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.

• Abdul Razzak vs The Federation of Pakistan And Other1997 MLD 3283 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim and 2 others vs Messrs United Bank Ltd. of Pakistan1997 PLD Karachi 62 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-02
  Banking Tribunals Ordinancepre-condition of depositdirectory provisionframing of issuesinterest-based financeundue influenceunconscionable contractsinstitution of suit by companyremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Sindh High Court arose from multiple first appeals filed under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 against decrees passed by the Banking Tribunal, Hyderabad, without framing issues, recording evidence, or considering the appellants' written statements. The High Court considered whether pre-conditions of deposit under Section 9(1) and Section 6(6) of the 1984 Ordinance were mandatory, whether the Tribunal was required to follow the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding issues and evidence, and the legal standards governing interest-based finances, unconscionable contracts, and corporate authorization to sue. The Court held that the pre-deposit requirement in Section 9(1) and the security requirement under Section 6(6) are directory, saving the right of appeal. The Tribunal is bound under Section 5 to follow Code of Civil Procedure 1908 procedures by framing issues and recording evidence. The Court set aside the impugned decrees and remanded the suits for fresh adjudication in accordance with the prescribed legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the pre-condition of depositing the decretal amount under the first proviso to Section 9(1) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 is mandatory or directory?
  • Can a Banking Tribunal decree a suit solely for a customer's failure to furnish a bank guarantee or deposit cash under Section 6(6) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984?
  • Is a Banking Tribunal obligated to frame issues and record evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the claim in a suit is disputed?
  • Does the Banking Tribunal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 have jurisdiction to entertain claims based on interest or Riba?
  • When a company institutes a suit, how must the authority and competence of the person filing the plaint be established in light of its articles of association?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qavi Siddiqui vs District Judge, Hyderabad And 2 Other1997 MLD 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs S.K. Abbas Hussain and 2 others1997 PLD Karachi 566 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-04
  damages in tortpersonal injuryroad accidentvicarious liabilitygeneral damagesspecial damagesnegligenceex parte decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an ex parte civil suit for the recovery of general and special damages amounting to Rs. 5 million, instituted by the plaintiff for serious injuries sustained in a road accident on Karsaz Road, Karachi, caused by the rash and negligent driving of a car driven by defendant No. 2 and owned by defendant No. 1. The core legal questions for determination were whether the plaintiff suffered permanent disability and pain from the accident, and whether he was entitled to special and general damages, and whether the car owner could be held vicariously liable merely on the basis of friendship and vehicle ownership. The Sindh High Court held that while the driver (defendant No. 2) was directly liable in tort for his negligence causing severe fractures, pain, and suffering, defendant No. 1 could not be held vicariously liable merely as a personal friend and registered owner without an established master-servant or principal-agent relationship. The court decreed general damages of Rs. 500,000 and out-of-pocket special damages of Rs. 3,550 against defendant No. 2, dismissing the suit against defendant No. 1. The key principle laid down is that under common law tort, a defendant is liable for personal injuries resulting from a breach of the duty of care, but vicarious liability requires a proven agency or employment relationship rather than mere vehicle ownership or friendship.

  Questions settled

  • Is a vehicle owner vicariously liable for an accident caused by a friend driving the car without a master-servant or principal-agent relationship?
  • Whether an injured plaintiff in a road accident is entitled to general damages for pain, suffering, mental shock, and loss of amenities under common law tort?
  • Can a plaintiff claim special damages for medical expenses that were settled and paid by their employer rather than out of their own pocket?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer Mansoori vs Mst Naseema Bano And Another1997 MLD 3244 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Qureshi vs National Bank of Pakistan1997 PLC (C.S.) 671 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Qureshi vs National Bank of Pakistan Through President1997 PLC (C.S) 671 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Lateef and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Ali Raza And Another1997 MLD 3098 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Sharafat Khan1997 MLD 2813 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed/ vs Suhrab through Legal Heirs1997 PLD Karachi 589 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-08
  specific performancerevisional jurisdictionburden of proofexecution of documentappreciation of evidencecivil revisionthumb impression
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which dismissed the applicant's suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their appreciation of evidence regarding the execution of the disputed sale deed. The High Court held that the revision application was devoid of merit, affirming the lower courts' findings. The court emphasized that the applicant failed to prove the execution of the agreement, as he did not examine the scribe, the Notary Public, the stamp vendor, or a handwriting expert, and failed to seek a forensic comparison of the disputed thumb impression. The court established that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, revisional jurisdiction is restricted to correcting jurisdictional errors or material irregularities and does not extend to re-evaluating factual findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. Consequently, the court maintained the dismissal of the suit, finding no legal infirmity in the lower courts' reasoning.

  Questions settled

  • What are the permissible modes of proving the execution of a document in civil proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a party entitled to specific performance of a contract if they fail to examine the scribe, notary, or stamp vendor of the disputed agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Mehmood And 3 Other1997 MLD 845 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1997 MLD 1723 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Messrs Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.). Ltd. Through Its Managing1997 MLD 952 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Aamil Moin Farooqui vs Mst. Aasia Khalid And Another1997 MLD 3248 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-25Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar vs The State1996 MLD 916 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Zakir Hussain vs Masood Ahmed Ansari1996 CLC 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
• Zaibtan Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs The Assistant. Commissioner1996 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Zaibtan Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner1996 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad Abro and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1305 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hussain Faridi vs The Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board1996 MLD 1265 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 151 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Yousuf vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 1064 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Plastic Industries vs Eastern Express Co. Ltd.1996 CLC 475 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• Wazir vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 240 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07
  narcotics possessionchemical examiner reportsafe custody of case propertybenefit of doubtpublic place definitionindependent mashircriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the possession of Charas. The core legal questions concerned whether an 'Otaq' constitutes a public place, the necessity of independent witnesses (Mashirs), and the evidentiary impact of an unexplained delay in sending seized narcotics for chemical analysis. The Court held that an 'Otaq' is a private residential space, not a public place, and that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable case. The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The Court laid down the principle that the prosecution must prove the safe custody of seized narcotics; an unexplained, significant delay in submitting samples to the Chemical Examiner, without evidence of safe custody, is fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that police must make genuine efforts to secure independent and respectable Mashirs when conducting searches, and that the doctrine of benefit of doubt must be applied when prosecution evidence is inconsistent or unreliable.

  Questions settled

  • Does an 'Otaq' constitute a public place under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Is an unexplained delay in sending seized narcotics to the Chemical Examiner fatal to the prosecution's case?
  • Are the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to the personal search of an accused?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove the safe custody of seized narcotics during the period between recovery and chemical analysis?
  Read full judgment →
• Waseem Shah vs Juzar Fakhruddin and 6 others1996 CLC 811 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Waheedul Islam and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
• Vasdev and another vs Government of Sindh through Secretary1995 PLC (C.S.) 761 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Usman Punjwani and anothers vs Government of Sindh and anothers1996 CLC 311 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-24
  temporary injunctioncivil court jurisdictioncolonization of government landsprinciples of natural justiceshow-cause noticecancellation of allotmentvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the allotment and possession of an industrial plot measuring 4 acres situated in Karachi West. The core legal questions involved are whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and whether an order cancelling a land allotment passed without a show-cause notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice is sustainable. The court held that the civil court retains jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the impugned executive or revenue order is shown to be without lawful authority, mala fide, or in violation of natural justice, and that orders passed without affording an opportunity of being heard are legally unsustainable. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, and accordingly granted the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession pending the disposal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain a suit against an order passed by revenue authorities?
  • Can an order cancelling a land allotment and lease be lawfully passed without issuing a prior show-cause notice to the affected party?
  • What are the essential requirements for granting a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are orders passed in violation of the principles of natural justice sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Akbar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Universal Medical and General Store through Proprietor Nasir Baig vs Kazi & Sons and another1996 CLC 356 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd vs Shahyar Textile Mills Ltd. and 3 others1996 CLC 106 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31
  leave to defendcontract of guaranteepast considerationwinding upsurety liabilityauthority to sueArticles of Associationbanking law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for leave to defend a suit filed by a bank against a company and its guarantors. The core legal questions involved the competence of the plaint's authorization, the validity of a guarantee covering past consideration, and whether the winding up of the principal debtor or alleged variations in repayment terms discharged the surety. The Court held that the suit was competently filed, as the company's Articles of Association empowered directors to delegate authority to file legal proceedings. Regarding the guarantee, the Court ruled that a guarantee covering both past and future transactions is valid and supported by consideration, provided the creditor continues to deal with the debtor. Furthermore, the Court held that the winding up of a principal debtor does not discharge a surety, nor does it prevent the creditor from pursuing the surety for the debt. No evidence of unauthorized variation of terms or loss of security was found. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was dismissed, and a decree was granted against the defendants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the winding up of a principal debtor company automatically discharge the liability of a surety?
  • Is a guarantee covering both past and future transactions valid under the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can directors of a company delegate the authority to file a suit to an officer if empowered by the Articles of Association?
  • Does a surety have the right to revoke a continuing guarantee for past transactions under Section 130 of the Contract Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd vs Kassim Haji Habib1996 P.C.T.L.R. 97 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• United Bank LIMITEDs vs Consolidated Exports Limited and 3 others1996 MLD 1727 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Shahyar Textile Mills Ltd., And 3 Other(PTCL 1996 CL. 178) · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Hoosain Bhoy Abdoolally Bandukwala Limited, Karachi and 4 others1996 CLC 818 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Consolidated Exports Limited And 2 Othres1996 MLD 1727 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Alameen Textile Mills Limited, and otherss1996 CLC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Ahmed Haji Habib1996 CLC 588 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Umar Bux & 5 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 576 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Hashim and 2 others1996 PLC 95 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs The State1996 MLD 202 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khan1996 MLD 202 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khalid Khan1996 MLD 37 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Hakim Ali and 3 otherss1996 P Cr. L J 231 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-15
  appeal against acquittaltorchlight identificationburden of proofsuppression of terrorist activitiesenmityattempt to commit Qatl-i-Amdhostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the State against the judgment of the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, whereby the respondents were acquitted of charges under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, the reliability of identification in torchlight amidst deep-seated enmity, and the applicability of reverse burden of proof under section 8 of the same Act. The Sindh High Court held that section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, as amended, confers a statutory right on the Provincial Government to file an appeal against an acquittal. However, on merits, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that torchlight identification is a weak piece of evidence, especially in cases of prior enmity, and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court laid down that the reverse burden of proof under section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, applies only when the accused are found in possession of incriminating articles or are apprehended under suspicious circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the State have the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Is identification of an accused person in the flash of a torch considered sufficient for conviction without strong corroborative evidence in cases of previous enmity?
  • When does the reverse burden of proof under section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, apply to an accused?
  • What are the well-settled principles for setting aside an order of acquittal in an appeal filed against acquittal?
  Read full judgment →
• The State Through Special Public Prosecutor vs Khalid KhanK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 107 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-13Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs and another vs Abdul Razzak1996 PLD Karachi 451 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-01
  customs duty assessmentcivil court jurisdictionnatural justicevaluation of goodsdepartmental remediesrevision applicationstatutory authorityimport valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  These revision applications under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged concurrent findings of lower courts that decreed the respondent's suits against the Customs Authorities for illegally enhancing the valuation of imported goods. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain such suits when the respondent had not exhausted departmental remedies under the Customs Act 1969, and whether the authorities acted lawfully in enhancing duty without prior notice. The Court held that the Customs Authorities acted beyond their authority by enhancing the value of goods without conducting a proper inquiry or providing the importer an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that when authorities act in violation of statutory provisions or fundamental principles of natural justice, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted. The judgment establishes that Customs Authorities must associate the importer with any valuation inquiry and provide an opportunity to rebut evidence before enhancing duty, and that the Civil Court retains jurisdiction to review actions taken in excess of statutory authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Civil Court have jurisdiction to challenge customs duty assessments when the Customs Authorities act in violation of statutory provisions or fundamental principles of natural justice?
  • Are Customs Authorities required to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to an importer before enhancing the valuation of imported goods?
  • Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies under the Customs Act 1969 absolutely bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in cases where the authorities acted beyond their scope of authority?
  • Can an amendment to the Customs Act 1969 barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court operate retrospectively to affect pending causes of action?
  Read full judgment →
• The Collector of Customs (Appraisement) Collectorate of Customs, Government of Pakistan Dy. Registrar (Judl) Customsohouse, West Wharf Road, Karachi And Another vs Abdul Razzak1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1072 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tharparkar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division and Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and anothers1996 MLD 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmed vs Mst. Abida Yasmin Butt1996 CLC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-24
  Cantonments Rent Restriction Acttentative rent orderstriking off defencefuture rentarrears of rentlandlord-tenant disputedefault in payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Controller of Rents, which struck off the appellant-tenant's defence for failing to comply with a tentative rent order issued under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The core legal question was whether the tenant's failure to deposit future rent, despite compliance with the arrears portion of the order, justified striking off the defence, and whether the order was legally defective for failing to explicitly calculate the total arrears. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the directions for depositing arrears and future rent are independent. Consequently, even if the arrears portion of the order were deemed defective due to a lack of explicit calculation, the tenant’s failure to deposit future rent constituted a clear default. The court affirmed that a single default in complying with a valid portion of a tentative rent order is sufficient to warrant the penal consequence of striking off the defence. The principle established is that directions for arrears and future rent are distinct, and non-compliance with either justifies eviction proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Are the directions for the deposit of arrears and future rent in a tentative rent order considered independent of each other?
  • Does the failure of a Rent Controller to explicitly calculate the total amount of arrears in a tentative rent order render the entire order illegal?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a rent order if the default pertains only to future rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Talpur Textile Mills Ltd. Through its Manager vs Tando Muhammad Khan1996 PLC 610 · Sindh High Court · -
  Payment of Wages Actconstitutional petitionalternative statutory remedywages definitiongratuitylimitationjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act/Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, whereby the respondent No. 2's application for recovery of house rent, encashment of leave, and gratuity was allowed. The core legal questions involved whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act exists, whether gratuity falls within the definition of 'wages' under the Act, and whether the Authority had jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred claim of a retired employee. The High Court held that failure to exhaust an alternative statutory remedy does not strictly bar the invocation of writ jurisdiction, especially when the subordinate tribunal passes an order in total disregard of the law, such as granting gratuity which is excluded from the definition of wages. The court declared the impugned order of the Authority to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, establishing that gratuity and provident fund are not included in the term wages and cannot be recovered through the forum provided under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when the statutory remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act has not been exhausted?
  • Does gratuity fall within the definition of wages under the Payment of Wages Act so as to be recoverable through the Authority?
  • Can a subordinate tribunal's finding of fact be reviewed in constitutional jurisdiction if it is passed in total disregard of relevant material?
  • Whether a retired person can apply under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act after ceasing to be an employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ahmed alias Soldier vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 331 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Syedah Farah Shah vs Muhammad Sharifuddin And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 313 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Sarfaraz Ali vs Shah Jehan Begum and another1996 CLC 1034 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-20
  rent appealimpleadmentnecessary partyintervenorCode of Civil Proceduremultiplicity of proceedingsfinal orderpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This rent appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be impleaded as a party in an ejectment proceeding. The appellant, claiming ownership and possession of the disputed premises, sought to intervene in an eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord against a tenant. The core legal questions were whether an order rejecting an impleadment application is appealable and whether a person claiming ownership and possession can be impleaded in rent proceedings. The Court held that an order refusing impleadment is a final order regarding the intervenor's status and is therefore appealable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to rent proceedings to the extent of equity and justice. It established that an intervenor claiming possession is a necessary party to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court directed the Rent Controller to frame a preliminary issue regarding the appellant's possession and, if proven, allow impleadment as a co-applicant, given the appellant's claim of ownership.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order of a Rent Controller rejecting an application for impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 appealable?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  • Can a person claiming ownership and possession of a property be impleaded as a party in rent proceedings?
  • Should a Rent Controller frame a preliminary issue regarding the possession of an intervenor seeking to be joined in an eviction case?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mubashar Zawar and 16 others vs Messrs Civil Aviation Authority1996 PLC (C.S.) 528 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehmood Ali vs Rashidullah Samma1996 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Liaquat Ali vs Kazi Syed Muzaffar Hussain and 2 others1996 CLC 1198 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Kamran vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 537 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Jaffer Raza Naqvi vs The State1996 MLD 606 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmadshah vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 394 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Shah vs The State1996 MLD 455 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali vs Mst. Khatija Bai1996 MLD 806 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Sh. Sajjad Hussain and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 2039 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
• Spl.(Mst.) Rose Nyokabi Wacira vs The State1996 P.C.T.L.R. 90 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Spectrum Communications Limited, Karachi vs Mrs. Nasim Bashir1996 CLC 936 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• Soomar and 15 others vs Muhammad Parial and 14 others1996 CLC 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
• Sono vs The State1996 MLD 28 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-20Read full judgment →
• Song vs The State1996 MLD 28 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-20Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad Pathan vs Sindh Public Service Commission and another1996 PLC (C.S.) 1004 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-26
  grace markscompetitive examinationpublic service commissiondiscretionary powercivil service recruitmentmerit listviva voce
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by a candidate who challenged the refusal of the Sindh Public Service Commission to grant him a single grace mark in the written paper of 'Essay in English' for the Combined Competitive Examination, 1993. The petitioner had secured 627 out of 900 total marks and would have ranked fourth in merit but fell one mark short of the passing threshold in that single paper. The core legal question concerned the interpretation of the discretion vested in the Commission under the relevant rules to award grace marks to 'really deserving candidates' and the manner in which such grace marks affect the candidate's position on the merit list. The Court held that the Commission failed to exercise its discretion in accordance with law by arbitrarily withholding a grace mark from a demonstrably meritorious candidate who had achieved an exceptionally high aggregate score. The Court ruled that grace marks are intended to provide a necessary reprieve in borderline cases and must be beneficially construed to advance merit rather than render the enabling rule redundant. Consequently, the petition was allowed, directing the Commission to award the grace mark and permit the petitioner to appear in the viva voce examination, while clarifying the prospective application of rules regarding placement on the final merit list.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sindh Public Service Commission is bound to exercise its discretion to award grace marks to a really deserving candidate who falls short by a single mark in a written paper?
  • How should the statutory provision permitting the grant of grace marks in competitive examinations be construed in light of its legislative history and purpose?
  • Does the award of grace marks entitle a candidate to secure a higher position in the merit list than those successful candidates who did not require grace marks?
  Read full judgment →
• Sobho Gianchandni vs Federation of Pakistan Arid 8 Other1996 MLD 1569 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Sobho Gianchandani vs Federation of Pakistan and 8 others1996 MLD 1569 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd, And Other vs Noorani EnterprisesK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 155 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-09Read full judgment →
• Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. and 3 others vs Noorani1996 CLC 570 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-09
  intra-court appealinterim orderprior noticemandatory versus directorycode of civil procedureprocedural lawsubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal addressed the maintainability of an intra-court appeal directed against an interim order, specifically examining the legal effect and mandatory or directory nature of the requirement of prior notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the failure to effect actual prior service of notice upon the respondent before the presentation of an interlocutory appeal warrants the automatic dismissal of the appeal, or if the provision is directory and capable of substantial compliance. The court held that the requirement of notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 is directory rather than mandatory or absolute, as it employs affirmative language, does not stipulate automatic invalidity upon non-compliance, and is designed to ensure expeditious disposal rather than create procedural stumbling blocks. The key principle laid down is that procedural provisions must be interpreted to advance justice; where notice has been issued and the respondent subsequently appears without suffering prejudice, substantial compliance satisfies the rule, leaving the consequences of any procedural default to the judicious discretion of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is mandatory or directory?
  • Does failure to effect actual prior service of notice before the presentation of an interlocutory appeal warrant the automatic dismissal of the appeal in all circumstances?
  • What constitutes substantial compliance with the notice requirements mandated for appeals preferred against interim orders during the pendency of a suit?
  • Can procedural rules regarding pre-admission notice be utilized as stumbling blocks to defeat the administration of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs Chairman Banking Tribunalii, Karachi and another1996 CLC 75 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali and others vs Muhammad Akhtar and others1996 CLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali and anothers vs Abdul Raheem alias Leemon and another1996 CLC 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-19
  civil revisiondismissal for non-prosecutionfresh suitcause of actionprocedural barrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application arose from the dismissal of a suit challenging the transfer of a municipal shop. The applicants had previously filed a suit regarding the same subject matter, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, they filed a second suit on the same cause of action, which the trial court rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing the bar imposed by Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellate court upheld this rejection. The core legal question was whether a fresh suit is maintainable when a previous suit involving the same parties and cause of action was dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court held that the second suit was clearly barred under Order IX, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the proper remedy for the applicants was to apply for the restoration of the original suit by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance, rather than filing a fresh suit. The revision application was dismissed, affirming that the lower courts correctly applied the procedural bar.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fresh suit maintainable when a previous suit between the same parties on the same cause of action was dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed for non-appearance under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the filing of a second suit on the same cause of action after the dismissal of the first for non-prosecution violate the provisions of Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Akbar vs The State and another1996 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
• Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 202 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin, Mir Jat vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 382 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-13
  post-arrest bailocular and medical evidence conflictfurther inquirymurderexceptions to bail rulecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a conflict arises between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence regarding the number of shots fired. The High Court held that normally the contents of the F.I.R. and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are accepted at face value at the bail stage, but a contradiction between ocular and medical evidence creates scope for further inquiry, bringing the case within an exception justifying the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that whenever reasonable doubt arises regarding the participation of an accused or the probability of the prosecution case, particularly due to medical contradictions, the accused should not be deprived of the benefit of bail, as the damage of incarcerating an innocent person is irreparable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence provides a ground for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • What are the exceptions to the general rule that the contents of an F.I.R. and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 must be accepted at face value at the bail stage?
  • Does a bail application need to be placed before the Principal Seat and the Chief Justice when a previous bail dismissal order was not decided on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ali Qureshi vs Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton1996 PLD Karachi 470 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Shamon Jatoi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 783 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-04
  statutory bailrule of consistencypre-trial detentionhardened criminalstatutory delaybail application
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, charged in a kidnapping case, sought bail on the grounds of statutory delay, having been incarcerated since 1989 without trial commencement. The State opposed the application, characterizing the applicant as a hardened and habitual criminal involved in multiple cases. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, despite allegations of being a habitual offender under the fourth proviso. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that he had been acquitted or granted bail in eight out of ten cases, and his previous conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 did not meet the criteria of an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment required to trigger the fourth proviso. Furthermore, the Court applied the Rule of Consistency, noting that a co-accused with identical evidence had already been granted bail. The Court affirmed that statutory bail is a right, not a discretionary matter, and that six years of pre-trial detention was excessive.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a mandatory right or a matter of judicial discretion?
  • Does a previous conviction under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically classify an accused as a hardened criminal under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused be granted bail based on the Rule of Consistency if a co-accused facing identical evidence has already been released?
  • Does the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused, where they have been acquitted or granted bail in most, justify classifying them as a desperate or dangerous criminal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar and 6 others vs Mst. Maimoona Begum1996 CLC 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-28Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Gulzar alias Gulloo vs Mirza Bashir Baig and another1996 CLC 1293 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
• Shahzad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 978 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-24
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyjudicial discretionpresumption of innocenceparity of treatmentbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Shahzad, challenging the rejection of his bail by the Special Court in a case involving offences under sections 436, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing bail to the applicant while granting bail to a co-accused, Shoukat, despite the evidence against both being identical. The High Court held that the trial court’s reasoning was perverse and demonstrated a lack of judicial mind. The Court emphasized the rule of consistency, holding that where multiple accused are charged with the same offence and the evidence and circumstances are similar, they must be treated alike. Consequently, if one co-accused is granted bail, the other similarly placed accused is entitled to the same relief. The Court reiterated that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the fundamental right to liberty. The applicant was admitted to bail, ensuring parity in judicial treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency require that co-accused persons facing identical evidence be treated alike in bail matters?
  • Is the refusal of bail to an accused justified when a co-accused, against whom the evidence is identical, has been granted bail?
  • Does the presumption of innocence entitle an accused to be released on bail during the pendency of a trial?
  • Can a trial court refuse bail solely on the ground that the case is fresh and no charge has been framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 265 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-29Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Sultan Ali vs Sony Kabushiki Kaisha1996 P.C T.L R. 1536 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-06Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmed alias Shahid Mukhtar and 9 others vs Mst. Rasheeda1996 PLD Karachi 494 · Sindh High Court
  fair rentrent fixationmutual agreementprevailing rentcost of constructionSindh Rented Premises Ordinancerent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of leased premises at Rs. 9,000 per month. The core legal question concerns whether rent fixed by mutual agreement can be revised and the proper methodology for determining fair rent under the governing statute. The Sindh High Court held that a previous mutual agreement between landlord and tenant does not bar an application for the fixation of fair rent under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, and that the Rent Controller must determine fair rent based on statutory factors such as prevailing rents of similar premises, rise in construction costs, and taxes. The Court modified the Rent Controller's order by reducing the fair rent to Rs. 6,750 per month based on admissions in evidence regarding per-square-foot rates in the locality, and held that where the statute is silent, the effective date for fair rent can be fixed from the date of the application or when the landlord agitated the right. The key principle laid down is that fair rent must be anchored in evidence of prevailing local rates and statutory factors rather than arbitrary assessment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether rent fixed by mutual agreement between a landlord and tenant can subsequently be revised through an application for fair rent?
  • What factors must a Rent Controller consider when determining the fair rent of premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance?
  • From which date can the Rent Controller make the fixed fair rent effective when the statute does not explicitly prescribe a date?
  • Can unproved lease agreements and uncrossed witness affidavits be relied upon to determine prevailing local rents?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 268 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
• Shahan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 795 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Wahid Bux and 2 otherss1996 MLD 971 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs Wahid Bux And 2 Other1996 MLD 971 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-30Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 949 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. VI at1996 PLC 446 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 537 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad RAMZAN/Defendant vs Cotton Export Corporation1996 CLC 935 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Sayed Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 433 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
• Sardar vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-27Read full judgment →
• Sardar Imdad Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 272 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailsuppression of terrorist activitiesabsconderalibimala fideshumiliation upon arrest
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. registered under terrorist and murder provisions at Police Station Drighpur, District Shikarpur. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail could be granted in matters falling under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, and whether the applicant made out a case for anticipatory bail based on alibi, mala fides, and potential humiliation. The Court held that while the power to grant pre-arrest bail is inbuilt under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is available in matters covered by the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, the applicant failed to make out a case for the same. The Court laid down that specific role assignment, the nature of the crime involving multiple casualties, the inability to establish a clear alibi at the pre-trial stage, and the fact that the applicant had prior arrest history negating the prospect of undue humiliation justified the dismissal of the pre-arrest bail application and the recall of interim bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has the power to grant pre-arrest bail in matters covered by the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Can a plea of alibi be conclusively determined at the pre-trial stage for the grant of anticipatory bail?
  • Does a person with a prior arrest history suffer undue humiliation upon subsequent arrest for a criminal offense so as to warrant pre-arrest bail?
  • Whether alleged ulterior motive for criminal implication can be construed as a valid ground for establishing mala fides in pre-arrest bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Muhammad Din alias Juby and 3 others1996 MLD 80 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali vs Muhammad Din Alias Juby And 3 Other1996 MLD 80 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →