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.

• S.M. Asim, in the Matter of Petition under Section 276 of the Succession Act, 1925 for Probate of the Will of Late MR. S.M. Asim S_0 Late MR. S.M. Qasim vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Balighuddin vs Subdivisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Balighuddin vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, KarachiK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 413 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. Iqbal Balighuddin vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Civil Lines, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-25Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Perveen Nazir vs National Logistic Cell and 2 others1994 MLD 626 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-02Read full judgment →
• Roshan Ara Begum and another vs Waheedullah Khan and another1994 MLD 43 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
• Reliance Construction Co. vs Agha Khan Medical College1994 MLD 248 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan And Other vs Murtaza Khan And OtherK.L.R.1904 Civil Cases 426 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-26Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Ghafoor-- vs Government of Sindh And Other1994 PLD Karachi 52 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-05Read full judgment →
• Shahida Rafi vs Muhammad Kamal1994 MLD 407 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
• Rana Abdul Ghafoor vs Government of Sindh and others1994 PLD Karachi 52 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-05Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Muhammad through his Legal Heirs vs AlHaj Choudhry1994 MLD 502 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-13Read full judgment →
• Rahat Mehmood vs Tariq Rasheed And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 468 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Rafiuddin vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 2 others1994 MLD 874 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-25
  rejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionencroachmentmala fidespublic propertyrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These revision petitions arose from a common judgment wherein civil suits filed by petitioners challenging encroachment removal notices were dismissed through the rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerned whether the ouster of civil court jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act 1975 bars a civil court from examining the legality of a notice alleged to be mala fide, issued by an unauthorized person, or in violation of statutory provisions. The Sindh High Court held that where allegations of mala fides and lack of statutory authority are raised in the plaint, such averments must be accepted as correct at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, and the civil court retains jurisdiction to examine acts done without jurisdiction, in bad faith, or in violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Consequently, the High Court set aside the concurrent orders rejecting the plaints and remanded the suits for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 11 of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act 1975 completely bar the jurisdiction of a civil court to examine a notice issued with mala fide intent or by an unauthorized person?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when allegations of mala fides are specifically pleaded against the authorities?
  • Under what circumstances can a civil court exercise jurisdiction despite a statutory bar ousting its ordinary powers?
  • Whether the merits of allegations or the weakness of proof can be considered by a court while determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Pimpa (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies-1994 PTD 123 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12
  income tax referencerejection of accountsgross profit rateexport profitmaintenance of accountsIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This income tax reference before the Sindh High Court arose from an application by an assessee company under section 136(2) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order upholding the rejection of declared export profit results and the application of a 25% gross profit rate. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the declared export profit results due to the non-maintenance of records pertaining to the supply of cloth and the receipt of readymade garments. The Court held that mere non-maintenance of day-to-day consumption and production accounts or failure to supply full addresses of suppliers does not justify rejecting an assessee's book version unless there are positive omissions, irregularities, or defects showing that the accounts fail to disclose the true income. The Court established that an assessing officer cannot reject accounts based on records that are not normally maintained in a particular trade, nor can they treat purchases as fictitious without verification. Consequently, the Court answered the reference in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-maintenance of day-to-day consumption and production accounts legally justifies the rejection of an assessee's book results?
  • Can an assessing officer reject books of accounts in the absence of any omission, irregularity, or positive evidence showing that accounts do not disclose the whole income?
  • Whether the assessing officer is bound to verify purchases by examining suppliers before treating them as fictitious?
  • Is the yield obtained in one assessment year a valid guidance for estimating the yield or rejecting accounts in any subsequent year?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan M.O. Agriculture vs Messrs Over Field and others1994 MLD 372 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Sultan Ahmed1994 MLD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Karachi Municipal1994 PLD Karachi 343 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Insurance Corporation vs Pakistan National Shipping1994 MLD 667 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Atomic Energy Commissioner vs M.S. Khalid1994 PLD Karachi 317 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
• P.Ia. Corporation vs Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 32 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• P.Ia. Corporation vs Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 32 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
• Office Reference No.259 of 1974 Etc. vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 258 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Office Reference N0.259 of 1974 Etc. vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 258 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Nusratullah vs Quresh AhmedK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 359 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
• Novak Eva Bermadett and others vs The StatePTCL 1994 CL. 352 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-04Read full judgment →
• Noor Nabi vs The State1994 MLD 869 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Mst. Zainab1994 MLD 434 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-18Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin Farid Ul Haq vs The Collector of Customs Appraisement, Customs House,Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 142 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nizamuddin and others vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 517 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin And Other vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 517 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi through President1994 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-30Read full judgment →
• New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director vs The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Director vs The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• New Electronics (Pvt) Ltd. vs The Collector of CustomsK.L.R. 1994 Tax and Custom Cases 10 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazir Ali M.H. Gangji vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-1, Karachi ,1994 PTD 958 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-06
  advisory jurisdictionincome tax referencereview of judgmentinherent powersCode of Civil Procedureaccidental slip or omissionIncome Tax Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Sections 114, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to recall or amend a previous High Court judgment rendered in an income tax reference. The core legal question was whether the High Court, while exercising advisory jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, possesses the power to review or alter its judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court dismissed the application, holding that its jurisdiction in income tax references is strictly advisory, limited, and distinct from its original, appellate, or revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not apply to such proceedings. The Court established that while it retains inherent or incidental powers to correct accidental clerical or arithmetical errors, or to restore a reference dismissed for non-prosecution to prevent a miscarriage of justice, it lacks the statutory authority to review its judgment on merits. The advisory nature of the jurisdiction precludes the exercise of review powers, as such powers are not conferred by the governing tax statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court possess the power to review its judgment rendered in an income tax reference?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to the High Court when exercising advisory jurisdiction in income tax matters?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent powers to correct accidental errors or omissions in a judgment delivered under its advisory jurisdiction?
  • Is the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Section 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance considered original or appellate jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• National Development Finance Corporation, Karachi vs M/s. Sindh1994 PLD Karachi 186 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-04Read full judgment →
• National Development Finance Corporation vs (M/s.) Sindhh GlassK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 37 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-04Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1994 PLC 301 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-22
  grievance petitionindustrial relationsstatutory service rulesdismissal from serviceworkman definitionStanding Orders OrdinanceNational Bank of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal which reinstated a bank employee dismissed following a criminal conviction. The core legal questions were whether the employee’s grievance petition was time-barred and whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the Standing Orders Ordinance applied to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan. The High Court held that the grievance petition was not maintainable. It determined that the National Bank of Pakistan is a commercial establishment operating under the authority of the Federal Government, and its employees are governed by the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973. Consequently, the Standing Orders Ordinance does not apply to these employees. Furthermore, the court ruled that a dismissed employee does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and cannot maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A unless the Standing Orders Ordinance is applicable. The principle established is that statutory service rules exclude the applicability of the Standing Orders Ordinance to employees of government-run commercial establishments, thereby barring them from invoking section 25-A for dismissal grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Standing Orders Ordinance apply to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan who are governed by statutory service rules?
  • Can a dismissed employee who does not fall under the definition of 'workman' maintain a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is a grievance petition filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 maintainable if the Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable to the establishment?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Banking Tribunal No. 1 and 11 others1994 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Banking Tribunal No. 1 And 11 Other1994 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Naseerullah Khan and another vs Pakistan International Airlines1994 MLD 783 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
• Nanabhoy Hormusji Patel vs (Miss.) Freny N. CooperK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 223 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
• Nahan Foundry vs Messrs Seth Muhammad Rafique Zarati Foundry and others1994 MLD 2401 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed Mirza vs The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad And Another1994 PLD Karachi 86 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed Mirza vs Mrs. Shah Sultana Begum And Another1994 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-03
  sub-tenantnecessary partyrent controllereviction petitionlease agreementwritten consentsubletting
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal assails an order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. to be joined as a necessary party in an eviction petition as a sub-tenant. The core legal question was whether a sub-tenant claiming induction under a lease agreement containing a subletting clause with the landlord's consent is a necessary party to eviction proceedings against the tenant. The Sindh High Court held that where the lease agreement expressly grants permission to sublet, satisfying the statutory requirement of consent in writing under the relevant rent legislation, and the sub-tenant's actual possession and induction are admitted, such sub-tenant is a necessary and proper party entitled to be joined in the proceedings. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, laying down that contractual stipulations permitting subletting must be read harmoniously, and a sub-tenant holding under a permitted sublease is a necessary party in an ejectment action against the main tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sub-tenant a necessary party in an eviction application filed against the tenant?
  • Whether a clause in a lease agreement permitting subletting with consultation constitutes written consent under the rent laws?
  • Can parties contract out of the statutory provisions requiring written consent for subletting?
  • Was the Rent Controller justified in dismissing the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. on the ground of lack of proof of possession when possession was admitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed Alias Kallia vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 27 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-14Read full judgment →
• N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology Karachi vs Ahmed1994 PLD Karachi 412 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
• M/s. United Bank Ltd., Karachi vs M/s. Mohibali Tannery Ltd., Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 275 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. United Bank Ltd., Karachi vs M/s. Mohibali Tannery Ltd., Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 275 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
• M/s. Shafi Corporation Ltd vs Government of Pakistan throughK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 126 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Searle Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd vs Government of Pakistan throughK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 5 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Sagaria Brothers vs Messrs Azim Markaz and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sagaria Brother vs Messrs Azim Markaz And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-27Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakland Cement Limited, Karachi vs Registrar of Trade Unions,1994 PLC 177 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-14
  trade union registrationwrit jurisdictionworkman statusIndustrial Relations Ordinancenatural justicedisputed factsemployer rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, a public limited company, challenged the registration of a trade union, alleging that its office-bearers were non-workmen and that the registration process violated principles of natural justice. The core legal questions were whether an employer is entitled to a personal hearing during the trade union registration process and whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can determine the disputed status of employees as 'workmen.' The Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not grant the employer a statutory right to be heard during the registration process. Furthermore, the Court determined that the status of an employee as a 'workman' is a question of fact requiring the recording of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the nature of duties performed, rather than the designation, constitutes the essential test for determining 'workman' status. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that disputed factual matters regarding employment status must be resolved through appropriate evidentiary proceedings rather than constitutional petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employer entitled to a personal hearing during the registration process of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Can the High Court determine the status of an employee as a 'workman' in writ jurisdiction when the facts are in dispute?
  • What is the fundamental test for determining whether an employee qualifies as a 'workman' under labour legislation?
  • Does the Registrar of Trade Unions have the authority to cancel a trade union registration if it was obtained in contravention of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Khyber Traders Proprietorship vs Central Board of Revenue,1994 MLD 1473 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• M/s. Karachi Tank Terminals. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector of CustomsPTCL 1994 CL. 313 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretaiy,PTCL 1994 CL. 555 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Fresh Water Fisheries (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi and anothers vs1994 MLD 2019 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. D.M. Brother vs Collector Of Customs And AnotherPTCL 1994 CL. 121 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ciba-Geigy (Pak) Limited vs Muhammad SafdarK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 22 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bawani Sugar Mills Limited, Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan1994 PLC 174 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. Allwin Engineering Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Director, Sindh1994 PLC 169 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ahmed Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Federation Of Pakistan AndPTCL 1994 CL. 393 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Agha & Company vs Mari Gas, Co. Ltd, Contractors Mazdoor1994 PLC 85 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-09
  trade union registrationindustrial relationsgroup of establishmentslachesconstitutional petitionindependent contractorcollective bargaining agent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by several independent contractors challenging the registration of a trade union representing employees working across multiple establishments. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, permits the registration of a trade union representing workers of multiple establishments only if those establishments are owned by the same employer. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of laches regarding the delayed challenge to the union's registration. The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the term "group of establishments" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is not restricted to establishments owned by a single employer but possesses a wider connotation. Consequently, a trade union may represent workers from independent establishments provided they are connected to the same industry. Furthermore, the court determined that the petitions were barred by laches due to the significant delay in challenging the registration. Finally, the court observed that the petitions raised complex, disputed questions of fact regarding employment status and the nature of the contractual relationships, which were unsuitable for resolution within constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trade union representing workers of multiple establishments be registered if those establishments are owned by different employers?
  • Does the term 'group of establishments' in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, exclusively refer to establishments owned by the same legal entity?
  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches when the petitioner challenges the registration of a trade union several years after the fact?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Adamjee Insurance Company Limited, Karachi vs P.&.O and Bi,K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 3 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. A.G.E. Electric Co. vs Government Of Pakistan And AnotherPTCL 1994 CL. 424 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Rimpa (Private) Limited Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income Tax,K.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 1 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mustafa Lakhani, Advocate vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing1994 MLD 777 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs The State1994 MLD 895 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan and anothers vs Mst. Bilquis Begum through Legal1994 PLD Karachi 106 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Subhan And Another vs Mst. Bilquis Begum Through Legal1994 PLD Karachi 106 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Soomar vs The State1994 MLD 969 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Butt vs Abdul Sattar Daitho, Inspector of Police1994 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamim vs The Additional Estate Officer and others1994 MLD 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid vs Khalid Mehmood Tabassum And 4 OtherPTCL 1994 CL. 112 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 1) · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Federal Secretary, Ministry of Religious, Affairs and Minorities Affairs, Islamabad and others1994 MLD 2185 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raghib vs Abdul Razzak1994 PLD Karachi 20 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-09
  eviction applicationstatutory tenantdefault in payment of rentnotice of attornmentreconstruction of premisesmaintainability of rent applicationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the Rent Controller’s dismissal of an eviction application filed by the appellant against the respondent regarding a commercial premises. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application, ruling it non-maintainable for lack of notice under Section 13-A of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the absence of such notice rendered the eviction application non-maintainable, particularly where the tenant had prior knowledge of the landlord’s title. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, holding the application maintainable. The court laid down the principle that notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is not a mandatory prerequisite for maintainability when the tenant has actual knowledge of the transfer of ownership. Furthermore, the institution of an eviction application itself serves as sufficient notice of the landlord's identity. Consequently, the court found the respondent to be a willful defaulter and ordered eviction on grounds of default and the landlord’s bona fide requirement for reconstruction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, a mandatory prerequisite for the maintainability of an eviction application when the tenant already has knowledge of the landlord's title?
  • Does the institution of an eviction application itself serve as sufficient notice of the landlord's identity to the tenant?
  • Can a tenant be evicted on the ground of default if they continue to pay rent to a previous owner despite having knowledge of the transfer of title to the new landlord?
  • Is an eviction application maintainable on the ground of reconstruction if the landlord has obtained an approved plan and sanction from the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohiuddin Ahmed Samdani vs Deputy Director-General, E.O.B.I1994 PLC 329 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood Qureshi and anothers vs Messrs United Bank1994 PLD Karachi 323 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood Qureshi And Another vs Messrs United Bank Ltd.,1994 PLD Karachi 323 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Luqman vs Bashir Ahmad1994 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-18
  specific performancecontract rescissionearnest money refundunregistered documentRegistration ActQanun-e-ShahadatOaths Actspecial oathpreponderance of evidencediscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application concerned a suit for specific performance of a property sale agreement. The core legal questions revolved around whether the plaintiff had sufficiently proven his claim for specific performance, particularly regarding alleged extensions of time and the defendant's refusal to complete the sale, and conversely, whether the defendant's assertion of contract rescission and refund of earnest money was valid. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish his case due to significant inconsistencies in his pleadings and evidence, unexplained delays, and his refusal to take a special oath when challenged. Crucially, the Court determined that under the amended Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (post-1962 amendment), an unregistered document, which is compulsorily registrable, cannot operate to create any right, title, or interest in immovable property, and therefore cannot form the foundation for a suit for specific performance. The Court also clarified the interplay between Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and Sections 8-12 of the Oaths Act, 1873, regarding special oaths. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the decrees for specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for specific performance be based on an unregistered document that is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act, 1908, as amended in 1962?
  • What is the effect of a party's refusal to take a special oath under Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, or Sections 8-12 of the Oaths Act, 1873?
  • Can a written contract for the sale of immovable property be orally rescinded?
  • What is the proper interpretation of Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in light of Islamic Jurisprudence and the Oaths Act, 1873?
  • Does a prayer for specific performance implicitly include a prayer for possession if possession remains with the seller?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Mrs. Syed Habiba Rizvi1994 PLD Karachi 227 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Abdul Karim1994 PLD Karachi 206 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 87 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. through its1994 MLD 2485 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Farzana and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Farzana And Another1994 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Director-General, Civil Aviation Authority1994 PLC (C.S.) 840 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hamid Siddiqui vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Health Department and 3 others1994 MLD 768 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Chuttal and another vs The State1994 MLD 886 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi Through Chairman And 2 Others1994 PLC 784 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Government of Pakistan And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 461 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq And 3 Others vs Karam Ali Tar Muhammad1994 CLC 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ansar vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin alias Muhammad Yamin vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 429 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhtar Khan vs Fahimuddin1994 MLD 442 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Bai and anothers vs Messrs Standard Industries Ltd. through Managing Director1994 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →