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.

• Dewin vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 233 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-12Read full judgment →
• Datari Construction Co. (Pvt) Ltd. vs A. Razak Adamjee and others1995 CLC 846 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-31
  public nuisancepermanent injunctionbuilding control regulationseasement rightsrepresentative suitmaterial injurycivil procedurehigh-rise construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a representative suit filed by residents of Clifton, Karachi, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the construction of a multi-storey building by the appellant, alleging it constituted a public nuisance and violated building regulations. The core legal question was whether the construction of a high-rise building in a residential area, even if contrary to certain building plans, is actionable as a public nuisance by private individuals without proof of material injury. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish "absolute nuisance" or substantial interference with their physical comfort. The Court ruled that mere violation of municipal rules or building plans is not actionable per se unless the plaintiff proves real or apprehended material injury. Furthermore, the standard for determining nuisance is based on the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, not the "dainty or elegant" habits of living. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's decree restricting the building's height, emphasizing that in the absence of proven material injury, no injunction can be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Is the violation of building regulations or municipal plans actionable per se as a public nuisance?
  • What is the standard for determining whether an act constitutes an actionable nuisance in a residential area?
  • Can a private individual maintain a suit for public nuisance without proving special or material damage?
  • Is the publication of building regulations in the official Gazette a mandatory requirement for their legal enforcement?
  Read full judgment →
• Darul Aman Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi vs The Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Works Andrehabilitation Division , And 3 Other1995 MLD 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Darul Aman Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Karachi vs The Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Works and Rehabilitation Division and 3 others1995 MLD 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Danish Mahmood Azfaree And 2 Other vs Industrial Development BankK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 110 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-24Read full judgment →
• Daewoo Corporation vs (M/s.) Platinum Insurance Co. Ltd.1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-25Read full judgment →
• Dad Muhammad Baloch vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1995 PLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistant (Pvt) Limited vs M/s. AwamiK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 458 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Awami1995 PLD Karachi 282 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-06
  civil revisionwithdrawal of suitinherent powersbona fide mistakerestoration of suittechnicalities
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from a suit filed under summary procedure for the recovery of an outstanding loan. Due to a bona fide mistake stemming from a similarity in names with another defaulting firm that had settled its dues, the plaintiff's counsel inadvertently filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking withdrawal of the suit on the ground of out-of-court settlement. The trial court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the suit. Upon discovering the error, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall the withdrawal order, which the trial court dismissed on technical grounds. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision, holding that the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 are wide and meant to advance justice and prevent abuse of process. The Court ruled that where an order is passed based on a bona fide mistake of fact, the court should invoke its inherent powers to recall the order, as procedural technicalities must not defeat substantive rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to recall an order dismissing a suit as withdrawn if the withdrawal was sought due to a bona fide mistake of fact?
  • Whether procedural technicalities should be allowed to defeat substantive rights where there is no express statutory prohibition against the relief sought?
  • Does the refusal of a trial court to recall a withdrawal order passed under a clear mistake of fact constitute a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it?
  Read full judgment →
• Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs M/s. Asif1995 CLC 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-06
  arbitration agreementstay of suitsummary suitpromissory notearbitration clausemaintainability of applicationscope of arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order passed by a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court, which had stayed a summary suit for recovery of money filed by the appellant, Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., against the respondents. The Single Judge had granted the respondents' application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940, effectively staying the suit pending arbitration. The core legal question was whether the dispute, which arose from a promissory note and a claim for recovery of an advance payment, fell within the scope of the arbitration clause contained in the parties' agreement. The High Court held that in deciding an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940, the court must look exclusively at the pleadings in the plaint. Upon review, the Court determined that the suit was based on a promissory note and did not involve a dispute touching the terms and conditions of the agreement, thus rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Consequently, the Court set aside the stay order, holding that the application under Section 34 was not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Must a court look exclusively at the plaint when deciding an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does a suit based on a promissory note necessarily fall within the scope of an arbitration clause covering disputes touching the terms and conditions of a supply agreement?
  • Is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 maintainable if the underlying dispute does not relate to the terms and conditions of the agreement containing the arbitration clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Continental Beverages (Pvt.) Limited. vs The Collector (Appeal),CentralPTCL 1995 CL. 10 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Muhammad Farooq1995 PTD 393 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies-II, Karachi vs Messrs1995 PTD 612 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Company II vs Instruments Krafts Pvt Ltd.K.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 1 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Cibageigy (Pak.) Limited vs Muhammad Safdar1995 CLC 461 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-06
  dismissal for non-prosecutionrestoration of suitsufficient causelimitation periodframing of issuescondonation of delaydiligence in litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution on March 14, 1993. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the Court was duty-bound under Order XIV, Rule 1, sub-rules (5) and (6) to frame issues regardless of the parties' presence, and that Order XVII, Rule 2 was inapplicable. The Court rejected these contentions, holding that the duty to frame issues under Order XIV requires the presence of parties for necessary examination, and that Order XVII, Rule 2 applies only to adjourned hearings, not the initial date fixed by the roster. The Court further observed that the application for restoration was filed nearly one and a half years after the dismissal, far exceeding the thirty-day limitation period prescribed by Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908. As the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient cause for non-appearance or request condonation of the substantial delay, the Court dismissed the application, emphasizing the plaintiff's duty to pursue litigation diligently.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Court's duty to frame issues under Order XIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override the requirement for parties to be present?
  • Is Order XVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to a suit dismissed on the date fixed for the settlement of issues where no prior adjournment was granted?
  • What is the limitation period for filing an application to set aside an order dismissing a suit for default of appearance?
  • Can a court restore a suit dismissed for non-prosecution if the application for restoration is filed after the limitation period without a request for condonation of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• CI-Iaman Baig vs Karachi Transport Corporation through its1995 CLC 171 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chiraghuddin vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others1995 CLC 1632 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-03
  civil reviewscope of reviewre-argument of casenon-joinder of necessary partycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil review application filed under section 151 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, seeking review of a judgment passed in a civil revision. The core question before the court was whether the grounds urged by the applicants fell within the limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly where the counsel merely re-argued points already considered and decided in the original judgment, and raised matters not pleaded in the written statement or outside the purview of review. The Sindh High Court dismissed the review application, holding that review cannot be granted to re-examine previously evaluated arguments, and that a party cannot re-litigate a matter or seek re-hearing under the garb of a review petition. The key principle laid down is that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked to re-argue a case on merits or raise new pleas not taken at the proper stage.

  Questions settled

  • Whether review of a judgment can be granted to re-examine the same arguments already discussed and determined?
  • Can a party raise new pleas and arguments in a review application that were neither pleaded in the written statement nor argued during the original hearing?
  • Does a suit fail for non-joinder of persons against whom no relief is prayed?
  • What is the permissible scope of a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Ahmed vs Shaukat Iqbal and 6 others1995 CLC 602 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator Auqaf Sindh and anothers vs Muhammad Haroon1995 PLD Karachi 404 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Chartered Bank vs Shirin Bai Y. Sajjan and another1995 MLD 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Chartered Bank vs Shirin Baiy Sajjan And Another1995 MLD 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
• Cafe Shakufaan Eating House/Restaurant vs The Controller,1995 CLC 1159 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
• Bilal Bin Zaheer vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP), Karachi through Managing Director and 4 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 423 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-13Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 5 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-30
  criminal revisioncompromisecompounding of offenceslegal heirsQisas and DiyatIslamic inheritance law
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge requiring affidavits from all surviving heirs of the deceased for a compromise application under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case under Section 302 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. The core legal question was whether siblings of an unmarried deceased person are necessary parties to a compromise when the father is alive. The court held that under Islamic inheritance law, where the mother had predeceased, the father was the sole legal heir of the unmarried deceased, excluding the brothers and sisters, and thus possessed the exclusive right to effect a valid compromise. The key principle laid down is that the right to compound an offence involving Diyat and inheritance of the deceased's estate follows the Muslim Law of Inheritance, under which primary heirs exclude collateral heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether brothers and sisters of an unmarried deceased person are necessary parties to a compromise under Section 345(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the father is alive?
  • Who possesses the sole right to compromise an offence involving Diyat on behalf of an unmarried deceased person under the Qisas and Diyat law when only the father survives among the parents?
  • Does the Muslim Law of Inheritance govern the determination of legal heirs for the purpose of compounding an offence under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Akbar and others1995 P Cr. L J 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-18
  criminal revisiondismissal of complaintissuance of processHudood Ordinancenon-attendance of complainantremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the order passed by the trial court dismissing a direct complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to the non-attendance of the complainant and witnesses. The core legal question is whether the trial court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to dismiss a complaint after process had already been issued under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The court held that once process has been issued upon finding sufficient grounds to proceed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint under Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appropriate provisions in such circumstances for a Sessions case are Section 265-H or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which require granting an opportunity of being heard. The revision application is allowed, the impugned dismissal order is set aside, and the matter is remanded back for proceedings in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after process has already been issued?
  • What are the applicable provisions for concluding a Sessions case when a complainant fails to attend hearings after the issuance of process?
  • Whether an order dismissing a complaint for non-prosecution under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is sustainable after finding sufficient grounds to proceed?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad Munir vs Mrs. Tahira Qureshi1997 MLD 29 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
• Barrister Rashid Akhtar Qureshi vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Government of Sindh and 6 others1995 MLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
• Barrister Rashid Akhtar Qureshi vs Province of Sindh Through Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Sindh And 6 Other1995 MLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-07Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali Isani vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 282 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali and anothers vs Mst. Fatima Bai and 2 other1995 CLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-19
  interim injunctioneasement rightscompulsory open spacebuilding regulationsdiscretionary reliefclean hands doctrinelocal commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from constructing a multi-storey building on an adjacent plot, alleging violations of lease terms, approved building plans, and the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979. The plaintiffs claimed the construction infringed upon their easement rights of privacy, light, and air, and violated compulsory open space requirements. The core legal questions were whether the defendants breached building regulations regarding open space and whether the plaintiffs, who allegedly violated building laws themselves, were entitled to discretionary injunctive relief. The Court held that the defendants were constructing in accordance with approved plans and had maintained the required compulsory open space. Furthermore, the Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for easement infringement and noted that the plaintiffs had themselves violated building laws on their own plots, leading to forfeiture. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, holding that a party seeking discretionary equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands and cannot enforce building regulations they have personally violated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party who has violated building construction laws seek an injunction against a neighbor for similar alleged violations?
  • Is a court-appointed commissioner for local inspection required to provide notice to the defendants before conducting the inspection?
  • Can a third party enforce restrictive covenants contained in a lease agreement between a lessor and a lessee?
  • Does the failure to provide notice to the opposite party before the appointment of a local commissioner render the commissioner's report inadmissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Khan Alias Bahaderi And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1813 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
• Badar Aziz vs Mst. Haseena Khatoon1995 CLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Baboo Din vs Nasroo1995 MLD 1460 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-05Read full judgment →
• B.S. Magnetic (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sindhh Labour Court No. 5 And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service Cases 186 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• Azmatullah Khan and others vs Gul Khan Ahmed Qureshi and others1995 PLD Karachi 52 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-04Read full judgment →
• Azmat Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Sindh Employees' Social1995 PLD Karachi 341 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Azmat Textile Mills Ltd vs Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Central Division And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 94 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-19Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman and others through Legal Heirss vs Rana Abdul Khaliq1995 MLD 408 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman And Others Through Legal Heirs vs Rana Abdul Khaliq1995 MLD 408 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
• Azizullah vs The State1997 MLD 1883 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-23Read full judgment →
• Aziz Sons (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh Karachi and another1995 PLC 492 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through Its Chief SecretaryK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 331 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through its Chief Secretary, Karachi1995 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Awais Shibli vs The State1995 MLD 592 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zardari vs Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and 4 others1997 MLD 1852 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali and others vs K.M.C. through its Administrator and 6 others1995 CLC 1659 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 54 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Khan vs Abdul Karim1995 CLC 1889 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04
  additional evidenceappellate stageOrder 41 Rule 27specific performancecivil appeallacuna in evidenceprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to introduce additional evidence during the pendency of an appeal against a judgment dismissing a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the appellate court should allow the production of documents and witness depositions from a separate rent case that were not presented during the original trial. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the appellant failed to provide a valid, substantial reason for the non-production of these documents at the trial stage. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not intended to allow parties to fill lacunae in their evidence or to improve a case after an unfavorable judgment. The ratio established is that additional evidence at the appellate stage is strictly limited to instances where the Court requires it for conclusive adjudication or for other substantial cause, and cannot be invoked to remedy a party's negligence or inadvertence in the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Can additional evidence be admitted at the appellate stage to fill a lacuna left by a party during the trial?
  • Does the mere claim of mistake or inadvertence constitute sufficient grounds for the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is an appellate court required to admit additional evidence if it is not necessary for the final or conclusive adjudication of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 478 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Arshad Jawaid Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Wafaqi1995 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-20Read full judgment →
• Arshad Jawaid Khan vs Government of Pakistan Through Wafaqi1995 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-20Read full judgment →
• Arif vs Haji Muhammad and another1995 PLD Karachi 271 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-23Read full judgment →
• Aqil Badshah vs Mayor Karachi Metropolitan Corporation And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 102 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anwar vs The State1997 MLD 1890 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-15Read full judgment →
• Anver T. Khandwala vs Shah Zaman Khuro and another1995 CLC 225 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Wazifa Sadat Momineen (Regd.) vs Ghulam Ahmed1995 CLC 271 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Anis Ahmed and 7 others vs Messrs Habib Bank Limited1997 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
• Amtul Haseeb vs Jamil Autos, Proprietor S. Bartar Hussain Naqvi1995 MLD 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ammad Yahya And Another vs Muhammad Ahmad1995 MLD 332 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-10Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux vs The State1995 MLD 610 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-21Read full judgment →
• Amir Ahmad vs Irshad AhmadK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 130 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-13Read full judgment →
• American Express Bank Ltd vs Adamjee Industries Limited1995 CLC 880 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08
  leave to defendsummary suitcontinuing guaranteeconsiderationpledgesuretylimitationbanking company
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses multiple applications for leave to appear and defend a summary recovery suit filed by American Express Bank Ltd against Adamjee Industries Limited and various guarantors and pledgors for a substantial sum. The core legal questions involve whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether a promissory note for a time-barred debt constitutes an express promise under the Contract Act, whether past advances and continuing banking facilities serve as valid consideration for guarantees and pledges, whether a pledgor qualifies as a 'surety' under the relevant banking recovery laws, and whether a partner can bind a partnership firm by pledging its securities for third-party debts or natural guardians can pledge minor properties. The Court held that a promissory note acts as a valid promise to pay under Section 25(3), that continuing banking facilities constitute good consideration for continuing guarantees and pledges, and that pledgors qualify as sureties. However, unconditional leave to defend was granted to certain defendants due to issues regarding alleged forgery of signatures, a partner's lack of implied authority to pledge firm securities for third-party debts, and the validity of a father pledging minor properties for third-party liabilities. The key principle established is that past and future advances coupled with forbearance or credit facilities constitute valid consideration, and pledgors fall within the definition of sureties under banking recovery frameworks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a promissory note executed for a time-barred debt operates as a valid express promise under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does a continuing guarantee covering past and future advances have valid and sufficient consideration under the law?
  • Whether a person who provides a pledge or security for the performance of another's obligation qualifies as a surety under banking recovery laws?
  • Does a partner have the implied authority under Section 19 of the Partnership Act 1932 to pledge a firm's securities for the debts of a third party?
  • Can a natural guardian validly pledge the property or securities of minors for the debts of a third party?
  Read full judgment →
• Ameerul Hassan Khan vs Abdul Waheed and 5 others1995 MLD 820 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ameerul Hassan Khan vs Abdul Waheed And 5 Other1995 MLD 820 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ameena vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence Through Secretary AndAnother1995 MLD 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ameena vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence through Secretary and another1995 MLD 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• Altaf Shakoor and 4 others vs The Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 615 · Sindh High Court
  Section 144 CrPCpillion riding banDistrict Magistrate powersjudicial reviewconstitutional petitionfundamental rightsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders issued by District Magistrates in Karachi prohibiting pillion riding on motorcycles and scooters. The petitioners argued these orders were discriminatory, unreasonable, and ultra vires. The core legal question was whether District Magistrates could repeatedly issue successive orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to effectively create a permanent ban, thereby circumventing the statutory time limits. The Court held that while Section 144 allows for temporary restrictions to prevent public disorder, it does not permit the indefinite renewal or repetition of such orders by a Magistrate to bypass the two-month limitation period prescribed by Section 144(6). The Court affirmed that if conditions necessitate an extension beyond the statutory limit, the power to do so lies exclusively with the Provincial Government via official notification, not with the District Magistrate through successive, overlapping orders. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders as being without lawful authority, establishing that a public officer cannot achieve indirectly what the law prohibits doing directly.

  Questions settled

  • Can a District Magistrate repeatedly issue successive orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to extend a ban beyond the statutory time limit?
  • Does the power to extend an order under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 beyond two months vest in the District Magistrate or the Provincial Government?
  • Is a ban on pillion riding a violation of the equality clause under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State & Another1997 K.L.R. Criminal Cases 707 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Warayo vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-10Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Ashfaq Ali1995 MLD 874 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2075 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1995 MLD 100 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-12
  bailabsconderco-accusedrule of consistencycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Ali Nawaz, seeking pre-trial or post-arrest release in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be refused solely on the ground of the accused being an absconder against whom proceedings under Section 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were initiated, particularly when co-accused with indistinguishable cases have already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the rule regarding the refusal of bail to an absconder is not an absolute rule and that exceptions can be made depending on the circumstances, notably where co-accused have already been enlarged on bail. The court thus granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing the requisite security, laying down the principle that the grant of bail to co-accused similarly placed serves as a valid ground for making an exception to the general rule withholding bail from absconders.

  Questions settled

  • Is the rule refusing bail to an absconder an absolute rule without exceptions?
  • Does the grant of bail to co-accused constitute a sufficient ground to make an exception for an absconder?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused when proceedings under Section 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were ordered against him?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar and anothers vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-09
  criminal appealtransfer of caseright to be heardscheduled offensecognizancevitiated trialpolice reportSpecial Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by a Special Judge (S.T.A.) for offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The appellants contended that the trial was illegal because the case was transferred from the Sessions Court to the Special Court without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard. Additionally, the appellants argued that once the Sessions Court had taken cognizance of the matter based on the initial police report, the police could not unilaterally alter the case to include a scheduled offense to change the trial forum. The High Court held that the trial was vitiated due to the failure to provide the appellants with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the transfer of the case. The Court emphasized that once a case is instituted in a court of law, the prosecution cannot unilaterally change the forum of trial. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Sessions Court for proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accused have a right to be heard before a case is transferred from a Sessions Court to a Special Court?
  • Can the police unilaterally alter the nature of a case to a scheduled offense after a Sessions Court has already taken cognizance?
  • Is a trial vitiated if the case is transferred to a Special Court without notice to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Alamgir vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 459 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Alam Khan vs Muhammad Ramzan1995 MLD 429 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
• Akhtar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 568 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Kiyani vs The State And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 145 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali and others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1403 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain vs Wadero Muhammad Tayyeb1995 PLD Karachi 452 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-15
  arbitration awardex parte proceedingsservice of noticenatural justicevoid orderArbitration Act 1940nullity
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns a challenge to an arbitration award made ex parte, which was previously made a rule of the court. Following a remand by the Supreme Court, the High Court examined whether the defendant had been properly served with notice of the arbitration proceedings. The core legal question was whether the requirements of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, regarding the service of notice, were satisfied. The Court held that the record contained no evidence that the notice was actually delivered to or received by the defendant, noting that the registered mail was returned unserved. The Court ruled that the arbitrator acted in haste and failed to ensure proper service, rendering the ex parte proceedings and the subsequent award a nullity. The key principle established is that an arbitrator must record their satisfaction regarding the service of notice to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld. Furthermore, where an initial order is void, all subsequent actions and rights derived from that order, including auction proceedings, must also fall to the ground.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere issuance of a notice by an arbitrator satisfy the requirements of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Is an arbitration award rendered ex parte valid if the arbitrator fails to record satisfaction regarding the service of notice on the defendant?
  • If an arbitration award is declared void for lack of service, do subsequent actions such as auction proceedings based on that award also become void?
  • Are arbitrators required to follow the strict procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding service of process?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs (Mst.) Hameeda SahafK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 210 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Throdugh Its MayorK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 106 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain Alias Laloo vs The State1995 MLD 604 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others1995 PLD Karachi 223 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed and anothers vs Mst. Maqsooda Begum1995 MLD 1387 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-29Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed And Another vs Mst. Maqsooda Begum1995 MLD 1387 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-29Read full judgment →
• Afaque Hussain Naqvi vs Mrs. Razia Begum1995 CLC 222 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Afaque Hassain Naqvi vs Rama Begum1995 CLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Adil Brothers (Private) Ltd. vs Pakistan National Shipping1995 CLC 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31Read full judgment →
• Achar and anothers vs Abu Baker Modi and another1995 CLC 465 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-09
  res judicatawithdrawal of suitabandonment of claimmaintainability of suitcivil procedurehereditary rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration of their hereditary rights and a perpetual injunction regarding the possession of over 130 salt-pans in Maripur, Karachi. The defendants moved for the dismissal of the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs had previously filed an identical suit (Suit No. 456 of 1991) concerning the same subject matter and cause of action, which was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally and dismissed on 4-3-1992. The defendants contended that the current suit was therefore barred under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court examined the record and confirmed that the earlier suit had been withdrawn without the court's permission to institute a fresh suit. The Court held that, pursuant to Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a plaintiff who withdraws a suit without such permission is precluded from instituting a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter. Finding the present suit to be based on the same cause of action as the previously withdrawn suit, the Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unconditional withdrawal of a previous suit without the court's permission preclude the filing of a fresh suit on the same subject matter?
  • Is a subsequent suit barred under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it arises from the same cause of action as a previously withdrawn suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Achar And Another vs Abu Baker Modi And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 372 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abida Rashid vs The Secretary, Government of Sindh and others1995 PLD Karachi 587 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21
  Constitutional petitionRight of appealJurisdictionAdministrative lawAllotment cancellationUltra viresStatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order passed by the Secretary, Government of Sindh, which cancelled the petitioner's allotment of a government quarter in favor of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the Secretary possessed the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Vice-Chairman, Administrative Committee, Shah Latifabad, and whether such a right of appeal existed in the absence of express statutory provision. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and was void ab initio. It emphasized that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and must be expressly granted, not implied. Furthermore, even under the administrative circular relied upon by the respondent, the appellate authority was the Commissioner, not the Secretary. Consequently, the Court declared the Secretary's order to be of no legal effect, affirming that power vested in a specific authority must be exercised by that authority alone, and any usurpation of such power renders the resulting act illegal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a right of appeal be implied or inferred in the absence of an express statutory provision?
  • Does an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction constitute a void act?
  • Can a subordinate administrative circular confer a substantive right of appeal where the parent statute is silent?
  • Is an order passed by an authority other than the one designated by the relevant administrative circular sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Khan vs Muhammad Altaf And 3 OthersK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 643 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahim And Others vs M/s United Bank Limited1996 P.C.T.L.R. 43 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdullah alias Badal vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1363 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahad Junejo vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 274 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor and anothers vs M/s. Abdul Razzaqueabdul Sattar,1995 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-29
  eviction applicationwillful defaultlandlord-tenant relationshiprent paymentSindh Rented Premises Ordinancetenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an eviction application filed by the appellants against the respondents for default in rent payment. The Rent Controller had initially found no landlord-tenant relationship and no willful default. Upon review, the High Court held that a landlord-tenant relationship clearly existed, as the appellants were the sole proprietors of the firm and the respondents had previously paid rent to them. Regarding the alleged default, the Court rejected the respondents' defense that the appellants had previously accepted rent in lump sums or through representatives. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court established that a landlord's past practice of accepting rent periodically does not absolve a tenant of their legal obligation to pay rent on time, nor does it imply a waiver of the statutory requirement. The landlord is not legally required to collect rent from the tenant. Consequently, the Court found the respondents committed willful default, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to vacate the premises within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of landlord under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 include sole proprietors of a company acting as landlords?
  • Does a landlord's past practice of accepting rent periodically constitute a waiver of the tenant's obligation to pay rent on time?
  • Is a landlord legally obligated to collect rent from the tenant at the tenant's convenience?
  • Does the failure to pay rent on time, despite alleged past practices of lump-sum collection, constitute willful default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Abdul KarimK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 250 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Bhutto vs Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority through its1995 PLC (C.S.) 369 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-28Read full judgment →