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.

• M/s. Popular Pharmacy, Karachi vs M/s. Nova Bio Medical and others1996 PLD Karachi 411 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-11
  territorial jurisdictionoriginal civil jurisdictionrejection of plaintprivity of contractforeign defendantcause of actiondistribution agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for declaration, injunction, and damages filed by the plaintiffs against defendant No. 1, alleging unlawful termination of a sole distribution agreement and transfer of distributorship to defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 1 filed an application seeking deletion of its name or rejection of the plaint, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that no privity of contract existed due to a denied execution of the agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the court possessed territorial jurisdiction over a foreign defendant and whether disputed questions of fact regarding the existence of a contract could be resolved at the preliminary stage. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction, averments in the plaint must be accepted as true, that disputed factual issues require a trial after recording evidence, and that restrictions contained in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction pursuant to Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that the question of jurisdiction must be determined based on the averments in the plaint, and factual controversies such as privity of contract cannot be adjudicated at a preliminary stage without a full trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the restrictions contained in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the existence or execution of a contract be adjudicated at the preliminary stage for determining jurisdiction?
  • Are the averments made in the plaint presumed to be true for the purpose of assuming territorial jurisdiction?
  • Does a mere assertion that a defendant is a non-resident foreign company divest a municipal court of its power and jurisdiction to try a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Khalil Ahmed and anothers1996 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Khalil Ahmed And Another1996 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Najib Zarab Limited. vs Government Of Pakistan Through Ministry OfPTCL 1996 CL. 507 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Karimji Ebrahimji & Sons vs M/s Taj Company, LtdK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 258 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Kamran Industries vs The Collector of Customs (Exports),1996 P.C.T.L.R. 126 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Kamran Industries vs The Collector Of Customs (Exports), Karachi And(PTCL 1996 CL. 1) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Jodhpur Rajastan Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Mst.1996 MLD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-17Read full judgment →
• M/s, Quality Builders Ltd, Karachi vs M/s. National InsuranceK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 511 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Galaxy Constructions (Pvt) Ltd. vs DR. Khalid Mahmood DurraniK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 246 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Myzone Pak International vs Collector of Customs Exports and 31996 PLD Karachi 571 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Altaf Hussain and 3 otherss1996 CLC 722 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02
  banking recoveryinterestArticle 2Arepugnancy to Injunctions of IslamFederal Shariat Courtconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff bank filed a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, for the recovery of a loan with interest. The defendants contended that the charging of interest under the Ordinance and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam under Article 2A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and thus ineffective. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mst. Kaneez Fatima v. Wali Muhammad, held that Article 2A is not a self-executing provision that empowers courts to strike down existing laws. The Court affirmed that the Constitution provides a specific mechanism, primarily through the Federal Shariat Court, to test the validity of laws against Islamic Injunctions. Consequently, the Court rejected the defendants' challenge, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to declare statutory provisions void on the touchstone of Article 2A. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, including the claim for interest and costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court declare a statutory provision void on the touchstone of Article 2A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does Article 2A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 empower courts to strike down laws for being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • What is the appropriate constitutional mechanism for determining if a law is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ali Kalhoro vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1315 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-09
  identification paradecapital punishmentcriminal appealeye-witness testimonyprocedural irregularitymurderacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences imposed by the Special Court for the murder of an A.S.I. The core legal question concerns the reliability of identification evidence and the validity of the identification parade conducted six months post-incident. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the identification parade to be a "farce" due to procedural irregularities, including the witnesses having prior access to the accused while in police custody and the Magistrate failing to maintain proper control over the proceedings. The Court emphasized that for capital convictions, evidence must be inherently probable and consistent with the circumstances, regardless of the absence of witness animosity. It established that a long delay in holding an identification parade, combined with witnesses' inability to attribute specific roles to the accused or describe distinguishing features, renders such evidence unreliable. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction in a capital case be sustained based on an identification parade where witnesses had prior access to the accused?
  • Does the absence of animosity or enmity between witnesses and the accused automatically render witness testimony reliable?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an identification parade where the Magistrate fails to ensure the separation of witnesses from the accused prior to the parade?
  • Is an identification parade valid if witnesses fail to attribute specific roles to the accused during the identification process?
  Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Hussain and anothers vs The State and 4 others1996 P Cr. L J 510 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Hussain And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 290 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan1996 MLD 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Murtaza Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. And 2 Others vs Federation of Pakistan1996 MLD 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
• Munda Apparel (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi through Chief Executive vs Commissioner. Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi and another1996 PLC 724 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman Sandhu vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaffar Khan vs Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and 2 others1996 CLC 94 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-16
  Family Court jurisdictiondissolution of marriageappealable ordersinterlocutory ordersconstitutional petitionterritorial jurisdictionexpeditious disposal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a Family Court and an Appellate Court regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a dissolution of marriage suit. The petitioner contended that an order dismissing an application challenging jurisdiction was appealable under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, interpreting the phrase "a decision given" to include such orders. The Court examined whether orders on applications during pending proceedings constitute appealable "decisions" or non-appealable interlocutory orders. The Court held that while orders finally deciding an issue, such as jurisdiction, possess the characteristic of finality and are appealable, purely interlocutory orders are not. However, upon reviewing the merits, the Court found the petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge baseless, as the wife had multiple options for venue under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Court emphasized that Family Courts, being exempt from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Evidence Act 1872, must prioritize the expeditious disposal of matrimonial disputes and avoid procedural delays.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'a decision given' in Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 include interlocutory orders?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before a Family Court?
  • What are the jurisdictional options available to a wife for filing a suit for dissolution of marriage under Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965?
  • Can an order passed by a Family Court on an application regarding territorial jurisdiction be considered final for the purpose of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Patoojo and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 20 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Patoojo And Another vs The State1996 MLD 20 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Ali Muhammad1996 CLC 221 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-02
  default in payment of rentpersonal bona fide requirementburden of proofrent receiptslandlord and tenantfirst rent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant from a commercial shop on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement of the landlord's son. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant was a wilful defaulter in the payment of rent and whether the landlord established a genuine personal need for the premises. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to discharge the initial burden of proving default, noting that no rent receipts were issued and the landlord remained silent for an extended period, thus overturning the finding on default. However, the Court upheld the eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement, as the landlord and his son successfully established the genuineness of the need for the son to start an independent business. The key principle laid down is that the initial burden to prove rent default lies on the landlord, and where no rent receipts are issued or proven, the tenant's consistent version supported by circumstances and conduct is to be preferred, while a landlord is otherwise entitled to evict a tenant to settle a grown-up, jobless son in an independent business.

  Questions settled

  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie to establish default in the payment of rent in eviction proceedings?
  • Whether a landlord's failure to issue rent receipts and prolonged silence regarding unpaid rent shifts the evidentiary onus to the landlord?
  • Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant for the personal bona fide use of a son who is grown up and jobless to start an independent business?
  • Does the fact that a son assists at the father's existing shop disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction for the son's independent business?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 483 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Unis Elahi Sethi and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan, Chambers of Commerce and Industries1996 CLC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11
  arbitration awardtrade organizationsprinciples of natural justiceaudi alteram partemright of hearingmanaging committeechambers of commerce
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions challenging an arbitration award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FPCCI) constituted under section 12 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, read with sections 30, 31, and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their nominations for the Managing Committee based on Article 16(iv) of the Articles of Association of the FPCCI, which bars members from serving more than two consecutive terms. The core legal questions pertained to the applicability of the bar to nominated members and whether the petitioners were denied the right of personal hearing in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Sindh High Court held that the award was defective and invalid because the face of the award showed the petitioners were afforded no opportunity of a personal hearing, thereby violating the maxim audi alteram partem. The court set aside the award and remitted the matter back to the arbitrators to provide a hearing and decide the case afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar against serving more than two consecutive terms on the Managing Committee under the Articles of Association of the FPCCI apply to nominated members as well as elected members?
  • Does an arbitration award rendered without affording the affected parties an opportunity of personal hearing violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Can an arbitration award be remitted to the arbitrators when it fails to record whether a hearing was granted to the contesting parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Unis Elahi Sethi And Another vs Federation of Pakistan1996 P.C.T.L.R. 966 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer vs Azad Muhammad1996 CLC 1180 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs The StateK.L.R. I996 Criminal Cases 392 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir alias Baboo vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan and 3 others vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 1508 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 227 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Iftikhar Hussain Khan1996 MLD 1505 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-14
  bona fide personal needejectment applicationlandlord and tenantPagri paymentrent appealSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against an order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant from a shop. The respondent-landlord sought eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need for his son to establish a business. The core legal questions involved whether an alleged payment of 'Pagri', the re-letting of other shops, and the filing of another ejectment application under section 14 negated the landlord's bona fide need. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the payment of 'Pagri' does not bar a landlord from seeking eviction for personal bona fide need, that the tenant failed to prove other shops fell vacant and were re-let during proceedings, and that filing a separate application under section 14 does not defeat a claim for another son's independent requirement. The court reaffirmed that a landlord is the best judge of their own suitability regarding premises for their children's independent livelihood.

  Questions settled

  • Does the alleged payment of 'Pagri' by a tenant debar a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal bona fide need?
  • Whether the filing of an ejectment application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 negates the bona fide need of a landlord for another son under section 15?
  • Is it necessary for a landlord to provide minute details regarding proposed business experience and capital when claiming premises for personal use?
  • Does the fact that one son is already carrying on business independently extinguish a landlord's bona fide need to secure premises for another son's independent livelihood?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Memon and 2 others vs Government of Sindh1996 PLC (C.S.) 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 89 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif And Another vs The State1996 MLD 89 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 456 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahban and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1171 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25
  post-arrest bailcriminal conspiracyextra-judicial confessionco-accused confessionfurther inquiryjoint confession
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two bail applications arising from an F.I.R. registered under sections 302, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, involving the murder of a retired Superintendent of Police. The core legal question was whether bail should be granted to the applicants whose names did not appear in the F.I.R. and against whom no overt acts were attributed, where the prosecution's case rested largely on extra-judicial confessions and statements implicating them in a criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code. The court held that joint extra-judicial confessions of co-accused cannot be used against other co-accused and that the case against the applicants called for further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicants subject to furnishing required securities, while distinguishing the case of those who allegedly made confessions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a joint extra-judicial confession of co-accused be used as evidence against other co-accused?
  • Whether the case of an accused not named in the F.I.R. and linked only through a co-accused's confession constitutes a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
  • Does Article 40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 render a confessional statement admissible against co-accused persons?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan1996 PLD Karachi 109 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-04
  sublettingdefault in payment of rentpartnership firmsole proprietorshipwaiverejectmentlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenging an ejectment order passed against the appellant tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized subletting. The core legal questions involved whether converting a sole proprietorship tenant into a partnership firm by inducting brothers constitutes subletting or assignment of tenancy rights, whether acceptance of rent without knowledge of the conversion amounts to waiver, and whether rent deposited by a partnership firm constitutes a valid tender by the individual tenant. The Sindh High Court held that converting a sole proprietorship into a partnership creates right, title, and interest in the tenancy for the new partners, amounting to subletting under Section 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Ordinance and breach of the lease agreement, unless exclusively retained by a partnership deed which the appellant failed to produce. Furthermore, acceptance of rent without prior notice or knowledge of the conversion does not constitute waiver or acquiescence, and rent tendered by the partnership does not satisfy the tenant's individual obligation, rendering him a defaulter. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of a sole proprietorship tenant into a partnership firm by inducting new partners amount to subletting or assignment of tenancy rights under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether acceptance of rent by a landlord from a tenant after the creation of a partnership concern amounts to waiver of the landlord's right to seek eviction when the landlord lacked knowledge of the conversion?
  • Does the deposit of rent in court by a partnership firm constitute a valid tender of rent on behalf of the original individual tenant?
  • Do the terms of an expired lease agreement continue to govern the tenancy to the extent they are not repugnant to the rent law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs State Life Ins. Corporation of PakistanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 142 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh vs Salahuddin1996 MLD 809 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Qureshi vs M. Mohsin Butt1996 CLC 381 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-24
  ejectmentdefault in rentpersonal requirementrent deposittender of rentres judicatalandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was filed by the tenant challenging an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal requirement. The tenant argued that he had deposited the rent in court after the landlord refused to accept it, and that the landlord required the premises for a limited company, which is a separate legal entity. The High Court observed that under Section 10 of the Ordinance, a tenant is only entitled to deposit rent with the Rent Controller or send it via money order after the landlord has refused to accept a physical tender. Since the tenant failed to prove a prior physical tender and refusal, the subsequent deposit in court did not constitute valid payment. Furthermore, the tenant failed to produce the Rent Controller's receipts as required by Section 10(4). On personal requirement, the Court found that the business was a sole proprietorship and not an incorporated company. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant validly deposit rent with the Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 without first attempting a physical tender to the landlord?
  • Is a deposit made under Section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 equivalent to a deposit made under Section 10(3) of the Ordinance?
  • Are receipts issued by the Rent Controller mandatory to prove the payment of deposited rent under Section 10(4) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction for personal requirement of a business if the business is a sole proprietorship loosely referred to as a company?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Bashir Ahmad and 4 others1996 MLD 811 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Bashir Ahmad And 4 Other1996 MLD 811 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Taj Muhammad and another1996 P Cr. L J 2006 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-14
  bail cancellationabscondenceprinciple of consistencyjudicial discretionnon-bailable offencecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent, Taj Muhammad, by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. The respondent was charged with murder and other offenses but was granted bail on the principle of consistency, as a co-accused, Doda Khan, had previously been granted bail. The complainant sought cancellation primarily on the ground that the respondent had been an absconder. The core legal question was whether the bail of an absconding accused in a murder case must be cancelled by the High Court solely due to such abscondence. The Court held that while abscondence is a relevant factor, it does not mandate automatic cancellation of bail in every instance. The Court affirmed that judicial discretion must be exercised based on the merits of the case, including whether there are reasonable grounds for further inquiry. Finding that the respondent’s case was identical to that of the co-accused, the Court dismissed the application, holding that the Sessions Judge correctly applied the principle of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court cancel bail granted by a subordinate court solely on the ground of the accused's prior abscondence?
  • Does the principle of consistency require that an accused be granted bail if a co-accused in an identical position has already been granted bail?
  • Under what circumstances can a court exercise its revisional jurisdiction to cancel bail granted by a subordinate court?
  • Is abscondence an absolute bar to the grant of bail in non-bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Alias Rafi Danish vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 457 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 916 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs The State1996 MLD 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem alias Naseemo vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1302 · Sindh High Court · -
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyfurther inquiryExplosive Substances Actlack of statutory sanctionco-accused baildelay in trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated order of the High Court of Sindh disposes of five bail applications stemming from FIR No. 65/95 registered at Police Station Market Hyderabad under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution alleged that crackers were exploded outside an examination center. The primary legal questions were whether the rule of consistency entitled the present applicants to bail when co-accused with specific overt roles had already been granted bail, and whether the absence of mandatory statutory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 warranted bail due to trial delay. The High Court granted post-arrest bail to all five applicants upon finding that no specific roles were assigned to them, placing them on a better footing than co-accused who were already released on bail. Additionally, the lack of mandatory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 meant the trial was unlikely to commence soon, making the case one of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies to grant bail to co-accused who are on a better or identical footing to those already admitted to bail?
  • Whether the absence of mandatory statutory sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 renders a case fit for further inquiry and grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mithal vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Haji Ghulam Qadir Brohi and another1996 P Cr. L J 99 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21
  criminal revisionsummoning additional accusedcolumn No. 2abetmentcognizanceCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed under sections 435, 439-A, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to challenge an order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which summoned the applicant to join as an accused after his name was placed in column No. 2 of the challan. The core legal question was whether a trial court can summon a person as an accused under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the basis of a mere allegation of abetment without sufficient incriminating evidence or material connecting them to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that while a Court of Sessions can take cognizance and summon an additional accused under section 193(1), it must be based on appropriate incriminating evidence or material brought on record during the trial, rather than a bald, unsupported allegation of abetment or a general assertion that an incident occurred at someone's instance. The Court set aside the summoning order while observing that the trial court could summon the applicant later if sufficient evidence emerged during the trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court summon a person as an accused under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based solely on a bald allegation of abetment without supporting incriminating evidence?
  • Whether an accused whose name is placed in column No. 2 of the challan can be joined as an accused prior to the emergence of material evidence during trial?
  • Is a general assertion that an incident occurred at the instance of a person sufficient to constitute abetment under section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Juman and 5 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamaal Shikoh and 7 others vs Directorgeneral, Hyderabad1996 CLC 408 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffer vs Syed Ziaulislam Shah1996 MLD 976 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and others vs Muhammad Ibrahim1996 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Syed Muhammad Zubair1996 MLD 797 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Azad vs Muhammad Yousuf Qureshi1996 MLD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan and 5 others vs Post Master General and 5 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 75 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Khan vs Hameeda Sultana BegumK.L.R. 1996 Civil fuses 508 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 6 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1309 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan Chandio And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 560 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haneef vs Umer Daraz Khan1996 MLD 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haneef vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 534 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafiz Azmat Shaikh vs National General Insurance Co Ltd1996 CLC 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghaffar alias Baido vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 941 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs Muhammad Siddique and 3 others1996 P Cr. L J 1827 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and anothers vs The State1996 MLD 1870 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Soomro vs Sindh Local Government Board, Housing Town ,Planning and Local Government Department, Government of Sindh through Chairman, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 4 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 501 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq Chief vs Government of Sindh and others1996 PLD Karachi 326 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-02
  open trialjail trialspecial courtssuppression of terrorist activitiesplace of sittinglaw and orderjudicial propriety
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged government notifications issued under Section 3(3) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, which directed that the trial of the petitioners be conducted inside the Central Prison, Karachi. The petitioners contended that such notifications violated their right to an open trial as envisaged by Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The core legal question was whether the government possesses the authority to designate a prison as the venue for a trial under the special statute, notwithstanding the general requirement for open court proceedings. The Court held that while an open trial is a fundamental principle of the judicial system, the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, contains an overriding clause in Section 10. Consequently, the government is empowered to specify a place of sitting, including a prison, under exceptional circumstances. The Court affirmed that while the general rule favors open trials, departure from this rule is permissible when compelling circumstances, such as a deteriorating law and order situation, necessitate it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the government have the authority to order a trial to be held inside a prison under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Does the provision for an open trial under Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, override the power of the government to designate a place of sitting under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Can a trial be held in jail despite the general principle that justice should be administered in an open court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arifuddin vs Mujeebunissa And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 351 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arifuddin vs Mst. Mujeebunnissa and 3 others1996 CLC 1372 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Nafeesa Khatoon1996 PLD Karachi 340 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-24
  rent appealeviction applicationdefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide requirementchange of ownershipsuitability of premisesfundamental right to trade
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two first rent appeals filed by tenants against eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller in favour of a landlady (respondent). The landlady sought eviction on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide requirement for herself to run a boutique and for her son to start a general merchandise business. The High Court evaluated the evidence regarding rent payment and statutory notices under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The Court set aside the finding on default, holding that no default occurred as the tenants had deposited rent under pending miscellaneous proceedings and complied with Section 16 orders upon proper notice. However, regarding personal bona fide requirement, the Court upheld the Rent Controller's findings. It held that once bona fide requirement is established, the landlord has the sole prerogative to decide the suitability of the premises for their business. Furthermore, a landlord’s right to engage in lawful trade is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, granting the tenants four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord's claim for bona fide personal requirement be rejected solely on the ground that the proposed business may not be suitable or profitable in the rented premises?
  • Whether the tenant or the court has the authority to dictate to a landlord how or where to conduct their business once bona fide requirement is established?
  • Does a tenant commit default in rent payment under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 if they continue depositing rent in court during a dispute over notice of ownership change?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Mangi vs Saso and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and 3 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Housing, Town Planning and 3 others1996 CLC 727 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Small Business Finance Corporation and 4 others1996 PLD Karachi 192 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Munif, And 7 Others vs National Finance & Investment1996 P.C.T.L.R 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Munif and 7 others vs National Finance & Investment1996 CLC 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-04Read full judgment →
• Mst.Naseem Kalisar vs Shahid Rasool JanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 723 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum and 3 others vs Muhammad Muslim through Legal1996 PLD Karachi 357 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Parveen vs Government of Sindh through Secretary1996 MLD 405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Parveen vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary1996 MLD 405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Muhallah Alias, Taj Bibi vs Faqir Shah And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 265 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Taj Muhallah alias Taj Bibi vs Faqir Shah and another1996 CLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syedah Farah Shah vs Muhammad Sharifuddin and another1996 MLD 320 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syed Farah Shah vs Muhammad Sharifuddin And Another1996 MLD 320 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Khawaja vs Riaz Nasir Khawaja and 2 others1996 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Khawaja vs Riaz Nasir Khawaja And 2 Other1996 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sameena and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 397 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sakina Begum through Legal Heirs and others vs Karachi1996 CLC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahira Khatoon vs Haji Moinul Haq1996 CLC 1276 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saba and anothers vs Mrs. Patricia and 2 otherss1996 CLC 348 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30
  recovery of rentlimitation periodarrears of rentrent restrictioncause of actiontime-barred suitlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit involved a claim for the recovery of rent arrears by landlords against tenants of a bungalow. The core legal question was whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act 1908, particularly concerning when the cause of action for rent arrears accrues and whether the pendency of rent proceedings suspends the limitation period. The Court held that the suit was time-barred. It determined that the cause of action for rent arises monthly as it becomes due and payable, and the pendency of rent proceedings or tentative rent orders does not suspend the running of the limitation period. The Court established that 'rent due' refers to rent legally recoverable in an action at law. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1908, once the limitation period begins to run, no subsequent disability or inability to sue stops it. Consequently, a landlord cannot recover rent beyond a period of three years from the date it became due, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of rent proceedings before a Rent Controller suspend the limitation period for filing a civil suit for recovery of rent arrears?
  • When does the cause of action for the recovery of monthly rent arrears accrue for the purpose of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does a tentative rent order passed by a court constitute an acknowledgment of debt sufficient to extend the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a court dismiss a suit on the grounds of limitation even if the defendant has not explicitly raised the plea of limitation in their defense?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst.Naseem Kausar vs Shahid Rasool JanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 723 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rose Nyokabi Wacira vs The State1996 MLD 479 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum and 2 others vs The Chief of the Naval Staff, Naval1996 MLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum And 2 Others vs The Chief of the Naval Staff, Naval1996 MLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamarun Nishan and 10 others vs Ch. Muhammad Umer and 12 others1996 CLC 1019 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Jehan vs Mahboob Ali Khan alias Pervez1996 PLD Karachi 567 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 95 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Munaver M. Ahmed vs Syed Subhan Bakhsh1996 CLC 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →