substancelegislative competenceconstitutional validitypre-shipment inspectiontax vs feeequal protection
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the validity of Section 18-B of the Customs Act, 1969, which authorized the Federal Government to levy a two percent service charge on imported goods subject to pre-shipment inspection. The petitioners contended that the levy was a fee lacking the necessary quid pro quo, and thus outside the Federal Legislature's competence. The respondents argued it was an additional customs duty, falling under Entry 43 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution. The Court held that the impugned levy, despite being labeled a service charge, was in pith and substance a customs duty. Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the Court determined that the nomenclature used by the legislature does not alter the true character of the legislation. Since the levy was imposed on the import of goods, it fell within the Federal Legislature's competence to impose customs duties. The Court further affirmed that reasonable classification for taxation purposes does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the validity of the legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a levy be classified as a customs duty even if the statute labels it a service charge?
  • Does the doctrine of pith and substance allow a court to look beyond the nomenclature of a legislative provision to determine its true character?
  • Is the levy of a service charge on imported goods subject to pre-shipment inspection within the legislative competence of the Federal Legislature?
  • Does the classification of goods for the purpose of levying a specific charge violate the constitutional right to equal protection?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Bashir Ahmed vs The Government of Sindh Through Chief1997 MLD 1847 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-12
  lease cancellationpoultry farming leasebona fide purchaserBoard of Revenuevested rightstransfer of leaseColonization of Government Lands Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Member, Land Utilization, Board of Revenue, Sindh, whereby a lease of land originally granted for poultry farming was cancelled. The core legal questions involved the legality of cancelling a lease granted under specific government notifications and transferred to a bona fide purchaser, based on alleged irregularities by predecessors and misinterpretation of lease conditions. The Sindh High Court held that the Member's order was based on misstatements of fact, incomplete records, and a perverse interpretation of lease conditions, noting that the original lessee's valid transfer rights were legally protected and that subsequent expansion of municipal limits does not invalidate an otherwise lawful prior lease. The court laid down that a bona fide transferee for value cannot have their lease cancelled for omissions or irregularities committed years prior by authorities or predecessors, provided the transferee themselves committed no breach of the lease conditions, and that restrictions regarding municipal limits apply strictly at the time of the initial grant rather than subsequent developments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a leasehold right can be cancelled due to alleged irregularities committed by the authorities or a predecessor-in-interest long after the transfer to a bona fide purchaser?
  • Does a condition prohibiting the grant of a lease within municipal or development authority limits apply retrospectively when the area is subsequently engulfed by urban expansion?
  • Can the exercise of a statutory right to transfer a lease by a lessee be construed as a disqualification or lack of interest in the leased purpose?
  • Whether a revisional authority can cancel a lease based on misstatements of fact and an incomplete record without attributing any breach of conditions to the current holder?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Vaseem Construction Company Through Managing Attorney1997 MLD 418 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Distributors Pakistan Limited vs Ahmad Zarie Services1997 MLD 1835 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-11
  summary suitleave to defendterritorial jurisdictionnegotiable instrumentpromissory notecommercial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arose from a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by a pesticide distribution company against its dealer for the recovery of an outstanding balance, based on business transactions, a post-dated cheque, and a promissory note. The core legal questions involved whether a defendant can challenge the territorial jurisdiction of the court through an interlocutory application before obtaining leave to defend in a summary suit, and whether a summary suit can be maintained on the basis of a negotiable instrument arising from broader business transactions. The Court held that until leave to defend is granted, a defendant cannot file interlocutory applications to agitate jurisdiction or challenge the validity of negotiable instruments, and that a plaintiff is legally entitled to sue under summary procedure on the strength of a promissory note or cheque despite underlying business transactions. The key principles laid down are that summary suits under Order XXXVII require obtaining leave to defend within the stipulated limitation period before raising defenses, and that jurisdiction is determined by accepting the contents of the plaint as correct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant in a summary suit file an interlocutory application to challenge territorial jurisdiction before obtaining leave to defend?
  • Whether a summary suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be maintained on the basis of a negotiable instrument when the claim arises from broader business transactions?
  • Is a defendant in a summary suit entitled to appear and defend as a matter of course without obtaining leave from the Court?
  • How is territorial jurisdiction determined when considering an application to return a plaint in a summary suit?
  Read full judgment →