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.

• Habib Khan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1854 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. (Foreign Exchange Branch) vs Dost Muhammad1997 PLD Karachi 331 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-18
  leave to defendbanking recoveryguarantor liabilitymortgage enforcementsummary suitconditional leavelimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 260,546,345.69 and the sale of mortgaged properties against the defendant company and its directors/guarantors. The defendants sought unconditional leave to defend the suit, alleging that the claims were time-barred, promissory notes were without consideration, and guarantees were invalid due to management changes. The court examined whether the defendants raised substantial questions of fact or law warranting unconditional leave. Applying the principle established in Fine Textile Mills Ltd. v. Haji Umar, the court held that while a defendant is entitled to leave to defend if they disclose a plausible defense, the court retains discretion to impose conditions, such as furnishing security, if the defense appears vague or unsatisfactory. Finding the defendants' arguments regarding the invalidity of guarantees and time-bar insufficient to warrant unconditional leave, the court granted conditional leave to defend, provided the defendants deposited the entire claimed amount as security with the Nazir of the Court within sixty days. The judgment reaffirmed that a guarantor's personal liability remains binding despite resignation from the company's board.

  Questions settled

  • Does a guarantor's resignation from the board of directors absolve them of personal liability under a continuing guarantee?
  • Under what circumstances can a court grant conditional leave to defend a summary suit instead of unconditional leave?
  • Is a suit for recovery barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a winding-up petition against the principal debtor is pending?
  • Does the service of summons via publication, registered post, and bailiff constitute valid service under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Muhammad Raza1997 MLD 833 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentimpairment of utility and valuerent controllermode of payment of rentleased premiseslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two cross-appeals arising from an order of the Rent Controller, Karachi South, which allowed an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant, Habib Bank Limited, on the ground that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the demised premises, while ruling against the landlord on the issue of default in rent payment. The core legal questions pertained to whether the tenant had materially impaired the value and utility of the property and whether the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the building's value and utility were impaired or that its conditions were infringed. However, the Court held that the tenant committed a clear default in the payment of rent for the months of March, April, and May, 1987, as the alleged tender of rent through internal bank pay-slips into a closed account did not constitute a valid mode of payment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the High Court set aside the finding on the issue of impairment, reversed the negative finding on default, and upheld the ejectment order on the ground of default.

  Questions settled

  • Whether internal bank pay-slips constitute a valid legal tender or mode of payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a landlord's appeal against adverse findings on specific issues remain maintainable when the ultimate order of ejectment has already been granted in their favor?
  • What constitutes sufficient evidence to prove that a tenant has impaired the material value and utility of demised premises?
  • Whether failure to tender rent within the statutory period due to a closed bank account amounts to a wilful default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Ghulam Rasool And Another1997 MLD 820 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
• Gulab vs Mst. Zarina And Another1997 MLD 693 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-11Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs Mst. Fahmida1997 MLD 691 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-22Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan And Another vs Karachi Transport Corporation Through Managing Director, Karachi And Another1997 MLD 858 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh and others vs Suresh1997 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh And 2 Others vs Haji Abdul Rehman And 14 Other1997 MLD 2847 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Rawat and 3 others1997 PLD Karachi 622 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-13
  pecuniary jurisdictionsecond appealcivil revisionappellate jurisdictionvoid orderconversion of appealvaluation of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed a second appeal against an appellate court judgment, which the respondent challenged on the grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction, asserting the suit value exceeded the appellate court's authority. The core legal question was whether an appellate court's judgment is valid when it lacks pecuniary jurisdiction, and whether an incompetent second appeal can be converted into a civil revision. The Court held that an order passed by a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be validated by the parties' consent. Consequently, the Court exercised its judicial discretion to convert the incompetent second appeal into a civil revision. It set aside the impugned appellate judgment and directed the return of the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the court of competent jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that while parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court lacking it, the High Court possesses the discretion to convert a non-maintainable second appeal into a civil revision to prevent a failure of justice, provided the legal requirements for revision are met.

  Questions settled

  • Can parties confer pecuniary jurisdiction upon a court by consent?
  • Is a judgment passed by an appellate court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction a nullity?
  • Does the High Court have the discretion to convert an incompetent second appeal into a civil revision?
  • Is the forum of appeal determined by the value of the original suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ayoob vs The State-1997 P Cr. L J 771 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 286 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad alias Guloo and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2013 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs The State and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1782 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-25
  quashment of proceedingsjudicial confessionco-accused confessioncorroborationabuse of processends of justiceProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Orderheroin recoverypre-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, sought the quashment of a criminal case against the applicant, an Assistant Excise Officer, who was implicated in a heroin recovery case based solely on the judicial confessions of co-accused. The applicant was shown as an absconder in the challan, later obtained pre-arrest bail, and his application under Section 265-K was rejected. The core legal question was whether a criminal case could proceed against an accused when the only evidence was the uncorroborated judicial confessions of co-accused, especially when police witnesses' statements contradicted these confessions. The High Court, noting the lack of independent corroborative evidence and the State Counsel's concession, held that such confessions are merely circumstantial evidence (Qarinah) and cannot form the sole basis for conviction under Islamic Jurisprudence and the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Allowing a case to continue when conviction is impossible constitutes an abuse of the court's process and does not secure the ends of justice. Consequently, the proceedings against the applicant were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal case be quashed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, if the available evidence cannot possibly lead to a conviction?
  • Can the uncorroborated judicial confession of a co-accused be the sole basis for conviction against another accused?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a co-accused's confession against another co-accused under Islamic Jurisprudence and the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984?
  • Does allowing a prosecution to continue when conviction is certain to fail constitute an abuse of the court's process?
  • Is it necessary to find independent corroborative evidence against an accused when the only evidence is the judicial confession of a co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Soomro vs The State1997 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 5 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 3 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hamid Munshi vs Haji Siddiq And 2 Other1997 MLD 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1477 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar vs Deputy Commissioner, Dadu and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 355 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Messrs Apex International and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 403 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Khan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 944 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• Fouzia Begum vs Karachi Transport Corporation And Another1997 MLD 2787 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Hanif vs Mohsin Ali1997 MLD 2754 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-21Read full judgment →
• Fazalur Rehman Through Legal Heirs And Others vs Mst. Batul And Other1997 MLD 880 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Fathoo Alias Fateh Muhammad vs The State1997 MLD 1449 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-12Read full judgment →
• Fateh Ali And Another vs The State1997 MLD 2235 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-07Read full judgment →
• Farhan Iqbal vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1860 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-06Read full judgment →
• Faiz and Sons vs Hakimsons (Impex) Private Ltd.1997 PLD Karachi 238 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
• Engineering Products (Pvt.) Ltd. vs S.I.T.E1997 PLD Karachi 258 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ehtesham Yousuf vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1615 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rana Zulfiqar Ali vs Mst. Aisha Abdullah1997 PLD Karachi 242 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Qazi Khurshid Ahmed vs National Council for Homoeopathy And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 294 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Farooq vs Karachi Building Control Authority (K.M.C.)1997 MLD 2777 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Lateef Siddiqui vs State Petroleum Refining and ,Petro Chemical1997 PLC (C. S.) 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Arsalan Subugutgeen vs The State1997 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aijaz Ali vs Mst. Gul Rashida And Another1997 MLD 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-23
  maintenanceex parte decreelachesfamily court jurisdictionconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionpre-trial proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Family Court and the District Judge, Jacobabad, which awarded maintenance to the respondent wife and child. The petitioner, the husband, contended that the trial court failed to conduct mandatory pre-trial and post-trial proceedings, that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and that the appellate court erred in dismissing his appeal against an interlocutory order. The High Court held that pre-trial and post-trial proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, are triggered only after the filing of a written statement; where a defendant fails to appear or file a written statement, the court is empowered to proceed ex parte. The Court further affirmed that a wife is entitled to maintenance if she is willing to reside with her husband, and the husband's refusal to maintain her despite her willingness creates a legal obligation. Finally, the Court dismissed the petition on grounds of laches, noting the significant, unexplained delay in filing, and held that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be invoked to challenge valid concurrent findings of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Are pre-trial and post-trial proceedings under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 mandatory when a defendant fails to file a written statement?
  • Does a Family Court have the authority to proceed ex parte if a defendant fails to appear to file a written statement?
  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if filed after an unexplained significant delay?
  • Is a husband legally obligated to provide maintenance to his wife if she is willing to reside with him but he refuses to allow her to do so?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways vs Sindh Labour1997 PLC 650 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs The State1997 MLD 2658 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-29Read full judgment →
• Dhani Bux vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 464 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-13Read full judgment →
• Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Marks1997 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-03Read full judgment →
• Dada Steel Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs M.v I. Van And 2 Other1997 MLD 866 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-01Read full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Messrs1997 MLD 2554 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed vs Muhammad Akbar Samoon and 6 others1997 PLD Karachi 262 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Faiz Muhammad vs Mst. Farida Razi1997 MLD 2413 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-15Read full judgment →
• Brig. (Retd.) Aslam Hayat Qureshi vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1814 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Khan vs Kamaluddin and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1745 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-07Read full judgment →
• Begum Bushra Hyder vs Raja Ghulam Hyder and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-07Read full judgment →
• Bassar vs Mst. Hawa and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 325 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-06Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Bhatti and another vs Gulzar Ahmad and 11 others1997 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-11Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs General Manager, Coordination And Others1997 PLC 246 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-11
  workmanretrenchmentstore officersupervisory dutieslabor appellate tribunalconstitutional petitionstanding orders ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected constitutional petitions challenging orders of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside decisions of the Labour Court in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner, initially a junior clerk and storekeeper, was promoted to Store Officer and subsequently had his services terminated due to the abolition of his post. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labor legislation and whether the procedure for retrenchment under Standing Order 13 applied to him. The court held that the petitioner, whose primary duties were supervisory—managing helpers and clerks—and who served as the General Secretary of the Officers' Association, was not a 'workman' but a supervisory employee, thereby excluding him from the protection of the standing orders regarding retrenchment. Consequently, the constitutional petitions were dismissed, establishing that the nature of duties and supervisory control determine whether an employee falls outside the definition of a workman.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee promoted as a Store Officer supervising helpers and clerks qualifies as a workman under the Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does holding the position of General Secretary in an Officers' Association negate an employee's status as a workman?
  • Can the procedure for retrenchment under Standing Order 13 of the Ordinance be invoked by an employee who is not classified as a workman?
  • What is the primary test for determining whether an employee is a workman or employed in a supervisory capacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Isani vs The State Opponent1997 MLD 253 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Bakhshal Shah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-21Read full judgment →
• Bahauddin Sirhandi vs Mst. Tanvir Amna1997 MLD 1826 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Badruddin And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• B.S. Magnetic (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Sindh Labour Court No. 51997 PLC 556 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• B.S. Magnetic (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Shahenshah Hussain For Petitioner1997 PLC 556 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Baig Mirza vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Through Administrator And 2 Other1997 MLD 2031 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Atiqur Rehman vs Muhammad Abdul Rehman1997 PLD Karachi 161 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Khoja vs Government of Sindh1997 PLC (C.S.) 776 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-04
  service matterjurisdiction of civil courtArticle 212show-cause noticemala fidesterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalconstitutional ouster
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra-Court Appeal challenged an order rejecting a civil suit filed by a civil servant against a show-cause notice regarding the recall of his promotion. The core legal question was whether a civil servant could invoke the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to challenge an interlocutory departmental action (a show-cause notice) by alleging mala fides, despite the constitutional bar on jurisdiction regarding service matters. The Court held that the suit was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It affirmed that matters concerning terms and conditions of service, including interlocutory steps like show-cause notices, must be agitated before the relevant Service Tribunal upon the passing of a final order. The Court emphasized that the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 is absolute and cannot be bypassed by alleging mala fides without specific, substantial pleadings. The principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot circumvent the statutory appellate process by invoking the Civil Court's jurisdiction at an intermediate stage, as such actions must eventually merge into a final, appealable order before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant challenge an interlocutory show-cause notice in a Civil Court before a final departmental order is passed?
  • Does the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in service matters even when mala fides are alleged?
  • Is a show-cause notice regarding service terms and conditions considered a final order appealable before a Service Tribunal?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the Service Tribunal by claiming a violation of Fundamental Rights in a service-related dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ali vs The State1997 MLD 2717 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Aqil Badshah vs Mayor, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation And Another1997 MLD 3229 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-02Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ul Rehman And Others vs Modaraba Almali1997 MLD 3132 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-21Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1999 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• Anisul Rehman and 12 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Karachi and 5 others1997 PLC (C.S.) 577 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
• Anisul Rehman And 12 Other vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Excise And Taxation, Karachi And 5 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 577 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-02Read full judgment →
• Anis Ahmed Khan vs The State1997 MLD 2463 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-24Read full judgment →
• Anis Ahmed And 7 Others vs Messrs Habib Bank Limited1997 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
• Anees Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Safia Anees And Other1997 MLD 2257 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-08Read full judgment →
• Amiruz Zaman alias Amiro vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1200 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs The State1947 P Cr. L J 1578 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Province of Sindh And Other1997 MLD 2936 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Amanullah vs Mst. Husna1997 PLD Karachi 306 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs Government of Sindh through Home Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 600 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-11
  constitutional petitionregistration of FIRcognizable offensealternate remedyprivate complaintdiscretionary reliefpolice station
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking directions for the Station House Officer to register a First Information Report based on a written complaint lodged by the petitioner concerning a murder case, despite a previous F.I.R. having already been registered regarding the same transaction at another police station. The core legal questions involved whether a police officer's refusal to record an F.I.R. mandates constitutional intervention, and whether an alternate remedy by way of a private complaint constitutes an adequate and efficacious remedy. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the relief under constitutional jurisdiction is purely discretionary and should ordinarily be declined where an adequate alternate remedy, such as initiating a private complaint, is available. Furthermore, the Court laid down that while a police officer is generally bound to record an F.I.R. disclosing a cognizable offense, the exercise of discretion by the High Court to issue directions for registration depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case, and a private complaint provides an equally adequate mechanism for redress since a complainant can independently lead evidence before the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is bound to issue directions for the registration of an F.I.R. under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when a police officer declines to record it?
  • Does a private complaint provide an equally adequate and efficacious alternate remedy to a petitioner seeking the registration of a criminal case?
  • Whether mandatory requirements of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are fulfilled when a written complaint is sent by a person not present in Pakistan?
  • Does a police officer have the discretion to verify the prima facie correctness of allegations before registering an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Husain and 2 others vs N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology through ViceChancellor and another1997 PLD Karachi 289 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-11
  University StatuteSyndicate jurisdictionService conditionsUltra viresConstitutional petitionStatus quoSenate authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a service dispute between non-teaching staff and the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi. The petitioners challenged a Syndicate Resolution that altered their terms and conditions of service, arguing it bypassed the statutory authority of the Senate. The core legal question was whether the Syndicate possessed the jurisdiction to unilaterally modify service conditions governed by existing University Statutes. The Court held that the Syndicate, as the executive body, is subject to the provisions of the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi Act, 1977, and the Statutes passed by the Senate. It determined that the Syndicate Resolution was ultra vires and ineffective because the power to regulate such service conditions resides exclusively with the Senate, subject to the Chancellor's approval. The Court affirmed that existing Statutes remain binding until validly amended by the competent authority. Consequently, the Court directed the University to maintain the status quo in accordance with the existing Statutes until such time as the Senate lawfully amends them.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Syndicate of the N.E.D. University have the authority to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of service of non-teaching staff?
  • Is the Syndicate of the N.E.D. University bound by the Statutes passed by the Senate?
  • Can a Syndicate Resolution override existing University Statutes without Senate approval and Chancellor's assent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs Ali Muhammad and others1997 P Cr. L J 1897 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz And Others vs The State1997 MLD 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz And 8 Others vs The State1997 MLD 2221 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1725 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad vs Chairman, WAPDA And Other1997 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Province of Sindh And Other1997 MLD 1113 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Hasan vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 767 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 783 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ajmal and another vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Shafi vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1997 PLC 30 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Agha Haq Nawaz Khan vs Government of Sindh And Another1997 PLC (C.S.) 366 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-08Read full judgment →
• Afzal Ali vs Azhar Iqbal1997 MLD 2262 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Additional Commissioner II, K. Division vs Shahid Raza And Other1997 MLD 2444 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-20
  rejection of plaintlegal characterdeclaratory suitevacuee propertypermanent transfer deedlimitationres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil suit filed by a Notified Officer seeking the cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) and a declaration regarding property ownership under the evacuee laws. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff possessed the requisite legal character and right under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 to maintain the suit, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff's jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed, the plaint failed to establish any legal character or right of the plaintiff to maintain the suit, and the declaratory reliefs sought fell outside the scope of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. Consequently, the court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and rejected the plaint, laying down that a plaintiff instituting a suit for a declaratory decree must affirmatively show the existence of a status or legal character conferred by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Notified Officer appointed under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 possess the legal character or right to maintain a suit for the declaration and cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed regarding undisposed properties?
  • Whether a court is obliged to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where the plaintiff lacks the necessary legal character or right to seek a declaratory decree under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Does the principle of res judicata bar subsequent proceedings when the plaintiff was not a party to the prior litigation involving the same subject matter?
  • Can a suit alleging fraud be dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 without establishing that the impugned act or order was validly passed?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Limited vs Messrs Mitsui & Co.1997 MLD 2712 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-29Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmed Khan vs The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1997 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 910 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-02Read full judgment →
• Abdullah & Company vs The Banking Tribunalii, Sindh And 2 Other1997 MLD 2738 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali Khan And Others vs Muhammad Saleh1997 MLD 2835 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid alias Adilio and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1593 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahad Juenjo vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1808 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-08
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayhardened criminaltrial delayHudood Ordinancebail as of right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Abdul Wahab, who was charged with an offence under the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following a bank robbery. The accused had been in custody since his arrest on July 11, 1994. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial, despite the trial court's refusal based on the applicant's alleged status as a hardened criminal. The High Court held that the delay in the trial was not attributable to any act or omission by the accused or his representative, a fact conceded by the prosecution. The Court affirmed the principle that the mere pendency of other cases does not disentitle an accused to bail unless they have been judicially established as a hardened criminal. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, holding that statutory delay in trial, when not caused by the accused, entitles the applicant to bail as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere involvement of an accused in multiple criminal cases automatically disentitle them to the grant of bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of statutory delay if the delay in the conclusion of the trial is not attributable to the accused or their representative?
  • Can a court refuse bail based on the characterization of an accused as a hardened criminal without a prior judicial determination to that effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs State1997 MLD 3274 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →