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.

• Mst. Kiran Sabah vs Iind Additional District Judge and anothers1996 MLD 1527 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kiran Sabah vs Iind Additional District Judge And Another1996 MLD 1527 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khursheed Ismail and others vs Unichem Corporation (Pvt) Limited1996 CLC 1863 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-02
  winding upcompanies ordinancefurther issue of capitaljust and equitablequasi-partnershipmisappropriationexclusion from managementcompany accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition under section 305 read with section 309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking the winding up of the respondent company on various grounds, including illegal issuance of fresh capital in violation of section 86, failure to maintain proper books of accounts under section 230, illegal transfer of tenancy rights, misappropriation of agency commission, failure to hold general meetings or director elections, illegal amendment of the Articles of Association, and complete exclusion of the petitioner group from management. The core legal questions centered on whether the respondents violated mandatory statutory provisions regarding share issuance and accounts, whether a valid family arrangement existed justifying the exclusion of petitioners, and whether it was just and equitable to wind up the company. The Sindh High Court held that the respondents committed severe and fraudulent breaches of company law, including violating pre-emptive rights for share issuance, failing to maintain proper accounts, and misappropriating corporate assets. The Court established that a quasi-partnership private company is liable to be wound up where there is a complete deadlock, justifiable lack of confidence, and wrongful exclusion of members from management under the just and equitable clause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the issuance of further share capital without complying with the statutory pre-emptive proportional offering requirements renders the allotment illegal under the Companies Ordinance?
  • Does the failure to maintain proper books of accounts as mandated by company law provide a valid ground for the winding up of a company?
  • Can a private limited company resembling a partnership be wound up on the ground that it is just and equitable when there is a complete deadlock and exclusion of a group of members from management?
  • Whether an alleged oral family arrangement can override statutory provisions and articles of association governing the management and shareholding of a private company?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khursheed Ismail And Other vs Unichem Corporation (Pvt.) Limited(PTCL 1996 CL. 594) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Firdous Begum vs The State and another1995 P Cr. L J 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima vs Kamil Shah and 5 others1996 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Darya Khatoon vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1477 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-16
  retracted judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencebenefit of the doubtpolice custodykidnappingmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal arises from a judgment of the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, convicting the appellant under sections 302, 369, and 404 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing her to imprisonment for life and concurrent terms for the other offences. The prosecution case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, including testimonies of witnesses who last saw the deceased minor girl with the appellant, the recovery of ear-rings, and a judicial confession subsequently retracted by the appellant under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the retracted judicial confession, recorded after a ten-day delay in police custody, and the circumstantial evidence were sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court held that the retracted judicial confession was involuntary, unreliable, and vitiated by delayed recording and false dates of arrest, and that the remaining circumstantial evidence suffered from material discrepancies. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The key principle laid down is that a retracted judicial confession cannot form the sole basis of a conviction unless it is voluntary, true, and corroborated in material particulars by independent and reliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can form the sole basis of a criminal conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does an unexplained delay in producing an accused before a magistrate for recording a judicial confession render the confession involuntary?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on circumstantial evidence when prosecution witnesses are inter-related and suffer from material discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amtul Begum vs Juma Khan1996 MLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zubaida Sultan vs Dr. Iqtidar Hamid Bhatti1996 MLD 800 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rukaya Sultana vs Mrs. Zaree Zafar1996 CLC 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-29Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Ram Lal and 8 others vs Mst. Nargis Khanum1996 PLD Karachi 440 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-14
  evictionbona fide requirementdefault in renttender of rentlandlord and tenantrent controllerpersonal need
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the appellants/tenants. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent/landlady had established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises and whether the tenants had committed default in rent payment by depositing rent directly into court without prior tender. The High Court held that the landlady successfully proved her bona fide need, as her family's size rendered her current accommodation insufficient, and the tenant failed to rebut this evidence. Regarding the default, the Court held that a tenant cannot bypass the statutory requirement of tendering rent directly to the landlord. Under Section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, depositing rent with the Rent Controller is only permissible after the landlord refuses to accept payment. Consequently, the Court affirmed the eviction order, establishing that a landlord’s prerogative to select their own premises for personal use is protected, and unilateral court deposits without prior tender constitute default. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's deposit of rent in court without prior tender to the landlord constitute a valid payment under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a landlord entitled to evict a tenant on the ground of personal need if the landlord is currently residing in rented premises?
  • Can a tenant unilaterally deposit rent with the Rent Controller without first offering it to the landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Mehraj Yasmeen Arbab vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing1996 MLD 1924 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Alhaja Tawakanutu Adeela vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 349 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-24Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux Khatian vs The Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 2 others1996 PLC (C.S.) 312 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mooso vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-18
  illegal arms possessionstatutory interpretationinvestigation timelineinterim challanvitiated proceedingsunlawful custodyArms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance for illegal possession of a Kalashnikov. The appellant argued that the charge was incorrectly framed under Section 13-D instead of Section 13-E, contending that the term 'going' in the statute implies physical movement, whereas he was found sleeping. The Court rejected this interpretation, holding that 'going' is used symbolically and covers individuals found armed in places other than their permanent abode. However, the appellant further contended that the police failed to comply with the mandatory investigation timelines prescribed under Section 173(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the challan was submitted 34 days after arrest without an interim report. The Court held that the failure to submit an interim report within the statutory period rendered the appellant's custody unlawful and vitiated the entire subsequent trial proceedings. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered the appellant's immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'going' in Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance require actual physical movement by the accused?
  • What is the legal consequence of the police failing to submit an interim report within the time limits prescribed by Section 173(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a person found sleeping in a hotel while armed with a weapon covered by the symbolic meaning of 'going' under the Arms Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Ali Khan vs Mumtaz Ali1996 MLD 333 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mohkam-Ud-Din vs Regional Development Finance Corporation and others1996 PLC (C.S.) 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• Modern Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory (Private) Limited of Sarharl District Sanghar (Sindh) vs Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Limited1996 CLC 1064 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-07
  insurance claimsigning and verification of plaintsuit by corporationcompetency of directorframing of issuesremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the dismissal of a suit filed by the appellant corporation against the respondent insurance company for the recovery of an insurance claim regarding damage to its factory boundary wall. The Trial Court had held that the suit was maintainable at Karachi but dismissed it on the ground that the plaint was signed and verified by an incompetent person. The core legal questions revolved around whether a director of a corporation requires a special resolution or written authority to file, sign, and verify a plaint on behalf of the corporation, and whether a finding could be rendered against a party on an objection not covered by the framed issues. The Sindh High Court held that under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a director or secretary of a corporation is competent to institute, sign, and verify pleadings provided they are acquainted with the facts, without needing a special corporate resolution or power of attorney. Furthermore, the Court established that a trial court cannot non-suit a plaintiff on a point not covered by the issues where the party had no opportunity to lead evidence. The appeal was accepted and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a director or secretary of a corporation requires a special resolution or power of attorney to file a suit on behalf of the corporation?
  • Can a trial court dismiss a suit on a point not covered by the issues framed during the trial where the aggrieved party had no opportunity to lead evidence?
  • What are the requirements for signing and verifying a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on behalf of a corporate entity?
  Read full judgment →
• Mitho and anothers vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Miss Roohi Shaikh vs Board of Secondary Education, Karachi and 21996 MLD 1190 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
• Miss Roohi Shaikh vs Board of Secondary Education, Karachi And 21996 MLD 1190 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
• Mirza Sirajuddin Through Legal Heirs And 7 Others vs Abdul Ghaffar1996 MLD 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mirza Mazhar Ali vs The State1996 MLD 1879 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mirza Anwar Baig vs Abdul Rab1996 CLC 394 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-06Read full judgment →
• Mir Shah Jehan and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 912 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mir Murad Ali and 10 others vs Sindh Seed Corporation and 2 others1996 CLC 1244 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad alias Miral vs Ghulam Muhammad1996 PLD Karachi 202 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-26
  civil revisionsuit for declarationpermanent injunctionspecific performancepartnership agreementagreement to sellpart performancepossessory rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner claimed that land granted in the respondent's name was jointly purchased pursuant to a partnership agreement and privately partitioned, placing him in possession. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate court found that a partnership agreement existed and that the petitioner was in possession, but affirmed the dismissal on the ground that a suit for declaration and injunction was not maintainable without seeking specific performance. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's decree, holding that an unregistered partnership agreement or contract for sale does not per se create any right, title, or interest in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act 1908. Without seeking specific performance under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, a suit for declaration and consequential injunction cannot lie, nor can Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 be used offensively as a sword to claim a decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction is maintainable on the basis of an unregistered partnership agreement without seeking the relief of specific performance?
  • Does an agreement for the purchase or sale of immovable property create any right, title, or interest in the property itself?
  • Can a transferee in possession under an agreement use Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 offensively to obtain an injunction rather than as a defensive shield?
  Read full judgment →
• Minhon and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 528 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-20
  abductionretracted confessionjudicial confessionhostile witnesscriminal appealbenefit of doubtsuppression of terrorist activities
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under sections 365-A and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorist Activities). The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proved the charge of abduction beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the fact that the primary eyewitnesses turned hostile and did not implicate the appellants, and whether a retracted judicial confession recorded without fulfilling mandatory legal formalities could form the sole basis for conviction. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case, observing that the magistrate failed to follow the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when recording the confession, and that a retracted confession requires strong independent corroboration, which was lacking. The court laid down the principle that a judicial confession recorded mechanically without ensuring the accused's removal from police custody and without satisfying statutory and procedural prerequisites has no evidentiary value, and a retracted confession uncorroborated by independent evidence cannot sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the basis for conviction without independent corroboration in material particulars?
  • What are the mandatory procedural formalities a Magistrate must observe while recording a confessional statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under sections 365-A and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the primary abductee and eyewitnesses do not implicate the accused before the trial court and are declared hostile?
  Read full judgment →
• Minhon And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 170 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Millac Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd vs Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Limited1996 CLC 213 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23
  industrial plot allotmentunilateral premium increaselicense vs leasepermanent injunctioncontractual interpretationcancellation of allotmentdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Sindh Industrial Trading Estate (SITE) Limited, challenging the defendant's demand for a revised premium payment for an industrial plot and the threat to cancel the allotment. The core legal questions were whether the defendant could unilaterally increase the premium retrospectively after a concluded agreement and full payment, and whether the suit was maintainable given the nature of the license. The Court held that the demand for the revised premium was illegal, arbitrary, and without lawful authority. It found that the agreement between the parties was concluded, and the defendants possessed no contractual right to unilaterally vary the premium. The Court established that a license coupled with an interest in property, especially where possession and long-term rights are involved, functions as a lease. Consequently, the rights and liabilities are governed by the Transfer of Property Act 1882, and a party cannot unilaterally alter fundamental terms like premium rates without an express contractual provision. The Court emphasized that contractual responsibilities cannot be evaded, and cancellation of allotment requires valid grounds, not arbitrary demands.

  Questions settled

  • Can a licensor unilaterally increase the premium of an industrial plot after a concluded agreement and full payment?
  • Does a license coupled with an interest in property create a relationship governed by the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction maintainable against a statutory body attempting to cancel an allotment without valid grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Khurshid Ahmad vs Muhammad Azeem And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 586 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Metro Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Bonanza Garments1996 MLD 593 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-26
  cooperative societymandatory noticerejection of plaintsuo motucivil procedureencroachmentbusiness of the societymaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction, and damages filed by a cooperative society against other registered cooperative housing societies regarding alleged land encroachment. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of the mandatory notice required under Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the dispute constituted an 'act touching the business of the society.' The Court held that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff failed to serve the mandatory notice required by Section 70, which is a condition precedent for initiating such litigation. The Court affirmed that the term 'business of the society' must be interpreted broadly to include all situations linked to the society's operations. Furthermore, the Court established that it possesses the inherent power to suo motu reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if the suit is barred by law, even in the absence of a formal application or specific plea by the defendants, provided the plaintiff is given an opportunity to be heard.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Civil Court reject a plaint suo motu under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the absence of a formal application?
  • Is the service of notice under Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, a mandatory condition precedent for filing a suit against a cooperative society?
  • Does the phrase 'any act touching the business of the society' under the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, encompass a broad range of activities related to the society's operations?
  • Does the rejection of a plaint for want of notice under Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, preclude the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zeenat Brother (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Aiwaneiqbal Authority through Chairman, Aiwane Iqbal Complex, Lahore and 3 others1996 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-12
  bank guaranteeperformance bondmobilization advanceinterim injunctionencashmentcontractual disputeirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a contractor, sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from encashing two bank guarantees: a performance guarantee and a mobilization advance guarantee, issued in connection with a construction project. The core legal question was whether the court should restrain the encashment of these independent bank guarantees pending the resolution of underlying contractual disputes. The court held that while the principles governing bank guarantees generally require courts to be reluctant to interfere with a bank's obligation to pay, a distinction exists between performance bonds and mobilization guarantees. Regarding the performance guarantee, the court granted the injunction, finding that the question of who committed the default was unresolved and that encashment would cause irreparable loss. Conversely, regarding the mobilization advance guarantee, the court refused the injunction, holding that such guarantees are independent, absolute obligations to refund advance payments, enforceable regardless of ongoing disputes between the parties. The key principle established is that courts may restrain the encashment of performance bonds in exceptional cases involving clear fraud or injustice, but mobilization guarantees are generally strictly enforceable according to their terms.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an interim injunction to restrain the encashment of a performance bond where the underlying default is disputed?
  • Is a mobilization advance guarantee an independent contract that must be honoured regardless of disputes between the contractor and the employer?
  • Under what circumstances can a court restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee?
  • Does the principle of 'injustice' provide a valid ground for a court to stay the enforcement of a bank guarantee in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Wahid Ice & Cold Storage Plant through Proprietor vs National1996 PLD Karachi 529 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-17
  banking recoveryex parte proceedingsservice of summonsleave to defendBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinancesubstituted servicelimitation condonation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a recovery suit filed by a bank against the appellant. The trial court proceeded ex parte after serving the defendant solely via publication, subsequently dismissing the defendant's application for condonation of delay and leave to defend. The core legal question was whether service by publication alone satisfies the requirements of Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980. The High Court held that the trial court erred in deeming service sufficient based on publication alone. It established that Rule 8 mandates that genuine, documented efforts to effect service through a bailiff and registered post must precede service by publication. Consequently, the dismissal of the condonation application was set aside. However, regarding the merits of the leave to defend, the Court found the appellant failed to raise a triable issue, as the defendant had previously acknowledged the loan amount and failed to dispute the disbursement. The Court upheld the decree but modified the interest calculation from compound to simple interest, citing the lack of contractual justification for the higher rate.

  Questions settled

  • Is service by publication alone sufficient under Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980?
  • Must a court attempt service through a bailiff and registered post before resorting to service by publication in banking recovery suits?
  • Can a defendant be denied leave to defend if they have previously acknowledged the loan amount in correspondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tharparkar Sugar Milus Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Revenue Division And Chairman,Central Board Of Revenue, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad AndAnother1996 MLD 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sunita vs Messrs Building Hardware Stores through Partner1996 PLD Karachi 526 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-10
  rent appealdefault in payment of rentchange of ownershipnotice of attornmentlandlord and tenanteviction orderadvance rent agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was directed against an order passed by the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-landlords on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The core legal questions involved whether the absence of a formal notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 absolves a tenant from paying rent, and whether the execution of a disputed advance rent agreement was legally proved. The Sindh High Court held that once a tenant has actual knowledge of the transfer of ownership, a formal notice under section 18 is not mandatory, as the purpose of the notice is merely to protect the tenant from default upon intimation. The Court further held that an unproven tenancy agreement lacking necessary witness testimony is invalid, and that a tenant remains obligated to pay rent continuously. The appeal was consequently dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a formal notice of change of ownership under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is mandatory when the tenant already has actual knowledge of the transfer?
  • Does a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 create the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Is a tenant required to continue paying rent during the pendency of eviction proceedings?
  • How is the execution of a disputed advance rent agreement required to be proved under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saima Enterprises vs Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports), Custom House, Karachi And 3 Other1996 MLD 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saima Enterprises Faisalabad vs Deputy Collector of Customs1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1041 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs S.G. Rauf & Co., Karachi And 2 Others vs United Bank Ltd. And 21996 MLD 558 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ramzan Ali & Co., Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Mirpurkhas vs General Secretary, Employees' Union and another1996 PLC 311 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-25
  industrial disputelegal representationlabour courtenforcement of guaranteed rightadvocatecollective bargaining agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court against the decision of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had reversed the order of the Labour Court and held that an advocate could not represent an employer in proceedings under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance without obtaining the court's permission under section 49(3) of the said Ordinance. The core legal question was whether an application filed under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance for the enforcement of a guaranteed right constitutes an 'industrial dispute' so as to attract the restrictions on legal representation contained in section 49(3). The High Court held that proceedings for the enforcement of a guaranteed right under section 34 or section 25-A are distinct from an 'industrial dispute' as defined in section 2(xiii) of the Ordinance. Consequently, the restrictions regarding representation by an advocate under section 49 do not apply to such enforcement proceedings. The petition was allowed, and the impugned decision of the Tribunal was declared to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does an application under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for the enforcement of a guaranteed right constitute an industrial dispute?
  • Is prior permission under section 49(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 required for an advocate to represent a party in proceedings under section 34?
  • Are proceedings under section 25-A and section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 excluded from the definition of industrial dispute under section 2(xiii)?
  Read full judgment →
• Moosa Khan vs Government of Sindh and others1996 PLD Karachi 402 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-08
  route permitstage carriagereplacement of vehiclefreedom of tradeRegional Transport Authorityexecutive powerdiscriminationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the Sindh Transport Department's refusal to issue a new route permit or allow the replacement of an old mini-bus on an existing route. The refusal was based on a directive issued by the Minister for Transport banning mini-bus route permits following a local incident. The petitioner contended that the directive was unauthorized, discriminatory, and infringed his fundamental right to conduct business under Article 18 of the Constitution. The High Court analyzed the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965, noting that statutory authority regarding route permits is vested exclusively in the Provincial and Regional Transport Authorities, not individual Ministers. The Court observed that the statutory definition of 'stage carriage' did not differentiate between large buses and mini-buses, and found that the administrative authorities had arbitrarily permitted replacements for other operators. Consequently, the High Court held that the Minister's directive lacked legal authority, was discriminatory, and violated Articles 4 and 18 of the Constitution, thereby allowing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Provincial Minister have statutory authority under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965 to issue binding directives restricting route permits independently of the Transport Authorities?
  • Can a statutory authority impose restrictions or classifications between types of stage carriages where the parent statute makes no such distinction?
  • Is the refusal to allow replacement of a vehicle on an existing route permit, without statutory backing, a violation of the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press vs Jamil Ahmed And 241996 MLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Chemicals Limited vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 others1996 PLC 451 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Khalil Ahmad and another1996 PLD Karachi 467 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-04
  Section 12(2) CPCejectment proceedingsnecessary partysub-tenancyfraud and collusionpetroleum dealerSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by a third-party applicant seeking to set aside a previous judgment of the High Court in an ejectment appeal on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion between the original landlord and tenant. The core legal question was whether a petroleum dealer appointed by the tenant corporation is a necessary party to ejectment proceedings and whether such a dealer has the right to be impleaded or challenge the decree under Section 12(2), C.P.C. The Sindh High Court held that a dealer holding through the tenant does not acquire the status of a tenant, sub-tenant, or sub-lettee, and is bound by any ejectment order passed against the tenant without being a necessary party to the proceedings. Consequently, finding no proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion, the Court dismissed the application, establishing that a business licensee or dealer of a tenant cannot claim independent possessory rights to obstruct eviction or demand party status in rent proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dealer of a tenant corporation is a necessary party to be impleaded in ejectment proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a person claiming possession through a tenant as a business dealer have the independent status of a tenant or sub-tenant?
  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained by a third party alleging collusion and fraud where no independent tenancy right exists?
  • Is an ejectment order passed against a tenant binding upon a dealer or licensee occupying the premises through such tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nusrat Oil Mills vs Messrs Razzaq & Co.1996 MLD 1501 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Fibres Ltd. vs Karachi Development Authority Through Director General Civic Centre, Karachi And Another1996 MLD 76 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Long Life Builders, Karachi vs Syed Nisar Ahmad1996 PLD Karachi 423 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-24
  ex parte decreeSection 12(2) CPCnon-appearancediscretionary powernullity of decreecivil proceduresetting aside decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The applicants contended that the trial court acted mechanically and without jurisdiction by decreeing the suit after the defendants failed to appear in person as ordered. The core legal question was whether such an ex parte decree constitutes a nullity or lack of jurisdiction, and whether the scope of Section 12(2) C.P.C. permits challenging a decree on the basis of an alleged improper exercise of judicial discretion. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. It established that the scope of Section 12(2) C.P.C. is limited to fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction, and cannot be used to re-litigate the merits of a discretionary order. A court's decision to proceed ex parte for non-appearance is a valid exercise of judicial discretion and does not render a decree a nullity.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex parte decree passed for non-compliance with an order for personal appearance be challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a court's failure to explicitly record its reasoning for passing an ex parte decree render the decree a nullity?
  • Is the scope of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 equivalent to the scope of an appeal or revision?
  • Can an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be automatically converted into an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khan Brothers Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and another. vs Secretary1996 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kamran Industries vs The Collector of Customs (Exports) 11TH1996 PLD Karachi 68 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-20
  Customs penaltyExport Processing ZoneCustoms duty exemptionUnder-valuationMisdescription of goodsMens reaBurden of proofConstitutional petitionJurisdiction of Customs AuthoritiesShow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition challenged a penalty imposed by Customs Authorities for alleged under-valuation and misdescription of electronic item spare parts imported into an Export Processing Zone (EPZ). The petitioner, an EPZ unit, was exempt from customs duties and sales tax under SRO. No. 881(I)/80. The core legal questions revolved around the Customs Authorities' jurisdiction to scrutinize valuation and description of exempt goods, the applicability of Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, requiring mens rea and a material particular, and the burden of proof under Section 187 of the same Act. The Sindh High Court held that Customs Authorities lacked jurisdiction to question valuation or description of goods imported into an EPZ when they are exempt from duties and taxes, as there could be no motive to evade tax. It further ruled that Section 32, being a penal provision, requires proof of mens rea and falsity in a material particular, which cannot be established without a fiscal consequence. The Court clarified that Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969, places only an evidential burden on the accused, while the legal burden remains with the Customs Authorities. The show-cause notice and subsequent orders were declared void ab initio for failing to allege knowledge or belief of falsity in a material particular.

  Questions settled

  • Do Customs Authorities have jurisdiction to scrutinize the valuation and description of goods imported into an Export Processing Zone when such goods are exempt from customs duties and sales tax?
  • Can a penalty be imposed under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, for alleged under-valuation or misdescription when there is no motive to evade tax due to an exemption?
  • What is the nature of the burden of proof cast upon an accused under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is a show-cause notice issued under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, valid if it does not specifically allege that the falsity of the declaration was to the knowledge or belief of the petitioner and constituted a deviation in a material particular?
  • Do proceedings under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, require proof of mens rea and a higher standard of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hasan Taj & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Commissioner, Sindh1996 PLC 415 · Sindh High Court
  social security contributionjurisdiction of commissionerbeneficial legislationchange of ownershipestablishment liabilitydelegation of powersreview application
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 challenges an order of the Sindh Labour Court dismissing an appeal regarding social security contributions. The core legal questions concern whether the Commissioner of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution has the legal authority to decide applications and complaints under section 57 of the Ordinance, and whether an establishment remains liable to pay social security contributions once notified, notwithstanding a change in name, ownership, or identity. The Sindh High Court held that the Commissioner is legally competent to adjudicate complaints under the Ordinance, either as the chief executive or through valid delegation by the Governing Body and applicable regulations, and that liability once attached to an establishment via notification continues irrespective of subsequent changes in ownership or name. The court laid down the principle that the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is beneficial legislation to be construed liberally to advance its remedial objects, and that an establishment's statutory liability for contributions persists as long as the establishment itself remains operative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner of the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution has the power to decide applications and complaints under section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does an establishment cease to be liable for social security contributions upon a change of its name or ownership if a valid notification under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 already exists?
  • Can the Governing Body of a social security institution delegate its statutory powers and functions to the Commissioner or other subordinate officers?
  • Is the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to be construed as a beneficial or remedial legislation for the working classes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Galaxy Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd. Company, Karachi vs Dr.1996 MLD 229 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali vs The Director, Kachi Abadi and anothers1996 MLD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali vs The Director, Kachi Abadi And Another1996 MLD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Alam, Etc. vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 184 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mazdoor Union, Karachi Water and Sewerage Board vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Central Division, Karachi and 9 others1996 PLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-15Read full judgment →
• Mazar and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Marvi Laboratories vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government, Revenue Division, Islamabad and others1996 MLD 131 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jehan Ara vs Mst. Tayyaba Khatoon through Legal Heirs1996 CLC 377 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
• Marvi Laboratories vs The Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary To The Government, Revenue Division, Islamabad And Other(PTCL 1996 CL. 112) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Maroon Paracha vs Muhammad Shahid KhanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 509 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mariyum and 3 others vs Ali Bahadur1996 CLC 692 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-02Read full judgment →
• Manthar and anothers vs Province of Sindh through Deputy1996 MLD 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Manthar And Another vs Province of Sindh Through Deputy1996 MLD 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mandviwalla Muaser Plastics Industries Limited, Karachi vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Education, Ministry of Education, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others1996 CLC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-22
  Federal Education FeeFinance Actultra viresconstitutional petitionlegislative competencefee versus tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the vires of section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992, and SRO No. 139(I)/93 dated 16-2-1993, through which a Federal Education Fee was levied and the Income Tax Department was appointed as the collecting agency. The core legal question was whether the Federal Legislature acted in excess of its constitutional authority in levying the Federal Education Fee for the purpose of general education. Relying on a previous unappealed judgment of the Lahore High Court in Nishat Tex Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Sohail Jute Mills v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court held that a fee can only be levied for services rendered and cannot be imposed to enhance general revenue. The Court concluded that the Federal Legislature acted in excess of its authority. Consequently, the Court declared section 15 of the Finance Act 1992 and the Federal Education Fee Scheme under SRO 139(1)/93 to be ultra vires the Constitution and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Legislature has the authority to levy a fee for general education under the legislative lists?
  • Can the Federal Education Fee levied under section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992 be imposed with a view to enhance the general revenue of the State?
  • Whether section 15 of the Finance Act 1992 and SRO 139(1)/93 dated 16-2-1993 are ultra vires the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nawaz vs Haji Muhammad Hayat1996 MLD 1895 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ayub Awan vs (Mrs.) Shamim Dadi And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 195 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Majeed Ahmed vs The State1996 MLD 1650 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mai Nooran vs N.L.C. & M. ShareefK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 393 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ahmed vs The State1996 MLD 180 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ma. Khan & Co vs Pakistan Railway Employees' Cooperative Housing1996 CLC 45 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-05
  arbitration awardrule of courtarbitration agreementCooperative Societies Actlimitation periodservice of noticecommercial contractex parte proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute between a contractor and the Pakistan Railway Employees' Cooperative Housing Society regarding construction contracts. The plaintiffs sought to make an arbitration award a rule of the court, while the defendants challenged the validity of the arbitration proceedings and the court's jurisdiction. The core legal questions were whether a valid arbitration agreement existed without a signed contract, whether the dispute was barred by the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the defendants were properly served with arbitration notices. The court held that an arbitration agreement exists if terms are reduced to writing, even without signatures. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, did not apply as the plaintiff was not a society member and the dispute was commercial in nature. The court found the defendants were duly served and their objections were time-barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. The key principle laid down is that an arbitration agreement is binding if in writing, regardless of signatures, and that service of notice is presumed valid when properly addressed unless proven otherwise.

  Questions settled

  • Is an arbitration agreement binding if it is in writing but not signed by the parties?
  • Does the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, bar civil court jurisdiction over disputes between a non-member contractor and a housing society?
  • Can a party challenge an arbitration award on the ground of non-service if they refused to accept properly addressed notices?
  • Does the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitration award commence from the date of knowledge or the date of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Ma J Tharparkar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Revenue Division And Chairman Central Board Of Revenue, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And Another1996 P.C.T.L.R. 653 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• M.F.M.Y. Industries Ltd. vs Collector of Customs (Appraisements), Customs House, Karachi1996 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15
  contempt of courtquasi-judicial functionscustoms duty exemptionconstitutional petitionadministrative abdicationremedy for non-compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Constitutional petition seeking action for contempt against the Collector of Customs for failing to comply with a previous court order regarding the re-determination of customs duty exemptions for imported card clothing. The core legal questions were whether a separate Constitutional petition is the appropriate remedy for enforcing a previous court judgment and whether a quasi-judicial authority may abdicate its decision-making duty by awaiting administrative advice from the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Court held that a Constitutional petition is not the maintainable remedy for enforcing a prior judgment; rather, a miscellaneous application in the original case is the proper procedure. Furthermore, the Court ruled that quasi-judicial authorities cannot defer their adjudicatory functions to administrative departments like the Ministry of Law and Justice. The key principle laid down is that quasi-judicial forums must exercise their own independent legal judgment and cannot abdicate their statutory responsibilities by seeking or awaiting external administrative instructions, as this undermines the due process and the nature of their quasi-judicial mandate.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fresh Constitutional petition maintainable for the purpose of enforcing a judgment rendered in an earlier Constitutional petition?
  • Can a quasi-judicial authority defer its decision-making process to await the advice of an administrative ministry?
  • What is the appropriate procedural remedy for a party seeking to enforce a previous court order that has been disregarded?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Yakoob and others vs Abdul Ghaffar1996 P Cr. L J 867 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• M Anjh I Appel lant vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03
  Summary & questions settled

  The provided text for the judgment is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to generate a summary, identify statutory provisions, extract keywords, or formulate legal questions based on the content of the case.

  Read full judgment →
• M an Zoor vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-12Read full judgment →
• Liquat Umar vs S.D.M./Tribunal, Larkana and another1996 P Cr. L J 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
• Leno Rozario vs Ghulam Muhammad Dossul1996 MLD 821 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
• Leno Rozario vs Ghul Am Muhammad Dossul1996 MLD 821 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
• Late Saifuddin Through His Legal Heirs vs Jameel Ahmed1996 MLD 566 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Late S.M. Younas Rizvi through Legal Heirs vs Afzal Qureshi1996 CLC 368 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
• Kouro vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 221 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-22Read full judgment →
• Kirir vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30
  identification paradeocular testimonydacoitycriminal appealbenefit of doubtPolice Rules 1934standard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant for dacoity, abduction, and murder. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of evidence, specifically the reliability of ocular testimony and the identification parade conducted during a chaotic, dark night encounter. The trial court had convicted the appellant based on police testimony and an identification parade. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It established that identification evidence is inherently weak and requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards, such as those outlined in the Police Rules, 1934. The court emphasized that the prosecution must affirmatively prove that precautions were taken to prevent witnesses from viewing the accused prior to the identification parade. Furthermore, the court ruled that ocular testimony claiming identification of strangers during a dark night encounter, relying solely on fleeting light from bombs, is insufficient for conviction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted due to the lack of credible, corroborative evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification evidence sufficient for conviction if the prosecution fails to prove that precautions were taken to prevent witnesses from seeing the accused before the identification parade?
  • Can ocular testimony identifying strangers in a dark night encounter be relied upon when the only source of light is fleeting?
  • What is the legal consequence of failing to follow the procedural requirements for identification parades as prescribed in the Police Rules, 1934?
  Read full judgment →
• Kirir I Versus , Kirir I vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 569 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Anwar vs The State and 3 others1996 MLD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Anwar vs The State And 3 Other1996 MLD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs The State1996 MLD 1030 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khayabaneiqbal (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others vs Mustafa Haji Muhammad1996 CLC 1758 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20
  specific performanceoral agreementinterim injunctionprima facie caseimmovable propertycontractual disputeCompanies Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated suits arising from a property dispute between a private company ("the Owners") and an individual ("the Purchaser"). The Purchaser claimed the existence of a concluded oral agreement for the sale of immovable property and sought specific performance, while the Owners denied the existence of any binding contract and sought a permanent injunction against the Purchaser’s claims. The core legal question was whether a binding oral agreement existed and whether the Purchaser was entitled to interim injunctive relief. The Court held that the Purchaser failed to establish a prima facie case for a concluded agreement, noting that negotiations had not finalized and the alleged consideration was never encashed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Purchaser's injunction application and granted the Owners' request to restrain the Purchaser from advertising false claims. The judgment reaffirms that a contract for the sale of immovable property does not create interest in the property itself. Furthermore, oral agreements require clear, satisfactory evidence, and the conduct of parties is essential in determining the credibility of such claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell immovable property create any interest or charge on such property?
  • Can a court allow the cross-examination of a party on an affidavit during interlocutory proceedings?
  • What is the standard of proof required to establish a concluded oral agreement for the sale of immovable property?
  • Is a party entitled to interim injunctions in a suit for specific performance without establishing a prima facie case?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Kamaluddin vs Ibrahim Khan1996 PLD Karachi 503 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Auto Cars Limited vs Haji Sharif Khan1996 CLC 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03
  legal representativessubstitutionabatement of suitLaw Reforms Ordinancelimitation periodminor defendantsguardian ad litemprocedural technicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for bringing the legal representatives of deceased defendants on record and for condonation of delay in a recovery suit originally instituted in 1977 by a private limited company. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation of Order XXII Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as amended by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, and specifically whether the failure of legal representatives to apply within the limitation period debars them from participating in proceedings or causes the suit to abate. The court held that the 1972 amendment removed the automatic abatement of suits upon the death of a defendant, substituting a discretionary procedure where the court may proceed with the suit and any judgment pronounced retains its force, and that legal representatives are not barred from defending the suit merely because a formal substitution application was not filed within ninety days under Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908, especially where a list of legal representatives is already on record or intimation of death has been provided. The key principles laid down are that procedural technicalities should not be used to defeat adjudication on merits, that the amended Order XXII Rule 4 does not penalize legal representatives by excluding them from participation, and that courts bear a duty to protect minor legal representatives by appointing a guardian ad litem.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of legal representatives to apply for substitution within the period of limitation under Article 177 of the Limitation Act 1908 debar them from taking part in proceedings under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the effect of the substitution of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 regarding the abatement of suits upon the death of a defendant?
  • Can a court proceed against minor legal representatives of a deceased defendant without appointing a guardian ad litem under Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether delay in bringing legal representatives on record can be condoned under section 151 or section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Khatoon Bibi vs Karachi Transport Corporation Through Director And Another1996 MLD 1197 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Karimsons, Cotton Ginners, Liaqat Pur, District Rahimyar Khan and 21996 CLC 362 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Karim Bhai vs Hatim Bhai1996 KLR Civil Cases 518 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
• Kareesh and others vs Sispal and another1996 P Cr. L J 937 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Shabih RazaK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 297 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-17Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Dr. Hassanuddin Ahmed and another1996 CLC 1836 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-13Read full judgment →
• Karachi Building Control Authority And Other vs Muhammad ArifK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 364 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Karachi (Syed) Tahzib-Ul-Hasan Zaidi vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 464 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Kaleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 376 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →