Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Continental (Pvt.) Limited vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Housing Town Planning Department, Karachi and another1996 CLC 417 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a private company seeking a declaration that a provincial government notification banning high-rise constructions above ground plus four floors did not apply to its project, and directing the Karachi Building Control Authority to approve its structural plans without requiring a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the utility board. The core legal questions were whether the ban applied to the petitioner's downgraded seven-storey project and whether the authority could lawfully demand an NOC from the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to prove it was exempted from the ban by any scrutiny committee. The Court ruled that the government's demand for an NOC was lawful, reasonable, and necessary to protect public interest, as mushrooming high-rise constructions without adequate utilities severely impact urban populations. The key principle laid down is that the state has a prime duty to ensure basic utilities and a pollution-free environment, and public interest overrides commercial construction interests when utility resources are scarce.
Questions settled- Whether a general ban on high-rise constructions due to utility scarcity applies to projects with previously approved or revised plans that exceed the prescribed height limit?
- Can the building control authority lawfully demand a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from utility providers before approving structural plans in the public interest?
- Can a petitioner seek discretionary constitutional relief based on a factual claim of exemption without producing documentary evidence to support it?
- Does the state's duty to ensure basic utilities and a pollution-free environment justify restricting commercial high-rise developments?
- Commander (Retd) Ma. Ansari vs Pakistan Defence Housing Authority1996 CLC 198 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-03Read full judgment →
- Chaman Baig vs Karachi Transport Corporation Through Its ChairmanK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 316 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Limited and anothers vs Atlas Bot Lease Co.1996 CLC 981 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-01Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Limited And Another vs Atlas Bot Lease Co. Limited1996 P.C.T.L.R. 102 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Limited and 2 others vs Naveed Textile Mills1996 MLD 1943 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Central Cotton Mills Limited And 2 Others vs Naveed Textile Mills1996 MLD 1943 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Habibullah Qureshi vs Farooque and 3 others1995 MLD 92 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-27Read full judgment →
- Captain S.M. Aslam vs Mst. Rubi Akhtar1996 CLC 1 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose from constitutional petitions under Article 199 regarding custody of two minor children under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner-father challenged an appellate order restoring custody to the respondent-mother, who had remarried a stranger to the prohibited degree. The core legal questions pertained to whether a mother loses custody automatically upon remarriage or when minors reach specified ages under traditional Hanafi jurisprudence, how the Majority Act, 1875 intersects with Islamic personal law, and the role of the minors' intelligent preference under Section 17(3) of the Act. The High Court held that the paramount consideration is exclusively the welfare of the minor, not rigid proprietary parental claims or mechanical age rules from secondary commentaries. Minors who have attained puberty possess discretion, and courts exercising parental jurisdiction must ascertain their free intelligent preference. Finding that the subordinate courts failed to ascertain the minors' wishes, the High Court allowed the constitutional petition, set aside the appellate order, and remanded the matter to the District Judge to ascertain the children's preference.
Questions settled- Does a mother automatically lose her right of Hizanat (custody) merely upon contracting a marriage with a person outside the prohibited degrees?
- Whether the age thresholds for custody prescribed in classical legal textbooks override the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor under Sections 17 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
- Does Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875 preclude a Muslim minor who has attained puberty from exercising personal rights and expressing an intelligent preference regarding custody?
- Is an order determining the custody of minors who have attained puberty sustainable if the court fails to ascertain their intelligent preference under Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
- Brigade Commander Headquarters Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 447 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- Before Wajihuddin Ahmad and Agha Saifuddin Khan, If Syed Bashiruddin1996 PLD Karachi 235 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-04Read full judgment →
- Before Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Mehboob Alam and 3 others vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 144 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicants filed a criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings pending against them under section 2/3 of the Foreigners Act 1946, claiming they were Pakistani citizens holding National Identity Cards. The State contended that the applicants were foreign nationals from Bangladesh who had obtained identity cards through forged documents, and that under section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946, the burden of proof rested upon them. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could be quashed under inherent jurisdiction when the status of the accused as citizens or foreigners presented a disputed question of fact requiring evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the question of citizenship is a disputed factual matter that must be determined by the trial court after recording evidence, and the mere production of identity cards whose authenticity is challenged does not warrant interference under section 561-A. The court laid down the principle that the appreciation of evidence and resolution of disputed facts is the function of the trial court, and extraordinary inherent powers will not be exercised to quash proceedings where an adequate trial remedy exists and allegations disclose an offence.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings under the Foreigners Act be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the citizenship of the accused is a disputed question of fact?
- Whether the production of National Identity Cards whose authenticity is challenged by the State is sufficient to hold a person is a citizen of Pakistan in quashment proceedings?
- Does the burden of proof lie upon the accused to prove they are not foreigners under section 9 of the Foreigners Act 1946?
- Is the appreciation of evidence and evaluation of the credibility of documents a function of the trial court or the High Court exercising inherent jurisdiction?
- Before Hamid Ali Mirza, J Fateh Ali vs Trustees of Haji Sir Abdullah1996 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Before Dr. Ghous Muhammad. J Aarub Khan vs Haris M. B. Ahmad and others1996 PLD Karachi 253 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge. The appellant contended that the acquittal was improper because not all prosecution witnesses were examined and that the process violated natural justice. The Court addressed whether a Magistrate can acquit an accused under Section 249-A without examining all witnesses and whether the underlying dispute regarding sale agreements constituted a criminal offence. The Court held that the acquittal was legally sustainable, affirming that Section 249-A permits acquittal at any stage if the charge is groundless, without requiring the examination of all witnesses. It further ruled that disputes arising from sale agreements and alleged breaches of contract are essentially civil in nature, and criminal proceedings cannot be invoked to resolve them. The Court emphasized that criminal courts must prevent the abuse of process by ensuring that civil disputes are not disguised as criminal complaints, and that minor typographical errors in judicial orders do not invalidate the proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining all prosecution witnesses?
- Does a dispute arising from the breach of a sale agreement constitute a criminal offence or a civil matter?
- Can criminal proceedings be initiated for the recovery of money under the guise of 'Amanat' or entrustment when the underlying transaction is a sale agreement?
- Does a typographical error in a judicial order regarding the date of proceedings invalidate the entire order?
- Before Abdul Rahim Kazi and Agha SaifudDin Khan, JJT Ali Nawaz and 21996 PLD Karachi 146 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) convicting the appellants under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for preparation to commit dacoity. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the essential ingredients of the offence, specifically the intention to commit dacoity, and whether the mandatory procedural requirements regarding the association of independent witnesses were satisfied. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It found that the police failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by not associating private witnesses despite the availability of local residents. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial court's finding of false implication regarding co-accused reduced the number of alleged participants below the statutory threshold for unlawful assembly. The Court emphasized that mere assembly of armed persons does not automatically establish an intention to commit dacoity without proof of overt acts. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the mere assembly of five or more armed persons at a place automatically give rise to the inference of an intention to commit dacoity under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the failure to associate private witnesses in a police raid a sufficient ground to set aside a conviction when the circumstances allowed for their presence?
- Can a conviction under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained if the number of accused is reduced below five due to the acquittal of co-accused?
- Before Abdul Latif U. Qureshi, Muhammad Asif vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 385 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arose out of a trial before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Central Karachi, wherein the applicant faced charges under Sections 353 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after having been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year without any witness being examined.
The High Court of Sindh granted bail to the applicant. The Court held that the right to bail under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) is a mandatory statutory right rather than a matter of judicial discretion. Because the delay in trial was attributable to the disturbed situation in Karachi rather than any act or omission of the applicant, and the jail report and police record failed to establish that the applicant was a previous convict, hardened, dangerous, or desperate criminal, or involved in terrorism under the 4th proviso, he was entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Questions settled- Is the right to bail on the ground of statutory delay under the 3rd proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandatory or discretionary?
- Can bail on statutory delay grounds be denied if the delay in trial was caused by general law and order conditions rather than acts or omissions of the accused?
- How is a court to determine whether an accused is a hardened, dangerous, or desperate criminal for the purpose of the 4th proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Before Abdul Hafeez Memon, and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Dilawar Shah1996 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the lower forums setting aside an ex parte custody order and restoring the custody of three minors to their mother. The petitioner, the paternal grandfather of the minors, had previously obtained an ex parte custody order and executed it. Subsequently, the mother applied under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the ex parte order on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, stating she was residing outside Karachi during the relevant period. The core legal question concerned whether an executing court or family court could entertain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and whether technicalities should override the welfare of minors in custody matters. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that in matters concerning the custody of children, the court exercises parental jurisdiction (in loco parentis) where technicalities of law must yield to the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minors. The court affirmed that the right of Hizanat (custody) primarily rests with the mother unless her disqualification is established through evidence.
Questions settled- Whether an executing court can entertain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte order?
- Does a family court acting under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 exercise parental jurisdiction where technicalities of law should be avoided?
- What is the primary consideration for a court while adjudicating matters relating to the custody of minors?
- Does the right of Hizanat primarily vest in the mother under Sunni Muslim Law?
- Before Abdul Hafeez Memon, Actg. C.J. and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, J1996 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three constitutional petitions challenging the grant of liquor manufacturing and trade licences by the Government of Sindh to M/s. Beach Brewery. The core legal questions involved the constitutional validity of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 post-martial law, the scope of Article 2A of the Constitution in light of the Objectives Resolution, whether executive circulars of the Federal Government override provincial statutory powers, and the locus standi of petitioners filing public interest litigation driven by collateral motives. The Sindh High Court held that the Prohibition Order is a valid provincial law saved by Article 270-A of the Constitution, that Article 2A is not a supra-constitutional instrument or self-executing test of repugnancy, and that the Provincial Government possesses absolute statutory power under Article 17 of the Prohibition Order to issue licences. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, ruling that trade in intoxicants is subject to strict state regulation and does not confer a fundamental right to a monopoly.
Questions settled- Whether Article 2A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is a supra-constitutional provision capable of being used as a test of repugnancy to strike down existing laws?
- Does the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 cease to be operative after the lifting of martial law on December 30, 1985?
- Whether the Provincial Government has the competence and statutory power under Article 17 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 4 of 1979 to issue licences for the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquor for permitted purposes?
- Are Federal executive policy circulars binding on a Provincial Government so as to curtail its statutory licensing powers under provincial laws?
- Does a citizen have an inherent fundamental right under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to claim a monopoly in the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor?
- Bakhtawar Khan and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1588 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
- Bago and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1818 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arose after the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), upon concluding trial for an offence under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, directly transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge for lack of jurisdiction instead of announcing judgment. A reference was received from the Additional Sessions Judge questioning the legality of such transfer. The High Court considered whether a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 has lawful authority to directly transfer a concluded trial to a Court of Session, and whether the Court of Session can take direct cognizance. The High Court held that the direct transfer was without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. A Court of Session is barred under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 from taking direct cognizance without transmission under Section 190(3). If a Special Court finds that no scheduled offence is made out, it must return the challan to the police or discharge the accused, rather than transferring the case directly. The applicants were granted bail.
Questions settled- Is a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 competent to directly transfer a case to a Court of Session or Additional Sessions Judge upon finding that a scheduled offence is not made out?
- Can a Court of Session directly take cognizance of a criminal case sent to it by a Special Court without transmission through a Magistrate under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What procedure must a Special Court follow when it determines after police challan that the alleged offence is not a scheduled offence?
- Is the High Court competent under Sections 498 and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail to an accused where their scheduled offence status remains undecided and indefinite detention occurs?
- Badruddin alias Dhamako vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 786 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
- Baboodin vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 778 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-17Read full judgment →
- Azra Jawed and anothers vs Jamshed Aslam Khan and anothers1996 MLD 1203 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Azra Jawed And Another vs Jamshed Aslam Khan And Another1996 MLD 1203 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Azizur Rehman vs Rana Abdul Khaliq And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 173 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
- Azizullah Bhutto vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Revenue1996 CLC 676 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
- Azam Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1582 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
- Azad Muhammad vs Muhammad Umar1996 CLC 991 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-14Read full judgment →
- Auaz Mehmood vs Shaikh Muhammad Jamil and others1996 CLC 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court, which refused specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property but decreed a refund of Rs. 6,000 with interest. The appellant sought specific performance of an agreement allegedly executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, claiming he had purchased the property and made improvements. The respondents contended the property belonged to a corporation and the appellant was merely a tenant. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell property, executed by a director without authorization from the corporate owner, is specifically enforceable. The Court held that specific performance was rightly refused because the vendor lacked the legal authority to dispose of corporate property, and the appellant, as a purchaser, failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the vendor's title. The Court affirmed that specific performance is an equitable relief, not a matter of right, and cannot be granted when the vendor cannot pass a valid title. The principle established is that a purchaser who fails to investigate a vendor's title does so at their own risk.
Questions settled- Can a director of a company specifically perform an agreement to sell property belonging to the company without authorization?
- Is specific performance of an agreement to sell an absolute right or an equitable relief?
- Does a purchaser who fails to investigate the vendor's title bear the risk of the transaction?
- Can an agreement for the sale of property be enforced against a company if the company repudiates the agreement?
- Attaur Rehman vs Mst. Aisha Jabeen1996 MLD 858 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-24Read full judgment →
- Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Collector, Badin1996 CLC 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Badin, enhancing compensation for land acquired for an oil well. Respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal and the insufficiency of the court-fee stamp. The Sindh High Court examined whether the appeal was competently filed by an authorized person under the relevant rules and whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for making good a deficient court-fee after the expiry of the limitation period. The Court held that while the appeal was filed by a competent party and signed by an authorized law officer, the appellant's conduct in delaying the payment of the heavy deficit court-fee without plausible explanation—despite notice of the objection—was contumacious and negligent. Consequently, the Court ruled that the subsequent payment of the court-fee did not cure the defect retrospectively, rendering the appeal barred by limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 can be preferred by the Land Acquisition Collector or Provincial Government?
- Does an Advocate-General or an advocate engaged by the government require a formal Vakalatnama to file an appeal on behalf of the Provincial Government?
- Can the retrospective benefit of section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be extended to an appellant who pays a heavy deficit court-fee after the period of limitation in a negligent or contumacious manner?
- Does the conditional granting of an application to make up a court-fee deficiency 'subject to all just exceptions' preclude the respondent from raising the question of limitation at the final hearing?
- Asma Khatoon vs Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah, A.C.M. & F.C.M. Courtiv.1996 PLD Karachi 517 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the continued detention of the petitioner's son, who was arrested under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question concerned whether the detention was lawful, given the police's failure to produce the accused before a magistrate within twenty-four hours, the absence of valid remand orders, and the failure to submit a challan within the statutory timeframe. The High Court held that the detention was unlawful and ordered the immediate release of the detenu. The Court established that constitutional guarantees under Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, regarding the right to liberty and production before a magistrate, remain applicable even in proceedings under special laws like the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that remand orders must be speaking orders containing recorded reasons, and that procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, including sections 61, 167, and 173, cannot be bypassed by police or magistrates, as special laws only override the Code where there is explicit inconsistency.
Questions settled- Does the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 exclude the application of constitutional guarantees regarding arrest and detention?
- Are remand orders passed by a magistrate required to be speaking orders containing recorded reasons?
- Can a magistrate authorize police custody if the accused was not produced within twenty-four hours of arrest as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to submit a challan within the statutory period render the continued detention of an accused unlawful?
- Asif Khan Shamim vs The Government of Sindh and otherss1996 CLC 456 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-17Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali vs K.M.C, Through Its Administrator And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 415 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
- Asghar vs Subdivisional Magistrate, Mehar1996 P Cr. L J 107 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
- Asadullah Khan vs Abdul KarimK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 397 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
- Arsalan Subugutgeen vs The State1996 P.C.T.L.R. 14 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
- Anwer Ali and 6 others vs Sharfuddin through Legal Heirs1996 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
- Anjuman Wazifa Sadat Momineen (Regd.) vs Ghulam AhmedK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 197 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Ammar Housing Services (Pvt) Ltd vs Jalaluddin Ahmed and otherss1996 CLC 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
- Aminuddin and 4 others vs Salima Bano1996 CLC 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
- Amin Ahmed and 31 others vs Ministry of Production Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary and 3 others1996 PLD Karachi 27 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses multiple constitutional petitions challenging the privatization of state-owned industrial units and its effects on the service conditions and benefits of their officers. The core legal questions concerned the constitutionality of privatization without consulting the Council of Common Interests (CCI), the validity of transferring management alongside shares, and the officers' entitlement to a 'Golden Handshake' scheme. The Sindh High Court held that the Federal Government was competent to privatize and dispose of property under Article 173 of the Constitution, and consultation with the CCI was not required for disposal, as opposed to development, of industries. It further ruled that the transfer of management was a natural consequence of transferring majority shareholding. The Court also found that officers were not entitled to the 'Golden Handshake' scheme, as the relevant Memorandum of Agreement was specifically for workers, and their service conditions differed. Consequently, the relationship between the officers and the privatized companies was deemed 'master and servant,' rendering constitutional petitions for enforcing contractual service conditions non-maintainable. The petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Is consultation with the Council of Common Interests required for the Federal Government to privatize or dispose of state-owned industrial units?
- Does the transfer of majority shares in a managed establishment under privatization legislation also entail the transfer of management control?
- Are officers of privatized state-owned enterprises entitled to a 'Golden Handshake' scheme primarily negotiated for workers?
- Can contractual service conditions of employees in a master-servant relationship with a private company be enforced through a constitutional petition?
- Does Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 prohibit different benefit schemes for officers and workers in the context of privatization?
- Allah Rakhio vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1328 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
- Allah Baksh and 4 others vs Dr. Abdul Waheed and another1996 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration, permanent injunction, possession, mesne profits, and damages in respect of a plot located in a Katchi Abadi in Karachi, tracing a lengthy history of prior litigation between the parties concerning tenancy, ejectment, and title. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, whether it was barred by the principle of res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the plaintiffs had established a subsisting title or right to possession. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was filed well beyond the period of twelve years from the date of dispossession, and was also barred by res judicata in light of a prior finalized suit for possession. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership or subsisting title to the government land comprising the Katchi Abadi. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff seeking possession of immovable property on the basis of title must establish a subsisting title and bring the action within the limitation period prescribed, and subsequent suits for reliefs omitted in earlier proceedings are barred.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for possession of immovable property is barred by limitation if filed beyond twelve years from the date of dispossession under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Does a prior final adjudication of a possession suit between the same parties bar a subsequent suit under the principle of res judicata pursuant to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Is a suit for possession simpliciter maintainable when the plaintiff fails to establish ownership or subsisting title to the property in dispute?
- Whether the omission to claim possession and mesne profits in an earlier suit for declaration and injunction attracts the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Ali Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 357 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-17Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz vs Province of Sindh and others1996 MLD 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz vs Province of Sindh And Other1996 MLD 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1347 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-31Read full judgment →
- Ali Hassan and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 797 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-26Read full judgment →
- Ali Dost vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 360 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
- Ali Asghar vs Muhammad Ramzan Ghauri and 2 others1996 MLD 530 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ali Asghar vs Muhammad Ramzan Ghauri And 2 Other1996 MLD 530 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-24Read full judgment →
- Ali Asghar Shah vs Hashim Shah and 6 others1996 CLC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge dismissing the plaintiff's application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for amendment of the plaint. The core legal question concerns whether a plaintiff can be permitted to amend a suit originally framed for declaration and injunction to one including specific performance, and whether such an amendment changes the nature of the suit or its cause of action. The Sindh High Court held that the amendment was necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and did not alter the fundamental cause of action, as the bundle of facts remained unchanged. The Court emphasized that provisions governing amendments of pleadings must be construed liberally to advance complete justice, provided the amendment is not mala fide and does not set up an entirely new case. The revision application was accordingly allowed, setting aside the trial court's order subject to the payment of costs.
Questions settled- Whether an application for amendment of the plaint seeking to add a prayer for specific performance changes the fundamental nature and cause of action of a suit for declaration and injunction?
- Under what circumstances is a court bound to allow an amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Can an amendment of the plaint be permitted even if it involves altering the title and prayer clause, provided the underlying bundle of facts remains the same?
- Does delay alone constitute a sufficient ground for refusing a bona fide application for the amendment of a plaint?
- Ali Akbar vs The State1996 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
- Ali Akbar and 2 others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 534 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
- Ali Akbar And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases I32 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
- Ali Aijmad vs DR. Akhtar AliK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 242 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
- Ali Ahmed vs Dr. Akhtar Ali1996 CLC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-13Read full judgment →
- Alamgir vs The State Through Director General Pakistan Coast Guards1996 P.C.T.L.R. 64 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-03Read full judgment →
- Akhtar Hussain vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1816 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-06Read full judgment →
- Akhtar H. ASKARdI vs Mst. Mahboob Begum1996 CLC 869 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-13Read full judgment →
- Akhan Razaullah vs The Municipal Committee, Tando Allahyar, through Chairman and 3 others1996 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Akbar Hussain vs Wadero Muhammad Tayyab1996 PLD Karachi 545 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a matter remanded by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to determine whether notice was served on the respondent before an arbitration award was rendered by a sole arbitrator. The core legal question is whether the unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator by the appellant, without invoking the court's jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act after the respondent failed to concur, rendered the subsequent arbitration proceedings and award illegal. The Sindh High Court held that where an arbitration agreement is silent on the mode of appointment, the statutory provisions of Section 3 and Paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act apply, requiring the appointment of a sole arbitrator through the intervention of the court under Section 8 if parties fail to concur. Because the appellant failed to move the court for appointment under Section 8(2) and erroneously confused the procedure with Section 9, the appointment was bad in law. The court dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that failure to follow the mandatory court-appointment procedure under Section 8 for a sole arbitrator invalidates the appointment, distinguishing it from the self-executing provisions of Section 9.
Questions settled- Whether the unilateral appointment of a sole arbitrator without seeking court intervention under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is legally valid when parties fail to concur?
- What is the distinction between the appointment procedures mandated under Section 8 and Section 9 of the Arbitration Act?
- Can an Appellate Court proceed to determine a case finally under Order XVII Rule 3 read with Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the appellant's counsel fails to address the court after being granted time?
- Does an arbitration agreement that is silent on the mode of appointment default to a sole arbitrator pursuant to the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act?
- Abijur Rahim And Others vs (M/s.) United Bank Limited1996 P.C.T.L.R 1453 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Allah Diya1996 CLC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns an accused facing trial under the Customs Act, 1969, for alleged currency smuggling. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the applicant's prior status as an absconder and the risk of him absconding, drawing parallels to a co-accused who had absconded after being granted bail. The core legal question was whether bail should be denied solely on the grounds of alleged abscondence and the apprehension of future flight, particularly when the applicant had not been declared a proclaimed offender. The Court held that bail should be granted, ruling that the principle of refusing bail to an absconder is not applied strictly in every case, especially where the accused lacked knowledge of pending proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that an accused cannot be denied bail based on a presumption of future abscondence derived from the conduct of a co-accused. The judgment establishes that where a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, bail is a right, and the uncorroborated statement of an absconding co-accused is insufficient to justify continued incarceration.
Questions settled- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of abscondence if the accused was not declared a proclaimed offender?
- Is the uncorroborated statement of an absconding co-accused sufficient to deny bail to another accused?
- Does the risk of future abscondence based on the conduct of a co-accused constitute valid grounds for refusing bail?
- Is bail a right of the accused when the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Abdul Rasool vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 724 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum vs Muhammad AzeemK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 499 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir and 3 others vs Haji Ghulam Qadir and 4 others1996 CLC 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application is directed against an appellate court judgment and decree that reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and alternative specific performance of an agreement regarding agricultural lands. The core legal questions involve the validity and legal efficacy of transferring immovable property via a statement recorded before a Revenue Officer, whether such a statement constitutes an enforceable contract of sale, and the correctness of the appellate court's appreciation of evidence regarding possession and mutation of rights. The Sindh High Court held that recording a statement before a Mukhtiarkar for the transfer of immovable property without compliance with statutory provisions and registration requirements is legally untenable, and that entries in the record of rights do not confer title. The High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, holding that the alleged transaction was not proved and was tainted with material contradictions, thereby restoring the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. The key principles laid down include that revenue officer statements cannot bypass statutory transfer and registration laws for immovable property, and that appellate courts should not overturn trial court findings based on misappreciated evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the transfer of immovable property on the basis of a statement before a Revenue Officer is warranted by law under the Sindh Land Revenue Act 1967?
- Do entries in the record of rights by themselves confer any right, title, and interest in favour of a party?
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with the findings of a trial court based on misappreciated evidence and surmises?
- Does a statement recorded before a Mukhtiarkar regarding agricultural land dispense with the requirements of registered deeds under the Transfer of Property Act 1882 and the Registration Act 1908?
- Abdul Majid vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 309 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for the alleged possession of 13 grams of heroin. The core legal questions concerned the necessity of complying with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the recovery of narcotics in a populated area, the evidentiary value of police-only witnesses, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's proof regarding the nature of the recovered substance. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that when a recovery occurs in a populated area, the failure to associate private witnesses as Mashirs, without providing specific details of those who refused to participate, creates a significant evidentiary gap. Furthermore, the Court found the prosecution's case weakened by the unexplained delay in sending the sample to the Chemical Examiner and the failure to analyze the entire quantity of the alleged contraband. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, reinforcing the principle that police evidence must be scrutinized with extreme caution when procedural safeguards are ignored.
Questions settled- Is compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for recoveries of narcotics made in populated areas?
- Can the evidence of police officials alone be sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, in the absence of private witnesses?
- Does an unexplained delay in sending a narcotic sample to the Chemical Examiner affect the reliability of the prosecution's case?
- Abdul Majeed Mugheri vs The State through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh1996 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif vs Muhammad Yousuf and 2 others1996 PLD Karachi 365 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from the dismissal of the applicant's suit in default and subsequent rejections by the trial and appellate courts of his application under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. for restoration of the suit. The restoration application, supported by unrefuted affidavits of the applicant and his advocate explaining that absence resulted from a bona fide mistake and stating that knowledge of dismissal was acquired later, was rejected below solely because no separate condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 was filed and for alleged non-compliance with Order XLIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside both subordinate court orders and restoring the suit. The High Court held that unrebutted averments in an advocate's affidavit stand admitted and establish sufficient cause. Because the restoration application was filed within thirty days of the applicant's knowledge, a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was unnecessary. Furthermore, procedural rules cannot defeat substantive justice on technicalities.
Questions settled- Whether an unrebutted affidavit filed by an advocate in support of a restoration application constitutes an admission of the facts stated therein?
- Whether a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 is required when an application under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. is filed within thirty days of acquiring knowledge of the dismissal order?
- Can a court dismiss an application for restoration of a suit on technical procedural grounds where sufficient cause is shown on the uncontroverted record?
- Abdul Karim and 3 others vs The STATEs1996 MLD 183 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim And 3 Others vs The State1996 MLD 183 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim alias Raja and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 503 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment passed by the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Larkana, convicting the appellants under sections 365-A and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to death along with forfeiture of property and payment of compensation to the abductees. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants, along with others, abducted two persons from a rice mill at gunpoint and detained them until ransom was paid. The core legal questions involved the reliability of identification evidence, the unexplained delay of six months in arresting the named or identifiable accused, and the effect of non-compliance with statutory provisions governing the submission of police reports under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious doubts, manipulated evidence, and a dubious identification parade. The Court ruled that prolonged unexplained delay in arresting known accused and failing to submit prompt reports under section 173 vitiate the trial, and set aside the conviction and sentences, acquitting the appellants of the charges.
Questions settled- Whether an identification parade holds evidentiary value when the names of the accused were already known to the complainant shortly after the incident but omitted from the initial police report?
- Does a prolonged and unexplained delay of six months in arresting the accused by the investigating agency render the prosecution case doubtful?
- Whether non-compliance with the provisions regarding the submission of police reports under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can vitiate a trial?
- Can a conviction for abduction and ransom be sustained solely on the basis of a dubious identification test and oral testimony unsupported by reliable corroborative evidence?
- Abdul Karim Alias Raja And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 294 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haq alias Qavi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1115 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1996 CLC 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a constitutional petition challenging the approval of a building plan by official respondents for the reconstruction of a petrol pump on a plot situated within a cantonment area. The core legal questions relate to whether contractual lease disputes between private parties can be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction, and whether building control authorities are legally required to obtain the owner's consent or restrict building plan applications exclusively to the owner or their attorney under applicable laws. The Sindh High Court held that disputes regarding the rights and obligations of private parties under a lease cannot be resolved in a constitutional petition and must be determined through appropriate evidentiary proceedings. Furthermore, the court held that building control within cantonment areas is governed by federal legislation to the exclusion of provincial regulations, and no provision of law prohibits approving a construction plan without the owner's consent. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can contractual disputes regarding the rights and obligations of private parties under a lease be determined in a constitutional petition?
- Does a provincial building control regulation prevail over the Cantonments Act 1924 for property situated within a cantonment area?
- Is the consent of the plot owner mandatory for the approval of a reconstruction plan submitted by a sub-lessee under the Cantonments Act 1924?
- Does the statutory framework restrict the submission of building plan applications exclusively to the owner or their attorney?
- Abdul Ghani and others vs Ahmad Himani and 5 otherss1996 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses a civil miscellaneous application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by defendants Nos. 4 and 5 (tenants) in a property ownership dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. The applicants sought to join the Board of Revenue and the Karachi Municipal Corporation (KMC) as defendants to determine whether the disputed property was an evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the addition of these government departments was necessary or proper for the effective adjudication of the suit under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. The Court held that the applicants, being merely tenants whose status as tenants would remain unaffected regardless of whether the plaintiffs or defendant No. 1 proved ownership, failed to make out a case for joinder. Furthermore, neither proposed department was a necessary or proper party since the plea was not raised in the written statement or issues, and joinder would alter the nature of the suit and complicate proceedings. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether third-party tenants can seek the joinder of government departments under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. to contest the ownership of a disputed property?
- What constitutes a necessary or proper party for the purposes of joinder under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party introduce a completely new factual stand through an interlocutory application without amending the pleadings or framing issues?
- Whether an application for addition of parties should be allowed if it changes the nature of the suit and causes embarrassment or complication?
- Abdul Ghafoor and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1573 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application arose from a criminal case registered against five applicants under Crime No. 86/95 at Police Station Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki, for allegedly engaging in a half-hour armed shootout with a police patrol party before surrendering. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground that the prosecution's narrative was highly improbable and warranted further inquiry. The High Court of Sindh observed that despite an alleged half-hour exchange of fire involving deadly weapons like Kalashnikovs, not a single person on either side was injured, nor was the police vehicle hit. Additionally, the court found it highly improbable that five armed men with loaded weapons would easily surrender to six policemen without attempting to escape. Consequently, the High Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry and granted bail to the applicants.
Questions settled- Whether a case of further inquiry is made out for granting bail when a prolonged armed police encounter results in absolutely no injuries or damage to property?
- Can bail be granted if the prosecution's narrative regarding the surrender of heavily armed accused persons is highly improbable on the face of the record?
- Abdul Aziz and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 229 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
- A. Majid Sama vs The Asbestos Cement Industries, Ltd. And Another1996 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff initiated a civil suit for damages amounting to Rs. 51,000 against the defendants, alleging defamation arising from a letter sent by the defendants to the plaintiff, which was also allegedly copied to a government Minister. The defendants denied the allegations, asserting the communication was not defamatory and was privileged. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff passed away, raising the legal question of whether the cause of action for defamation survived to his legal representatives. The Court examined the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, noting its application in Pakistani law based on justice, equity, and good conscience. While the plaintiff's counsel argued that the right to reputation is equivalent to property rights under Islamic law and should therefore survive, the Court distinguished the cited precedents as inapplicable to the present facts. The Court held that a claim for damages for personal torts, such as defamation, does not survive the death of the plaintiff. Consequently, the Court ruled that the suit abated upon the plaintiff's death and dismissed the matter accordingly.
Questions settled- Does a cause of action for defamation survive the death of the plaintiff?
- Is the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona applicable in the law of Pakistan?
- Does the right to reputation survive the death of the owner in the same manner as property rights?
- (Retd.) Major Mazhar Mahmood Khan . vs Khushal Khan JadoonK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 252 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- (Prof.) Muhammad Sharif vs Government of Pakistan Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 331 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s.) Tharparker Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1517 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-21Read full judgment →
- Abaw Hussain vs Mst. Qamarun Nisa1996 MLD 1715 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) S.G. Rauf & Co. And 2 Others vs United Bank Ltd. And 2 Others1996 P.C.T.L.R. 585 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
- (M/s.) Arrow Trading Company vs Housing Corporation, 21-K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 452 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s) Universal Medical and General Store vs (M/s) Kazi and Sons, AndK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 236 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (M/s) Fine Food Industries (Private) Limited vs The Agricultural1996 P.C.T.L.R. 109 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
- (Mst.) Zohra Bai And Another vs Messrs Standard Industries Ltd.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 478 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Mst.) Syedah Farah Shah vs Muhammad Sharifuddin And AnotherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 229 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- (Mrs.) Alhaja Tawakautu Adeela vs The State1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-12Read full judgment →
- (Messrs) Adil Brother (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan National ShippingK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 320 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- (Late) S.M. Younis Rizvi through His Legal Heirs vs Afzal QureshiK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 311 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
- (Haji) Mir Hassan Ali vs Muhammad NaseeruddinK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 325 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
- (Dr.) Maqbool Ahmed Abid, And Other vs MRS. Rehana Kausar And OtherK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 50 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-19Read full judgment →
- (Dr) Wasif Ahmed Jalali vs Ghazala IqbalK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 436 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1997 MLD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →