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.

• Jeal and another vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Javed vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
• Javed Shamshad and 3 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 3 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-20Read full judgment →
• Javed Akhtar Junejo vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Javaid Akhtar vs Iiird Addl. District Judge (South), Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 369 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-25Read full judgment →
• Javaid Akhtar vs Iiird Additional District Judge (South), Karachi and 2 others1996 CLC 1300 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jano alias Jan Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 269 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1322 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-04Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Saiyeda Khatoon and 5 others1996 MLD 1845 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Saiyeda Khatoon And 5 Other1996 MLD 1845 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad Brohi and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 863 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-11
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailprolonged detentiontrial delaySection 497 CrPCbail as of right
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by three accused persons in a murder case, seeking relief on the grounds of statutory delay in the conclusion of their trial. The accused had been in continuous detention for approximately 47.5 months, during which time the trial remained incomplete. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the significant delay in the trial proceedings and whether such delay was attributable to the accused. The Sindh High Court held that after excluding the periods of delay specifically attributable to the accused, a substantial period of over two years remained, which could not be blamed on the defense. The Court emphasized that trial courts must meticulously examine court diaries to determine responsibility for delays rather than dismissing bail applications summarily. The Court affirmed that where the delay is not caused by the accused, they are entitled to bail as a matter of right, provided they do not fall under the disqualifications for hardened or desperate criminals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the act or omission of one co-accused in causing trial delay deprive other co-accused of the benefit of statutory delay?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as of right when the trial is not concluded within the statutory period, excluding delays attributable to the defense?
  • What criteria must a trial court apply when determining whether trial delay is attributable to the accused for the purpose of a bail application?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to examine court diaries before dismissing a bail application constitute a failure to apply judicial mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad alias Janoo vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• James Sardar and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1422 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 930 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
• J.M. Hayat Qureshi vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 388 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ismail Adamjee vs Mst. Bilquis Iqbal1996 CLC 619 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs The Karachi1996 CLC 1325. · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Alfaud Cold1996 MLD 1177 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Alfaud Cold Storage and 3 others1996 MLD 1177 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• In Re: Mst. Razia Khatoon vs Not1996 MLD 873 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
• Imperial Paints and Varnish Works, Karachi vs The Federal1996 PLD Karachi 550 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-28Read full judgment →
• Imdad Hussain vs P.O. Sindh and others1996 P Cr. L J 296 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-27Read full judgment →
• Imam Bux vs Shadi Khan and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 933 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-04Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Mehmood vs Shaikh Muhammad Jamil Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 30 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Hyder Ali vs Nizam Construction & Estate Dealers1996 CLC 1040 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• Hussain Khan vs Ibrahimjee Sulemanjee Mithaiwala And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 163 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-08Read full judgment →
• Hassanali & Co. Cotton (Private) Limited vs Poly Coton, S.A., 2Rue, Andrien Vallin, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland and others1996 PLD Karachi 416 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
• Hassan vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 487 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-27
  statutory delaybail cancellationabductionpost-arrest bailadjournmentshardened criminal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves criminal bail applications and notices for bail cancellation in a case concerning the alleged abduction of one Suhail Ahmed Shamsi under Section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions relate to the proper interpretation and calculation of statutory delay under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the application of exceptions regarding hardened or desperate criminals, and whether an accused can directly approach the High Court for bail on the ground of statutory delay without first moving the trial court. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court adopted an improper mathematical method for calculating statutory delay without considering the cascading effects of adjournments or assessing whether the accused fell within the exclusionary categories of dangerous criminals. Consequently, the Court recalled the bail earlier granted to certain co-accused, remanded the matter to the trial court for re-examination, and dismissed the fresh bail application of another accused for bypassing the trial court. The key principles laid down are that the calculation of statutory delay requires examining the substantive impact of adjournments rather than mere subtraction of dates, exceptions for desperate criminals must be evaluated, and applications based on statutory delay must ordinarily be raised first before the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the calculation of statutory delay for bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permits a mere mathematical subtraction of adjournment periods?
  • Must a court consider whether an accused is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal before granting bail on the ground of statutory delay?
  • Can an accused directly approach the High Court for bail on the ground of statutory delay without first applying to the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali & Co. (Pvt) Ltd vs Poly Cotton S.A. and others1996 CLC 1812 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23
  inter-court appealrejection of plaintforeign awardarbitration agreementjurisdictioncivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This Inter-Court Appeal arises from an order of a Single Judge rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction against a foreign arbitral award. The core legal questions involve whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge a foreign arbitration agreement and award, and whether Pakistani courts possess territorial jurisdiction over an award rendered in Liverpool pursuant to an arbitration clause agreed upon by the parties. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was barred by law, specifically under the Arbitration Act 1940 and the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937, and that an arbitration agreement or award must be contested through an application rather than a regular suit. The key principle laid down is that challenges to arbitration agreements or awards cannot be brought via a civil suit where barred by statute, and foreign awards are enforceable in Pakistan in accordance with the applicable arbitration statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge the existence, effect, or validity of an arbitration agreement or award?
  • Does a Pakistani court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit arising from a foreign arbitration award rendered abroad?
  • Can an arbitration award be contested by way of a suit instead of an application under the Arbitration Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashim and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1681 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Har Ahmed vs M. Y. Kherati And Another1996 MLD 1201 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
• Haleem Shah vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 306 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-01
  revisional jurisdictionSection 169 CrPCsuppression of terrorist activitiescognizance of offencejudicial independencepolice investigationlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order passed by a Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, which had accepted a police report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and released an accused after a challan had already been submitted and cognizance taken. The core legal question was whether a trial court, after taking cognizance of a case and framing charges, can entertain a subsequent police report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. to release an accused, and whether the High Court has revisional jurisdiction over such Special Courts. The High Court held that once a challan is submitted and the court takes cognizance, the provisions of Section 169, Cr.P.C. are no longer applicable, and the trial court cannot review its own prior orders or entertain such reports. The court further held that the High Court retains revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and supervisory powers under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 over Special Courts. The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court entertain a report under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after it has already taken cognizance of the case and framed charges?
  • Does the High Court possess revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by Special Courts established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
  • Is a police officer or any person entitled to file a criminal revision application even if they are not the primary aggrieved party?
  • Can a trial court review its own previous order rejecting a Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 report based on subsequent executive correspondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajra Begum And Other vs Aga Khan University HospitalK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 400 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Qasim vs Ahmed Khan1996 MLD 794 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Fazal Ahmed vs Anjuman Jamia Masjid Haqqani, Burmmee Muslim1996 MLD 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Ayub vs The State and another1996 P Cr. L J 1843 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Arbab Ali vs Depuity Director, Saso and 3 others1996 CLC 245 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-25
  Constitutional petitionsuppression of material factsunclean handsequitable reliefstatutory bodyres judicatarecovery of duesland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recovery of fertilizer dues by the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization (SASO) as arrears of land revenue, arguing that a government notification suspended such recoveries. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner suppressed material facts regarding prior litigation and whether the suspension notification applied to SASO. The Court dismissed the petition on multiple grounds. First, it held that the petitioner approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing information about previously filed and withdrawn constitutional petitions, violating the principle that equitable relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 requires absolute candor. Second, on the merits, the Court held that the suspension notification did not apply to SASO, as it is a statutory body constituted under the Sindh Agricultural Supplies Organization Act 1973, not a mere government department. Furthermore, the Court noted that the matter was barred by res judicata due to prior litigation and that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims of unsettled accounts. The judgment affirms that equitable relief is denied to those who engage in inequitable conduct or misrepresent facts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a government notification suspending the recovery of provincial government dues automatically apply to statutory bodies functioning within the province?
  • Can a petitioner be denied constitutional relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for suppressing material facts regarding prior litigation?
  • Is the recovery of dues by a statutory body as arrears of land revenue permissible when the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any attempt to settle disputed accounts with the agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmed vs M. Y. Kherati and anothers1996 MLD 1201 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
• Haji Adam Ali Agaria vs Asif Hussain and 2 others1996 MLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Adam Ali Agaria vs Asif Hussain And 2 Other1996 MLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Jalil vs Anjuman Jame Masjid HAQUANIs1996 MLD 818 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Jalil vs Anjuman Jame Masjid Haquani1996 MLD 818 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah Baig through his Legal Heirs and others vs Mrs. Naheed Jalil1996 CLC 663 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
• Hafeezuddin vs K.M.C. through Mayor/Administrator, Karachi and 7 others1996 PLD Karachi 499 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 870 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Habib Insurance Company Limited vs National Shipping Corporation1996 CLC 638 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Insurance Company Limited vs National Shipping Corporation1996 P.C.T.L.R. 82 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan Industrial Promoters1996 PLD Karachi 218 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10
  Wafaqi Mohtasibmaladministrationbanking negligenceforged chequesbar of jurisdictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib and the President of Pakistan under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983, directing a commercial bank to reverse debit entries and remit mark-up on amounts fraudulently withdrawn from a customer's account through forged cheques and requisition slips. The core legal questions involved whether the Mohtasib had jurisdiction to investigate banking negligence amounting to maladministration when criminal proceedings were pending, and whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact under its constitutional jurisdiction in light of the ouster of jurisdiction clauses in the Ombudsman's Order. The Sindh High Court held that the bank's gross negligence in honoring forged instruments constituted maladministration within the statutory definition, that pending criminal proceedings regarding individual criminal liability did not oust the Mohtasib's jurisdiction over civil/administrative grievances, and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with findings arrived at within the four corners of the special statute. The key principle laid down is that commercial banks acting as statutory agencies can be investigated by the Wafaqi Mohtasib for maladministration regarding customer accounts, and their special statutory findings confirmed by the President cannot be readily disturbed in writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to investigate a bank's negligence regarding fraudulent withdrawals when a criminal case concerning the forgery is pending?
  • Can a commercial bank be considered an 'agency' subject to the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to examine the validity of an action taken or order made under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983?
  • Do civil liabilities arising from banking maladministration fall within the scope of the Wafaqi Mohtasib's investigative powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Abdul Wahid Khan1996 CLC 658 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed Qureshi vs VTH Extra Joint Civil Judge & Family Court1996 CLC 250 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Gulzar and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 80 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Gulshan alias Gulsho vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Gulfam and 3 others vs Bibi Qudsia Begum1996 CLC 1212 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 307 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad alias Guli vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 366 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer and another vs Noor Muhammad and 2 others1996 CLC 412 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-02
  land acquisitionreference to courtlocus standigovernment litigationprocedural compliancecivil procedurecompensation award
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Additional District Judge, Kotri, which rejected a reference filed by the Military Estate Officer under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 regarding a compensation award. The core legal questions were whether the Military Estate Officer had the locus standi to file such a reference and whether the appeal was validly instituted. The Court held that under the unamended Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, only the Provincial Government was empowered to make a direct reference to the Court, rendering the Military Estate Officer’s reference incompetent. Additionally, the Court determined that the appeal was procedurally defective because the legal counsel lacked proper authorization from the Government, violating the mandatory requirements of Order XXVII, Rule 1 and Rule 8-B of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court affirmed that statutory rights to challenge acquisition awards are strictly construed, and legal proceedings initiated by government entities must strictly adhere to procedural mandates regarding authorization and representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as both the reference and the appeal were legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Military Estate Officer have the legal standing to file a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is an appeal filed on behalf of the Government competent if the counsel lacks authorization as required by Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 be filed by a party other than the Provincial Government prior to the 1992 amendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan and 3 others vs Kamruddin Valika1996 CLC 1086 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01
  temporary injunctionspecific performanceprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable lossdamages in alternativelis pendens
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby an injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was granted, restraining the appellants from alienating the disputed land during the pendency of the suit for specific performance and damages. The core legal question revolved around whether the respondent had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for the grant of a temporary injunction, and whether specific performance could be sought when damages had also been claimed in the alternative. The Sindh High Court held that the correspondence between the parties did not constitute a clear, undisputed, and concluded contract of sale, and that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case. Furthermore, the Court held that claiming damages in the alternative as adequate compensation bars the grant of specific performance under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and that the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the interim injunction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction can be granted when the existence of a concluded contract of sale is disputed and based merely on fluid correspondence?
  • Does claiming damages in the alternative for breach of contract bar the enforcement of specific performance under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Whether the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 protects a plaintiff against alienation of property during the pendency of a suit, negating the necessity of an interim injunction?
  • Can a plaintiff establish irreparable loss for the grant of a temporary injunction when they have themselves computed the damages for the breach in monetary terms?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghullam Abbas And Another vs The State1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1130 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 303 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 2 others vs Nabi Bux Khan and others1996 CLC 330 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-18
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powers of High CourtCourt-martialPakistan Army Actdouble jeopardySuppression of Terrorists Activitiescriminal trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorists Activities) against the applicants. The applicants contended that because co-accused military personnel had already been tried and convicted by a Court-martial, the applicants could not be tried by the Special Court for the same incident, relying on the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that Section 96 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, only bars the subsequent trial of a person who has already been acquitted or convicted by a Court-martial. It does not grant immunity to co-accused persons who were not subject to the Court-martial proceedings. The Court further affirmed that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are to be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked to evaluate the sufficiency or credibility of prosecution evidence, which remains the exclusive function of the trial court. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass or short-circuit the established criminal trial process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conviction of military personnel by a Court-martial bar the trial of civilian co-accused for the same offence under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to evaluate the credibility of prosecution evidence before the conclusion of a trial?
  • Is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court an alternative to the trial court's jurisdiction to decide applications under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohiuddin Paracha and anothers vs Ahmed Naseer Kiiawaja1996 CLC 405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28
  arbitration actstay of legal proceedingspartnership dissolutionarbitration clausesteps in proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter involves an application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeking to stay proceedings in a suit and refer the dispute to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in a partnership deed. The plaintiff resisted the application, arguing that the arbitration clause became non-existent upon the dissolution of the partnership, that the clause was vague regarding the method of arbitration, and that the defendants had taken steps in the proceedings by seeking time to file a written statement, thereby precluding them from invoking arbitration. The Court held that an arbitration clause survives the dissolution of a partnership for disputes relating to partnership accounts arising from matters connected to the partnership deed. It further held that the clause sufficiently provided for the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, rendering it not vague. Finally, while defendant No. 1 may have taken steps in the proceedings, defendant No. 2 filed the application simultaneously with his Vakalatnama without taking prior steps, making the application maintainable on behalf of defendant No. 2. The key principle laid down is that an arbitration clause in a partnership deed remains operative post-dissolution for connected disputes, and a defendant who has not taken steps in the proceedings cannot be deprived of their right to arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration clause in a partnership deed survive the dissolution of the partnership for resolving disputes relating to partnership accounts?
  • Is an arbitration clause vague merely because it does not explicitly detail the mode and method of arbitration other than referring to the prevailing Arbitration Act?
  • Can a defendant who has not taken any steps in the proceedings be permitted to invoke an arbitration clause under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani and 10 others vs Abdul Kadir and 17 otherss1996 CLC 1847 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12
  administration suitestate of deceasedancillary jurisdictionpreliminary decreemultiplicity of litigationalienation of propertytitle dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by defendant No. 1 in an administration suit, seeking to delete a specific property (the 'Hyderabad property') from the list of assets of the deceased, on the grounds that he held exclusive ownership and the property could not be the subject of an administration suit. The core legal question was whether a suit for administration remains maintainable when a defendant asserts independent title to a property included in the estate, and whether the court can determine the validity of such claims or alleged alienations within the administration proceedings. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the suit was properly framed as an administration suit. The Court ruled that determining whether a property belongs to the deceased's estate is an essential, ancillary function of an administration suit. It established the principle that a court is empowered to inquire into the title of properties and the validity of alienations to ascertain the true estate of the deceased, provided the suit's primary object is genuine administration rather than merely challenging an alienation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court determine the title to a property claimed by a defendant in their own right within an administration suit?
  • Is a suit for administration maintainable if a defendant asserts independent ownership of a property listed as part of the deceased's estate?
  • Does the court have the power to inquire into the validity of alienations made by a deceased person during their lifetime within the scope of an administration suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain alias Gudu vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 368 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 608 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and anothers vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1125 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ghafooran vs K. M. C.1996 MLD 1541 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Jupiter Textile Mills Ltd. vs Muhammad Akbar and 21996 PLC 480 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
• Galaxy Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd. Company, Karachi vs Dr. Khalid1996 MLD 229 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Fine Food Industries (Private) Limited vs Agricultural Development1996 CLC 986 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain Shah And Another vs The StateK.L.R 1996 Criminal Cases 566 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
• Ferozuddin and 6 others vs Pakistan Hotels Developers Ltd., and 71996 PLD Karachi 300 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Feroz Khan vs Syed Zoha1996 CLC 949 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-24
  ejectmentdefault in rentrent receipttender of rentdeceased landlordSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was filed against the Rent Controller's order directing the appellant's eviction on the ground of default in rent payment. The respondent-landlord asserted that the appellant-tenant defaulted on rent from January 1990 to November 1991. The appellant contended that he paid rent up to August 1991 without receiving receipts, and thereafter deposited rent with the Rent Controller in the name of the deceased landlady. The High Court of Sindh examined Section 10 of the Ordinance, which mandates written acknowledgments, money orders, or Controller deposits as proof of payment. The Court held that depositing rent in the name of a deceased person, despite knowing of her death, does not constitute a valid tender of rent. Furthermore, a tenant's bare assertion of payment without obtaining receipts or utilizing statutory deposit mechanisms is insufficient to prove payment. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a landlord's demand for enhanced rent does not absolve the tenant from tendering the agreed rent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether depositing rent in the name of a deceased landlord, with knowledge of their death, constitutes a valid tender of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a landlord's failure to issue rent receipts automatically shift the burden of proof or presume payment in favor of the tenant who has no documentary evidence?
  • Does a landlord's demand for an enhanced rate of rent absolve the tenant of their obligation to tender the agreed rent within the statutory timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Mahmood vs Sardar Khan and 3 others1996 PLD Karachi 475 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-18
  specific performancedecree on admissionimpoundment of propertyFederal Investigation Agency Actright to propertycivil procedurewritten statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit concerns a claim for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property. The plaintiff sought a decree on admission under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the defendants admitted the agreement's execution and their willingness to perform, while the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) failed to justify its impoundment notice. The core legal question was whether a decree could be granted based on these admissions and whether the FIA’s restraint on the property was lawful. The Court held that the defendants’ admissions were clear and unambiguous, warranting a decree. It further ruled that Section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 does not confer absolute power to restrain property indefinitely without a seizure order from a competent court. The Court emphasized that such powers must be exercised with caution to avoid infringing Article 24(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the suit was decreed, authorizing the Nazir to execute the sale deed if the defendants failed to do so.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit be decreed on the basis of admissions made in a written statement under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does Section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 grant the agency power to impound property indefinitely without a court order?
  • When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell begin to run if no time is specified for completion?
  • Is an admission made by a government official in the discharge of official duties binding on the government?
  Read full judgment →
• Farouq Inayat and anothers vs Haji Abdul Sattar and 9 others1996 PLD Karachi 429 · Sindh High Court · -
  rejection of plaintlimitationevacuee trust propertyjurisdiction of civil courtpermanent transfer deedsettlement authoritiesvoid order
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, legal heirs of displaced persons, filed a civil suit for a declaration, permanent injunction, cancellation of transfer documents (PTO and PTD), and damages concerning an immovable property in Karachi. Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of limitation and lack of jurisdiction due to the property being an evacuee trust property under the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation against a cancellation order passed in 1979 and whether civil court jurisdiction was ousted regarding evacuee trust properties. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation since the plaintiffs remained silent for 17 years after the adverse order, and that the property constituted an evacuee trust property protected by official gazette notifications and presumptive correctness under Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984. Consequently, the court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, holding that civil court jurisdiction is barred under the relevant repeal laws and statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed after an unexplained delay of 17 years against an adverse cancellation order passed by settlement authorities is barred by limitation?
  • Does the jurisdiction of a civil court stand ousted in respect of properties declared as evacuee trust properties under the relevant statutory framework?
  • What is the effect of official gazette notifications regarding the status of a property as a religious or charitable trust under the law of evidence?
  • Can a party invoke the theory of a void order to circumvent the mandatory provisions of the Limitation Act 1908 after maintaining prolonged silence?
  Read full judgment →
• Farooq Hassan and another vs International Credit and Investment1996 CLC 507 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29
  interim reliefissuance of commissioninterlocutory powerspreservation of propertyconsent ordercivil procedureinventory
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order passed by a learned Single Judge in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by a banking company under liquidation against the appellants, who were in occupation of the disputed property. The core legal question examined by the Sindh High Court was the propriety of an interlocutory order allowing architects and engineers to take photographs, measurements, and survey the property and its inventorised contents pursuant to an earlier consent order and under the court's broad procedural powers. The court held that the civil court possesses vast interlocutory powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order 26 and Section 151, to issue commissions and fashion relief ensuring complete justice and the preservation of disputed property. The court laid down that for interim reliefs or the issuance of commissions, a court must consider whether it is just and convenient, and that occupants lacking independent substantive title cannot obstruct measures taken to preserve the status quo of inventorised assets, particularly when the actual claimant through whom they purportedly derive rights chooses not to join the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • What are the scope and parameters of a civil court's interlocutory powers to issue commissions and order surveys or measurements for preserving property during pending suits under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether defendants in unauthorized occupation can successfully challenge an interim order permitting the photographing and measurement of inventorised movables and immovables without establishing their own independent title or interest?
  • Can a court issue directions akin to a commission under Section 151 and Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it is considered just and convenient to do complete justice between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 514 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-03
  criminal misappropriationvitiated trialcopying evidencecomposite judgmentretrialanti-corruptionstatement of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of six appeals arising from a single judgment dated 31-5-1993, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 across six separate cases and sentenced accordingly. The core legal question was whether recording prosecution evidence in one case and verbatim copying or transferring it to other parallel cases, alongside disposing of multiple cases via a single composite judgment and replicating statements under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, vitiated the trial. The Sindh High Court held that such practices constitute a grave illegality that prejudices the defence, is not curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and invalidates both the trial and the resulting judgment. The court laid down the principle that every criminal proceeding must be tried independently with separate recording of evidence, distinct examination of the accused, and a separate judgment containing specific points for determination for each case.

  Questions settled

  • Does copying and transferring evidence from one criminal case to another vitiate the trial?
  • Can multiple criminal cases be legally disposed of by a single composite judgment?
  • Is the practice of replicating an accused person's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure across multiple cases permissible?
  • Does an illegality arising from copying trial records fall within the protective scope of Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahimuddin vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 727 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Engro Chemicals Pakistan Limited vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan1996 CLC 344 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-16
  arbitration proceedingsextension of timemaking of awardwaiver and acquiescencefunctus officioarbitrator jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves proceedings under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking an extension of time for completing arbitration proceedings and making an award. The core legal questions concern whether the court should extend the time for making an award after its expiry, and what effect participation in arbitration proceedings after such expiry has on the parties' rights. The Sindh High Court held that section 28 confers wide, discretionary powers upon courts to enlarge the time for making an award either before or after its expiry, and even retrospectively. The Court further ruled that where parties continue to participate in arbitration proceedings and submit to the arbitrator's jurisdiction after the expiration of the prescribed time without raising timely objections, the principles of waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel apply, preventing them from subsequently challenging the proceedings on the ground of expired time. The Court emphasized that extensions should be granted judiciously to prevent hardship, especially where delays were not attributable to the arbitrators or where court-ordered stays had previously halted proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court extend the time for making an arbitration award after the expiry of the previously granted period?
  • What is the legal effect of parties participating in arbitration proceedings after the expiry of the time fixed for making the award?
  • Does the principle of waiver and estoppel apply when a party takes part in arbitration proceedings without objection after the prescribed period has elapsed?
  • What factors should a court consider when exercising its discretion to enlarge time under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Engro Chemicals Pakistan Limited vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan, KarachiK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 467 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad Mir vs Mrs: Shamsa Khatoon1996 MLD 648 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Wasif Ahmed Jalali vs Mst. Ghazala Iqbal1996 MLD 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shafique Ahmed vs Mst. Surraya Sultana1996 CLC 399 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-20
  first rent appealtentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in payment of rentpower of attorneyejectment applicationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenges an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller striking off the appellant tenant's defence and directing the vacation of rented premises due to non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order. The core legal questions involved whether the tentative rent order was impermissibly vague by requiring mathematical calculations rather than a fixed sum, whether a summary enquiry was mandatory prior to the order, and whether an ejectment application instituted via a power of attorney lacking initial notarization was cured by the principal's subsequent confirmatory affidavit. The Sindh High Court held that an order requiring simple mathematical calculation is not vague, that a tenant's failure to deposit future monthly rent alone warrants striking off the defence, and that a subsequent affidavit by the landlady ratifies the institution of the proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal, establishing that tentative rent orders protecting both parties' interests through restrictions on withdrawal are valid, and failure to comply entails penal consequences under the rent laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tentative rent order directing the deposit of arrears and future rent is rendered void for vagueness merely because it requires simple mathematical calculations by the tenant?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to deposit future monthly rent independently warrant the striking off of the tenant's defence under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a defect in the initial institution of an ejectment application filed through an attorney be cured by the subsequent filing of a confirmatory affidavit by the principal landlady?
  • Whether the absence of a formal summary enquiry prior to the passing of a tentative rent order vitiates the proceedings when the tenant has been granted adequate opportunity during review proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Riaz Mustafa And 6 Others vs Muhammad Abdul Aziz1996 MLD 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Raees Farhan Mushtaq and anothers vs Mst. Naheed alias Mona and 31996 MLD 1749 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Raees Farhan Mushtaq And Another vs Mst. Naheed Alias Mona And 31996 MLD 1749 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hawed Ahmed Ayaz vs Abdul Basit and others1996 PLD Karachi 208 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aftab Ahmed and anothers vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-12Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs Pakistan Steel Mills and anothers1996 CLC 530 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-31
  fatal accidentsdamagesnegligencecompensatory costsvicarious liabilitypublic functionariestraffic accident
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for the recovery of damages filed under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by the father of a deceased individual who lost his life in a traffic accident involving a bus owned by defendant No. 1 and driven by defendant No. 2. The core legal questions pertained to whether the death was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the defendant driver, the joint and several liability of the defendants for compensation, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to costs, interest, and compensatory costs due to frivolous defenses raised by public bodies. The court held that the evidence established actionable negligence on the part of the driver in the course of his employment, rendering both defendants jointly and severally liable. The court laid down that public functionaries must not raise false, frivolous, or vexatious pleas to prolong litigation in fatal accident claims, and awarded damages along with interest and the maximum permissible compensatory costs under section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the owner of a vehicle is vicariously liable for the fatal accident caused by the negligence of its driver acting in the course of employment?
  • Can a plaintiff be awarded a higher amount of compensation than what was specifically claimed in the plaint?
  • Whether plaintiffs are entitled to interest from the date of the suit in claims arising under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • Are public bodies and government functionaries liable for compensatory costs when raising false and vexatious defenses in fatal accident litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Dodo and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1326 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
• District and Sessions Judge vs Kirshan1996 P Cr. L J 995 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Unna R vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 414 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ali vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 771 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-27Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ali vs Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another1996 CLC 1710 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-13Read full judgment →
• Darul Aman Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi vs The Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Works & Rehabilitation Division, Islamabad And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 272 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dadan alias Dadoo vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 391 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-17
  plea of guiltmandatory procedurecriminal revisionprotracted trialremand for retrialconviction on admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges a conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court based on the applicant's plea of guilt. The core legal question is whether the trial court complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 243, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, before convicting the accused on his admission. The High Court held that the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 243, Cr.P.C., which requires the court to record the admission in the accused's own words and provide an opportunity to show cause why he should not be convicted. The Court observed that the applicant's plea was not voluntary but rather a result of frustration due to a protracted trial and the absence of prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh trial. The principle laid down is that a conviction based on a plea of guilt is invalid if the trial court fails to strictly adhere to the statutory safeguards designed to ensure the plea is voluntary and informed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a conviction based on a plea of guilt sustainable if the trial court fails to record the admission in the accused's own words as required by Section 243, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to provide an accused an opportunity to show cause against conviction invalidate a plea of guilt under Section 243, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a plea of guilt be considered involuntary if it is motivated by the desire to end a protracted trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Dad Rehman vs Government of Sindh and 3 others1996 CLC 1268 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-16Read full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Messrs Aljamil1996 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Limited, Karachi vs M/s.1996 CLC 796 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Private) Limited vs Modern1996 CLC 801 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →