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.

• Zubair Ahmed vs Syed Hasan Mehdi1995 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ziaurrehman Alvi vs Allahabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited1995 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-07
  rejection of plaintcooperative societystatutory noticejurisdiction barencroachmentcivil proceduremandatory notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a member of a cooperative housing society, filed a suit against the society, the Karachi Development Authority, and another member, alleging plot size reduction, encroachment, and mismanagement. The defendants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint for failure to serve mandatory statutory notices and for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the suit was not maintainable due to the absence of valid notices under Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957. The court emphasized that such notices are mandatory and must explicitly state the cause of action, plaintiff's details, and specific reliefs claimed; the plaintiff’s prior correspondence failed to meet these requirements. Furthermore, the court ruled that the dispute, which concerned matters touching the business of the society, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 54 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, thereby attracting the bar under Section 70-A and ousting the civil court's jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice under Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, mandatory for instituting a suit against a cooperative society?
  • Does a notice that fails to specify the reliefs claimed satisfy the requirements of Section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute between a member and a cooperative society regarding matters touching the business of the society?
  • Is a suit against the Karachi Development Authority maintainable without the mandatory one-month notice required under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957?
  Read full judgment →
• Zeeshan Kazmi vs The State1997 MLD 273 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
• Zarat International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Banking Tribunal No.1, Karachi And 31995 MLD 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Zarat International (Pvt) Ltd vs Banking Tribunal No,1, Karachi and 31995 MLD 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Zakauddin vs Registrar of Trade Marks And Another1995 MLD 638 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
• Zahoorul Islam and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
• Zahid Bux vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 872 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-02Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Pervez vs Syed Nasiruddin K. Kamal Shah through his Legal Heirs1995 CLC 1719 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Zafarullah Khan vs Abu BakarK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 141 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1355 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• Yasin Khan Baber vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Yahya Siddiqi vs Mrs. Mahboob Fatima through Legal Heirs1995 CLC 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
• Wazir Gul vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Walu Alias Wali Muhammad And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 265 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
• Walu alias Wali Muhammad and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Waheed-Ul-Islam And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 436 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
• Uris and anotherConvicts/s vs The State and another1995 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• United Stones Crusher and anothers/s vs Masood Hussain and another1995 PLD Karachi 500 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
• United Impex and 3 others vs Fazal Ahmad1995 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Noor Textile Mills Limited and 7 others1995 PLD Karachi 162 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Hassan Ali & Company Limited1995 PLD Karachi 495 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-22Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Canadian Apparel Company Ltd. and 8 others1995 PLD Karachi 577 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07
  Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979review jurisdictionSpecial CourtCode of Civil Procedure 1908limitation periodcause of actionpleadingssummary suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications filed under Order 37, Rule 4 and Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to recall and review a decree passed by the High Court acting as a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions addressed were whether a Special Court possesses the inherent power to review its own orders under Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether a suit filed before the accrual of a cause of action is maintainable if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the suit. The Court held that a Special Court retains the power of review under Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the Ordinance does not expressly exclude it. However, the Court dismissed the applications as time-barred. Additionally, the Court established that pleadings should not be construed with excessive technicality and that a suit filed prematurely may be maintained if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings to prevent multiplicity of litigation and ensure substantial justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 have the power to review its own orders under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a suit filed before the accrual of a cause of action maintainable if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Should pleadings in civil suits be construed with strict technicality or with a view to ensuring substantial justice?
  • Does Article 162 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to review applications filed in a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Umeruddin vs Sher Gul Khan Niazi and another1995 CLC 1164 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Wan Ahmed and 2 others1995 PLD Karachi 192 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port Of Karachi vs Mian Ahmed And OtherK.L.R 1995 Civil Cases 317 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
• Town Planning, Public Healh Engineering and Rural DevelopmentK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 636 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tivi B.V. (a Dutch Corporation) Johannes Vermeerstraat 18, Netherlands vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi1995 PLD Karachi 247 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Tivi B.v vs Deputy Registrar Trade MarksK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 531 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• Tika Alias Essa vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 167 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rifat Jillani1995 P Cr. L J 1928 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• The State through A.-G. Sindh vs Azizullah1995 MLD 1405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• The State Through A. G., Sindh vs Azizullah1995 MLD 1405 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-21Read full judgment →
• The Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax Cos. III, Karachi1995 PTD 869 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
• The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Anwar Rahmani1995 CLC 992 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• The English Cold Storage Company through its Partner and 2 others vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan and 4 others1995 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• The Eastern Express Company Ltd. vs Messrs Haji Khushi Muhammad1995 MLD 470 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
• The Eastern Express Company Ltd. vs Haji Khushi Muhammad1995 MLD 470 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-22Read full judgment →
• Telegraph Stores and Workshop Workmen Union, Kotri through General Secretary vs Registrar, Trade Union, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others1995 PLC 47 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Taslimul Islam vs Additional Commissioner and 9 others1997 MLD 40 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Tahir John Masih vs The State1997 MLD 1904 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-22Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali Etc. vs Akbar Ali & CompanyK.L.R.1997 Civil Cases 134 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 393 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-12Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 403 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-19Read full judgment →
• Taher Shaikha vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Local1995 MLD 1383 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Zainuddin Qadri and anothers vs The Registrar, Cooperative1995 MLD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Zainuddin Qadri And Another vs The Registrar, Cooperative1995 MLD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahzib-Ul-Hasan Zaidi vs The State1995 MLD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahzib Ul Hasan Zaidi vs The State1995 MLD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Awais Shibli vs The State1995 MLD 511 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-19
  quashment of criminal proceedingsinherent jurisdictionCode of Criminal ProcedureArms Ordinanceabuse of processjoint possessionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from a case registered under the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether an accused must first exhaust the remedy of seeking acquittal before the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The Court held that while it is generally appropriate to approach the trial court first, this is not a mandatory prerequisite. Where the F.I.R. itself, taken at face value, fails to establish a case that could lead to a conviction—such as when incriminating articles are recovered from a place of joint possession rather than the exclusive custody of the accused—the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings to prevent an abuse of the court's process. The principle established is that quashment is permissible without prior application to the trial court if the prosecution's allegations, even if proven, cannot legally sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be filed without first seeking acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to quash criminal proceedings if the F.I.R. fails to establish a prima facie case for conviction?
  • Is the recovery of incriminating articles from a place of joint possession sufficient to sustain a conviction under the Arms Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Aslam vs Ivadditional District Judge, Karachi1997 MLD 1842 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Arif vs Mehmood Shah and 3 others1995 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Aleemuddin vs Secretary-General, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Karachi and 3 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 258 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Jaffer Raza Naqvi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 887 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Zaidi vs Mahboob Ali Khan1995 CLC 19 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Bashiruddin alias Rasheed and anothers vs Karachi Development1995 PLD Karachi 175 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Akbar Ali Shah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Rasool Shah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Sultan Shah vs Muhammad Hussain1995 MLD 847 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-18Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood Chandio and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 874 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-19Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali vs Mst. Khatija Bai1995 CLC 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-29
  fair rentrent fixationmutually agreed rentenhancement of rentpugsrent controllerlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  These are cross-appeals arising from an order passed by the Rent Controller and Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East), fixing the fair rent of the disputed premises at Rs. 800 per month. The landlady challenged the effective date and quantum, seeking Rs. 1,200 per month, while the tenant contested the rate, arguing that the landlady had previously demanded an enhancement of Rs. 242 per month and raising various objections regarding the applicability of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the use of photostat copies of documents, and factors under section 8 of the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court examined whether a previous rent fixation by mutual compromise barred a fair rent application, the interpretation of section 9(2) regarding the 10 percent per annum increase limit, and the evidentiary value of documents. The Court held that a previous rent fixed by mutual agreement does not bar a subsequent application for fair rent under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that section 9(2) applies only where fair rent has already been fixed. The Court modified the Controller's order by reducing the fair rent to Rs. 600 per month, while maintaining the effective date. The key principles laid down are that the right to seek fair rent under section 8 is absolute, previous mutual agreements do not constitute fair rent unless specifically determined as such by a Controller, and section 9(2) is sub-servient to section 9(1) of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous rent fixed by mutual agreement between a landlord and a tenant bar a subsequent application for the determination of fair rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether section 9(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, restricting rent increases to ten percent per annum, applies generally to all existing tenancies or only to cases where fair rent has already been fixed?
  • Can a landlord claim an increase in rent exceeding ten percent per annum when no fair rent has previously been determined for the premises?
  • Does the rule of evidence under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, 1984 apply to proceedings before Rent Controllers functioning under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Habibullah vs The Editor, Printer, Publisher, Reporter (Staff)1995 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
• Suleman Habibullah vs The Editor Daily Jang, Jang Publications I.I.K.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 209 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-25Read full judgment →
• Suhrab vs The State1995 MLD 607 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sualeh Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Karachi Development AuthorityK.L.R. 1997Civil Cases 418 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-29Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Samad Commercial Complex1995 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-21Read full judgment →
• Sozul and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1358 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Sohail Masood Ansari vs The State1997 MLD 1897 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
• Sohail Jan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 83 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sohail And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 39 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Siyano vs The State1995 MLD 374 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-19Read full judgment →
• Sindh Flour Milling Corporation vs M/s. Punjab Roller Flour Mills1995 CLC 433 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-30Read full judgment →
• Sikkandar A. Karim vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 73 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-26
  bail applicationcustoms fraudsmugglingmala fidenon-bailable offencetentative assessmentcorruptionover-invoicing
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two bail applications filed by an accused facing charges under the Customs Act, 1969 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, arising from allegations of over-invoicing, under-invoicing, and smuggling of auto parts. The core legal questions addressed were whether the accused was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences and whether the alleged mala fide political motivation behind the arrest justified bail. The High Court dismissed the applications, holding that bail is a concession, not a right, in non-bailable offences where reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused committed the crime. The court established that offences affecting the society at large, such as smuggling and corruption causing national economic loss, must be treated differently from those affecting only individuals. Furthermore, the court ruled that allegations of mala fide are questions of fact to be determined at trial, not at the bail stage. The judgment emphasizes that courts must perform a tentative assessment of evidence without prejudice to the trial, and that bail should not be granted where prima facie evidence connects the accused to the offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of mala fide in a criminal case automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the grant of bail in non-bailable offences a matter of right or a judicial concession?
  • Should courts distinguish between offences affecting individuals and those affecting society at large when considering bail?
  • Can a High Court judge rely on the principle of consistency to grant bail if a trial court has granted bail to co-accused in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique Ahmed Khan vs Muhammad Farooq1995 MLD 861 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Shoab vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 112 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Shikandar A. Karim vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 101 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Sherin Dokhat vs Government of Pakistan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 251 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-08
  gender discriminationretirement agefundamental rightsconstitutional petitionservice lawequal protectionPIAC regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitution petition challenged the vires of Regulation 25 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, which mandated the retirement of female cabin crew at a significantly younger age than other employees. The petitioner, a Senior Purser, argued that this regulation discriminated against her on the basis of sex, violating her fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a lower retirement age for female employees, despite their performance of supervisory duties identical to male counterparts, constituted unlawful discrimination. The Court held that the regulation was discriminatory and violated Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It ruled that discrimination based solely on sex is prohibited, and any classification must have a rational nexus to the object of the law. Finding no such justification for the disparate treatment of the petitioner, the Court declared the retirement order illegal and of no legal effect, emphasizing that departmental regulations cannot override constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Does a regulation mandating an earlier retirement age for female employees compared to male employees constitute discrimination based on sex?
  • Can departmental regulations or service rules override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
  • Is a classification in service rules valid if it lacks a rational nexus to the object of the legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Moula Bux1995 CLC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-21
  malicious prosecutiondamages for defamationbenefit of doubtreasonable and probable causerejection of plaintcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three connected Revision Applications arising from suits for damages filed by the respondents against the applicant for defamation and malicious prosecution. The core legal question was whether a prosecution, which resulted in an acquittal based on the 'benefit of doubt' rather than a finding of falsity, constitutes malicious prosecution sufficient to sustain a claim for damages. The Sindh High Court held that the respondents failed to establish the essential ingredients of malicious prosecution, specifically malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause. The Court reasoned that because the applicant had sustained injuries (supported by medical evidence), the police had investigated and challaned the respondents, and the trial court had initially convicted them, the prosecution could not be deemed malicious merely because the High Court later acquitted the respondents on the benefit of doubt. The Court laid down the principle that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt does not automatically equate to malicious prosecution, and a prosecutor who honestly believes in the guilt of the accused based on reasonable grounds cannot be held liable for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt automatically constitute malicious prosecution?
  • What are the essential ingredients a plaintiff must prove to succeed in an action for malicious prosecution?
  • Can a suit for malicious prosecution be maintained where the complainant had reasonable and probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings?
  • Does the initial conviction of an accused by a trial court negate a subsequent claim of malicious prosecution against the complainant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs Haji Naqeebuddin1995 MLD 148 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
• Sher Afgan vs Shaikh Anjum Iqbal1997 MLD 98 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-31
  ejectment applicationdefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide usestatutory tenancyunregistered tenancy agreementSindh Rented Premises Ordinancemalafide intention
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Rent Controller's order dismissing an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant regarding two commercial premises. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of rent default, personal bona fide use, and impairment of the premises. The Court held that the landlord's refusal to accept rent, which the tenant subsequently deposited with the Controller, negated the claim of willful default. Regarding personal requirement, the Court found the claim lacked good faith, noting the landlord resided in another city and lacked relevant business experience, suggesting the application was a retaliatory measure following a dispute over rent enhancement. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that because the tenancy agreements were unregistered, the relationship was governed by the statutory provisions of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 rather than the expired agreements. The Court established that where a landlord creates circumstances preventing rent payment, they cannot subsequently claim default. Additionally, evidence of personal requirement must be scrutinized for bona fides, particularly when coupled with evidence of malice or ulterior motives, such as retaliatory litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of a landlord to accept rent, forcing the tenant to deposit it with the Rent Controller, constitute willful default?
  • Are the rights and liabilities of parties governed by an expired, unregistered tenancy agreement or by the relevant rent restriction statute?
  • Can a landlord's claim for personal bona fide use be rejected if the evidence suggests the application is a retaliatory measure?
  • Does the failure to pay water and conservancy charges constitute rent default when the landlord fails to bifurcate the shared utility bills?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Aziz Hamad Algosaibi/ vs Pakistan International Airlines1995 PLD Karachi 566 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-12
  transfer of casesjudicial independenceAdditional Judgeadministrative power of Chief JusticeHigh Court jurisdictionbias of judgecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed applications under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the transfer of two civil suits from the file of an Additional Judge of the Sindh High Court to a permanent Judge, alleging bias and lack of judicial independence. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice of a High Court possesses the judicial power to transfer an individual case from one Bench, which is lawfully seized of the matter, to another Bench, and whether an Additional Judge is disqualified from hearing cases involving the government. The Court held that the Chief Justice's power to regulate sittings is purely administrative and does not include the authority to withdraw or transfer an individual case from a Bench already seized of it. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Additional Judges possess the same powers, jurisdiction, and status as permanent Judges, and prior political affiliation does not constitute a disqualification. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, affirming that the Chief Justice lacks the judicial authority to interfere with a Bench's jurisdiction over a case it is already hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Justice of a High Court have the judicial power to transfer an individual case from one Bench to another Bench of the same High Court?
  • Are Additional Judges of a High Court considered to be on the same plane as permanent Judges regarding their judicial powers and independence?
  • Does prior membership in a political party disqualify a person from serving as a Judge of the High Court?
  • Is the power of the Chief Justice to regulate court sittings an administrative or a judicial power?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharif vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1692 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Shamshur Rehman vs Muhammad Rafiq And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 257 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Shamman Jatoi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1334 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-17Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Adilzada vs S.M. Rafi1995 MLD 181 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-06
  fair rentrent fixationrented premisesstatutory interpretationSindh Rented Premises Ordinancelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Rent Controller, Karachi-South, which fixed the fair rent of the appellant's premises at Rs. 400 per room per month. The appellant contended that the Controller failed to consider all four factors enumerated in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, arguing that all such factors must co-exist for a valid determination of fair rent. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is legally required to consider all four factors listed in Section 8 of the Ordinance cumulatively when fixing fair rent. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it is not a mandatory requirement for all four grounds mentioned in Section 8 to co-exist in every case. The Court reasoned that certain factors, such as tax increases or changes in annual rental value, may not be applicable in every instance. The principle laid down is that the Rent Controller is not bound to find the presence of all four factors to fix fair rent, provided the determination is otherwise based on a just and fair evaluation of the evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a Rent Controller to consider all four factors listed in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 when fixing fair rent?
  • Must all four grounds for fair rent fixation under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 co-exist in every case?
  • Can a Rent Controller fix fair rent if only some of the factors mentioned in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 are present?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Mushtaq Ali vs MRS. Rajat AbbasK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 32 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
• Shahid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 714 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hayat Khan and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 287 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
• Shahid Durrani vs The State1997 MLD 1901 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-08
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayspeedy trialprosecution delaycriminal procedurebail on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Shahbaz and Pearl, facing trial for murder under sections 302/114/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants sought bail on the grounds of statutory delay under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, following the dismissal of their previous bail application on merits. The core legal question was whether the delay in the trial proceedings could be attributed to the accused, thereby disentitling them to relief, or whether the prosecution's failure to produce necessary evidence and expert reports warranted the grant of bail. Upon reviewing the case diaries, the Court observed that adjournments were largely due to the non-production of police papers, expert reports, and the unavailability of trial court time, rather than the conduct of the accused. The Court held that the policy of the law mandates speedy trials and that an accused should not suffer for delays attributable to the prosecution. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the root cause of trial delays must be examined rather than merely assigning blame to the defence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail when trial delays are caused by the prosecution?
  • Should a court examine the root cause of trial adjournments when determining bail applications based on statutory delay?
  • Can an accused be denied bail on the ground of statutory delay if the defence counsel requested some adjournments, but the prosecution was not ready to proceed?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahabuddin vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
• Shah vs The StateK.L.R..1997 Criminal Cases 505 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-02Read full judgment →
• Shah Hussain vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12
  suspension of sentencebailable offencebail as of rightfatal accidentcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, a mini-bus driver convicted under Section 320 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 following a fatal accident. The core legal question before the High Court of Sindh was whether a convicted appellant of a bailable offence is entitled to bail as a matter of right during the pendency of their appeal. The Court held that because the offences under which the appellant was convicted are bailable, the provisions of Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are attracted even after conviction. Consequently, the Court suspended the sentence and granted bail. The key principle laid down is that a convicted person whose appeal has been admitted is entitled to bail as a matter of right if the underlying offence is bailable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a convicted appellant entitled to bail as a matter of right during the pendency of an appeal if the underlying offence is bailable?
  • Do the provisions of Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to post-conviction bail applications under Section 426 of the same Code where the offence is bailable?
  • Can the sentence of a person convicted under Section 320 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be suspended as a matter of right pending appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shadman vs Karachi Transport Corporation through Chairman and another1995 CLC 986 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sh. Sharif Ahmed vs The State1995 MLD 1821 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-15Read full judgment →
• Senator Sultan Ali Lakhani vs Mir Shakil-Ur-Rahman & 4 Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 527 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-13Read full judgment →
• Sayeeduddin Ahmed Khan vs Nawab Ali Akhtar and 3 others1995 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Sawab Khan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23
  post-arrest bailcounterfeit currencyfurther inquiryforged notesbail cancellation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by Sawab Khan seeking pre-trial release in connection with F.I.R. No. 13 of 1993 registered under sections 489-A, 489-C, and 489-D/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Federal Investigation Agency, Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the alleged possession and circumstances of recovery of counterfeit US dollars attract section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or merely section 489-C, which is bailable. The Sindh High Court held that the applicability of section 489-B constituted a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitling the applicant to bail. The court laid down the principle that where the applicability of a penal provision carrying a harsher sentence is debatable and requires evaluation of evidence at trial, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail, subject to cancellation if direct incriminating evidence subsequently surfaces.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the possession of counterfeit currency notes near a marketplace constitutes trafficking or selling under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the mere recovery of forged bank notes without proof of sale or trafficking fall exclusively under the bailable offense of section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When does a case qualify for further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranting the grant of bail to an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Ali vs The State1995 MLD 361 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →