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.

• Islamuddin Taimuri vs Esmail Muhammad Bahi1994 MLD 656 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ishrat Sultana vs Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, Karachi1994 PLC (C.S.) 1303 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-20Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmed Bhatti And Other vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Home Department, Karachi And 10 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 677 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• In re: Mst. Shamim Akhter and others vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 237 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• In Re: Mst. Shamim Akhter And Other vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 237 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ikramullah And 2 Other vs Muhammad Tufail And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Case 93 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ullah vs Government of Sindh1994 PLC (C.S.) 336 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
• Hatim Ali Sheikh vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-10Read full judgment →
• Haroon through his Legal Heirs vs Mst. Amina1994 PLD Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Akram vs Messrs Fauji Sugar Khoski And 2 Others1994 PLC 298 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 6 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Feroze Ali vs Province of Sindh and others1994 MLD 2403 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Sattar vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 263 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Majid through Legal Heirs vs Khawaja Kamaluddin1994 MLD 958 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-12Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs M/s. Southern Commercial Corporation, Karachi1994 MLD 430 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Jamilur Rehman1994 MLD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-16
  bank draftstale chequenegotiable instrumentreasonable timerevision petitionbanking practicesmall causes court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil revision petition filed by the defendant bank against the judgment and decree of the Small Causes Court, Karachi, which decreed a recovery suit for Rs. 1,000 in favor of the respondent advocate. The core legal question was whether a bank draft presented for encashment after a delay of seventeen months from its date of issuance could be refused payment by the issuing bank on the ground of being outdated or stale. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the lower court's decree, holding that a negotiable instrument must be presented within a reasonable time. The Court laid down the principle that, in accordance with banking usage and trade practice, presenting a bank draft after seventeen months constitutes an unreasonable delay, rendering the instrument stale, and therefore the issuing bank is justified in refusing payment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank draft presented for encashment after seventeen months can be refused payment as an outdated or stale instrument?
  • What constitutes a reasonable time for the presentation of a negotiable instrument under banking usage and trade practice?
  • Is an issuing bank liable to honour a bank draft that has remained in circulation for an unreasonable length of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Hussain Corporation Ltd.1994 MLD 2276 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Board of Trustees of Abandoned Properties, Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Chairman and another1994 MLD 751 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-21Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad Sanjarani vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 423 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh vs Mazhar Hussain And Others1994 PLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Waris Bismil1994 MLD 527 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-02
  specific reliefrecovery of possessiontenancy disputelandlord and tenantcivil revisionpossessory suitmaintainability of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application arose from a dispute over the possession of a shop, where the respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration, permanent injunction, and possession against the applicant-landlord. The core legal question was whether a tenant dispossessed by a landlord is restricted to seeking relief under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or if they may invoke Section 8, and whether an appeal lies against such a decree. The Court held that the suit was not filed under Section 9, as it included additional claims for declaration and injunction, thus rendering the appeal competent. The Court affirmed that a tenant entitled to possession may sue under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, as this provision is not limited to owners but extends to anyone with a legal entitlement to possession. The Court further clarified that Sections 8 and 9 are not mutually exclusive in a manner that precludes a dispossessed tenant from invoking Section 8. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, and the Court emphasized the need for expeditious execution of the decree.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant dispossessed by a landlord sue for recovery of possession under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Does the inclusion of claims for declaration and injunction in a suit for possession preclude the suit from being treated as one under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Are Section 8 and Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, mutually exclusive in a manner that bars a dispossessed tenant from invoking Section 8?
  • Is an appeal competent against a decree in a suit that is not filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Mst. Amina Begum1994 MLD 26 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State1994 MLD 91 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 8 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Returning Officer, Sindh and 13 others1994 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi vs Additional District and Sessions Judge, and Burning Officer, Sindh And 13 Other1994 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 14 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder vs The State and another1994 MLD 893 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Noor Shah Ali1994 MLD 36 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
• Fida Hussain vs Yen Pasha and 2 others1994 MLD 501 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
• Feroze Ardeshir Mehta and anotherPlaintiffs vs Moin Ahmed Hashmi and 5 others1994 MLD 638 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rahim vs Messrs Alwajid Town1994 MLD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-08
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11 CPCextraneous materialdevelopment chargescivil revisiondeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  These four revision applications arose out of similar orders passed by the civil court under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, rejecting the plaints filed by allottees seeking declarations and permanent injunctions against payment of development charges and for execution of lease deeds. The core legal question was whether a trial court, while considering an application for rejection of a plaint, is strictly confined to the averments made in the plaint or can examine extraneous documents produced by the defendant. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not exhaustive, and courts are justified in looking at relevant documents like lease agreements and possession orders to prevent meritless proceedings from continuing. The court affirmed the dismissal of the revisions and established that trial courts are not strictly barred from considering material beyond the four corners of the plaint in appropriate circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are exhaustive for the rejection of a plaint?
  • Can a court look into documents or material produced by the defendant while deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether a trial court is justified in rejecting a plaint that is manifestly meritless based on the fundamental agreements governing the parties' rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad Khan And Other vs National Industrial Relations1994 PLC 99 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
• Farid Akhtar Hadi vs Mohammad Latif GhaziK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 477 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Dur MUHAMMAD/Accused vs The STATEOpponent1994 MLD 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-02Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad vs The State1994 MLD 1419 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• Drawdy Desiree Marie vs The State1994 MLD 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Riaz Armed vs Sabir Ali Bhojani1994 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
• Dr. Riaz Ahmed vs Sabir Ali Bhojani1994 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
• Deedar Ali vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 309 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
• Continental Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Collector, Central Excise1994 MLD 1457 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-10Read full judgment →
• Compagnie Continentale (France) Sa. vs Pakistan National Shipping1994 MLD 2178 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner.of Income-Tax, Companies II, Karachi vs Messrs Ciba1994 PTD 515 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies III, Karachi vs Premier1993 PTD 496 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Companies II, Karachi. vs Ciba GeigyPTCL 1994 CL. 389 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs Messrs1994 PTD 514 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority vs Data International And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 191 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority vs Aziz-Ur-Rab SiddiquiK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 207 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-10Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority vs Aziz-Ur-Rab Siddioui1994 PLC (C.S.) 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-10Read full judgment →
• Chanar Sugar Mills Limited vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary (Customs), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1994 MLD 1157 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others vs Rana Muhammad Hanif and another1994 MLD 497 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Block Drug Company Inc. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Block Drug Company Inc vs The Registrar of Trademarks 68-E Market, Block 6, P.E.C.H.S.Karachi-29K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 153 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs State1994 PLD Karachi 462 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-05
  bail cancellationimproper grant of bailfurther inquiryrecovery of stolen propertyidentification testinherent powersreview of bail order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case where the Sindh High Court addressed the cancellation of bail previously granted to several co-accused by another Judge of the same court. The core legal questions involved whether one Judge of the High Court can cancel bail granted by a predecessor or another Judge without amounting to an impermissible review, and whether the grounds for cancellation of bail are exhaustive or if bail can be revoked when improperly granted on the existing material. The court held that the High Court possesses inherent and statutory powers under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to examine and cancel bail improperly granted, and that such action does not constitute a review barred by law, even if undertaken by a different Judge due to the unavailability of the original Judge. The court established that bail granted without considering material aspects such as the recovery of stolen property and identification of the accused is improper, and such bail can be cancelled in rare and exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether cancellation of bail earlier granted by another Judge of the High Court amounts to an impermissible review under the law?
  • Can bail improperly granted by a Judge be cancelled by another Judge of the High Court even on the same material?
  • Do the grounds for cancellation of bail enumerated in judicial precedents form an exhaustive list?
  • Whether the mere possibility of further inquiry justifies the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a definite conclusion that reasonable grounds are lacking?
  Read full judgment →
• Banqu E Indosuez vs Banking Tribunal for Sindh & Baluchistan AndK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 321 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Badar Iqbal vs The Speaker Sindhh Provincial Assembly SindhhK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 542 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Atif Manzoor vs The State1994 MLD 72 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-12Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 60 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Asif Iqbal vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 60 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Anwarulhaq vs Mst. Jameela Begum1994 MLD 84 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
• Amjad Khan vs Haji Muhammad Yameen QureshiPLD 1994 Karachi 404. · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-06Read full judgment →
• Aminul Haque vs The State1994 MLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-12Read full judgment →
• American Telephone and Telegraph Company vs Assistant RegistrarK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 550 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Allahdino And 4 Other vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 3) · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad Baloch and another vs The State1994 MLD 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Alhaja Alima vs The StatePTCL 1994 CL. 349 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad And Other vs The Federation of Pakistan And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 171 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali G. Kazi, J Miss Humera Tayyaba vs Government of Sindh1994 MLD 1461 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Alam and 3 others vs Shabbir and 5 others1994 MLD 201 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Alam And 3 Other vs Shabbir And 5 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 88 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-28Read full judgment →
• Akeel vs The Chairman, Karachi Port Trust, Karachi1994 PLC (C.S.) 844 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
• Agra Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Syed Akhtar Ali and others1994 MLD 1747 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-20
  specific performancelimitation periodlis pendensprivity of contractbreach of contractcooperative societiesagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated suits for specific performance regarding agreements to sell agricultural land. The core legal questions involved whether the suits were barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908, whether there was privity of contract between the original owner and the ultimate purchaser, and whether the doctrine of lis pendens applied to subsequent property transfers. The court held that the suits were time-barred, as the plaintiffs failed to institute proceedings within the statutory period following the breach of contract. Furthermore, the court determined that the intermediate purchaser failed to perform his contractual obligations, justifying the original owner's repudiation of the agreement. Consequently, the original owner was legally competent to sell the property to third parties. The court established that the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 does not apply to transactions completed prior to the institution of a suit. Additionally, the court affirmed that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish their case independently, and specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy not available to parties who fail to perform their own contractual duties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance is barred by limitation if filed more than three years after the date stipulated for performance?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to property transfers executed before the institution of a suit?
  • Is a notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 mandatory for a suit against a cooperative society?
  • Can a party claim specific performance if they have failed to perform their own contractual obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Shafique Ahmed Khan vs Pakistan International Airlines And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 877 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Agha Abdul Majeed vs Inam Waris1994 PLD Karachi 457 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
• Adi Jehangir vs Mrs. Parin Jal Kapadia1994 MLD 30 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The State1994 MLD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Hanifur Rahman1994 MLD 955 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Muhammad Azeem1994 PLD Karachi 319 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13
  execution proceedingsejectment orderrent controltenancy agreementSection 12(2) CPCfraudulent claimsSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by a tenant during execution proceedings of an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether an alleged fresh tenancy agreement and payment, made without the Rent Controller's permission, could invalidate an existing eviction order or justify setting it aside under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the application was without merit and intended to protract proceedings. It affirmed that under Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, any payment, compromise, or agreement regarding an ejectment order is invalid unless made before or with the express permission of the authority passing the order. The Court established that this statutory requirement is mandatory to prevent fraudulent claims and ensure the smooth execution of rent orders. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the alleged agreement, lacking the requisite judicial approval, could not serve as a shield against eviction or trigger an inquiry into fraud.

  Questions settled

  • Is an alleged compromise or agreement regarding an ejectment order valid if made without the permission of the Rent Controller?
  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be used to challenge an eviction order based on an unapproved tenancy agreement?
  • Does Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 require prior judicial approval for any compromise or payment made during execution proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Karim vs Messrs Orient Pakistan Ltd. and others1994 MLD 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Askani vs The State1994 MLD 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and another vs The State1994 MLD 862 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Mst. Amtul Saeeda1994 MLD 1463 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and 2 others vs The State1994 MLD 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Fareed Khan vs FerozuddinK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 538 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Rafiq Qureshi1994 PLD Karachi 474 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-29
  specific performanceburden of proofforged documentcomparison of signaturesQanun-e-Shahadatcivil revisionconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated civil revision applications challenging concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed the applicant's suits for specific performance and for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a disputed plot of land. The applicant claimed ownership based on an alleged Agreement of Sale, while the respondent denied the document as a forgery. The core legal question was whether the applicant had sufficiently discharged the burden of proof regarding the execution of the disputed document and whether the trial court's unilateral comparison of signatures was legally sustainable. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, ruling that the applicant failed to prove the document's execution through standard evidentiary modes, such as expert testimony or evidence from persons acquainted with the signature. The Court held that merely presenting witnesses who claim a document was executed is insufficient when the signature itself is disputed. Consequently, the burden of proof never shifted to the respondent. The Court affirmed that while courts may compare signatures under the law, such exercises are secondary to the primary burden of proof resting on the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Does the testimony of attesting witnesses alone constitute sufficient proof of a disputed signature?
  • What are the standard modes of proving a disputed signature or writing under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can a court's unilateral comparison of signatures be considered a valid substitute for expert evidence when the plaintiff has failed to discharge the initial burden of proof?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home1994 MLD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Chas a Mendoza vs Syed Tausif Ahmed Zaidi And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 273 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Nusrat Khanum vs Liaqat AliK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 528 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Barht-E-Raw1da vs Ghulam Habib And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 202 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
• (Mrs.) Rashida And Other vs (Mrs.) Shahzad Khanum Malick And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 498 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-26Read full judgment →
• (Mrs.) Aneesa Begum And Other vs (Mrs.) Aminuddin And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 493 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-23Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited through its President1993 CLC 1356 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-28Read full judgment →
• Zubair Ishtiaq Qureshi vs The Chairman of Academic Council and Principal of Sindh Medical College, Karachi and 3 others1993 CLC 1675 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-18
  medical educationFirst Professional M.B.B.S. Examinationfour-chance ruleconstitutional petitionpenal interpretationunavoidable circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions filed by medical students challenging their disqualification from further medical education under Note (ii) of Regulation No. 4(1) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Association Regulations, which prescribes that a student failing to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination in four chances, availed or unavailed, ceases to be eligible. The core legal question was whether the four-chance rule applies strictly under all circumstances or whether it admits exceptions for unavoidable causes beyond a student's control, such as severe sickness or institutional transfer constraints. The Sindh High Court held that the phrase 'unavailed' applies only to voluntary failure or designed inaction, and where a student is prevented by unavoidable causes beyond their control, such a chance cannot be deemed wasted. Being penal in nature, doubts in such disqualification provisions must be resolved in favour of the affected student. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned rejection orders, allowed the petitions, and directed that the petitioners be granted one further and last chance to take the examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the restriction of four chances to clear the First Professional M.B.,B.S. Examination under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Association Regulations applies when a student's failure to take the exam is due to circumstances beyond their control?
  • How are penal provisions disqualifying a student from pursuing further education to be interpreted in cases of ambiguity?
  • Can illness or medical incapacity constitute a valid ground for treating an unavailed examination chance as an exception to the strict rule?
  • Whether institutional transfer constraints that prevent a student from taking an examination can be considered an unavoidable cause beyond the student's control?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziaul Haq Awan vs Mst. Hasina Begum and 4 others1993 MLD 1263 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-07Read full judgment →
• Zia Aziz vs Muhammad Yousuf1993 MLD 2222 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• Zeal-Pak Cement Factory Ltd. and another vs Farid Enterprises and 31993 MLD 654 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
• Zameer Ahmed vs Bushra Fayaz1993 CLC 2370 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17
  personal bona fide requirementejectment applicationrent appeallandlord-tenant disputeconcealment of factsburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This Rent Appeal challenges the judgment of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant from commercial premises on the ground of the respondent-landlady's personal bona fide requirement. The core legal question was whether the landlady successfully established the bona fide nature of her personal requirement for the premises to establish a car showroom for her husband and for her children. The High Court found that the landlady failed to disclose the existence of other commercial premises already in her possession and concealed material facts regarding her husband's existing business activities. Furthermore, the court held that the landlady’s claim regarding the requirement for her children was vague, lacking necessary particulars such as the number, ages, and sex of the children. The Court emphasized that a landlord must provide specific details to establish bona fides to allow a tenant to mount a proper defense. Consequently, the High Court set aside the eviction order, ruling that the landlady failed to prove her personal requirement in good faith.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's failure to disclose other premises in their possession affect the credibility of a claim for personal bona fide requirement?
  • Is a landlord required to provide specific particulars regarding the needs of their children to establish a bona fide requirement for eviction?
  • Can a tenant's refusal to accept an undertaking not to re-let premises be used as evidence of a landlord's good faith?
  Read full judgment →
• Zal Hussain vs Mahmood Hussain1993 MLD 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Zakauddin vs Muhammad Zahid and 2 others1993 PLD Karachi 766 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-12
  temporary injunctionpassing offtrade mark infringementprior userdeceptively similar markbalance of convenienceclean hands doctrine
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 15 of Ordinance No. X of 1980 challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for a temporary injunction in a suit for injunction, damages, and accounts. The appellant claimed prior user and registration applications for the trade mark 'Bio-Amla' and 'FORVIL' for shampoo products, alleging that the respondents were manufacturing and selling spurious shampoo under the deceptively similar brand 'Super Amla Shampoo' and infringing trade marks to pass off their goods. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction, despite allegations of unfair trade practices by both sides. The Sindh High Court held that a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience favored the appellant as prior user and adopter, and the respondents had copied the getup to pass off goods. The Court laid down that where both parties engage in similar misrepresentation, discretion should favor the party whose case is on a better footing on merits, and granted the temporary injunction subject to the appellant deleting foreign association references from its labels.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in a passing off action where the plaintiff establishes prior user and a deceptively similar mark by the defendant?
  • Does the lack of final registration of a trade mark preclude a plaintiff from claiming proprietorship and interim relief based on continuous prior use?
  • How should the court exercise its discretion regarding interim relief when both parties are alleged to have engaged in similar misrepresentation on their product labels?
  • What constitutes a deceptively similar mark capable of causing confusion among average purchasers under the Trade Marks Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-23
  unlicensed weaponnewspaper reporthearsay evidencerecovery witnesspolice encountercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal jail appeal was filed against the judgment of the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Karachi, which convicted the appellant under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was arrested during a police encounter and found in possession of an unlicensed Kalashnikov. The trial court relied heavily on the testimony of a recovery witness and a newspaper report detailing the arrest. On appeal, the High Court observed significant discrepancies between the First Information Report and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, noting that the recovery witness had a personal grudge against the appellant and was not independent. Furthermore, the High Court held that the trial court erred in relying on the newspaper report, as newspaper reports are inadmissible hearsay unless formally proved by a witness with personal knowledge. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is a newspaper report admissible as evidence of the facts recorded therein without formal proof and testimony by a witness?
  • Does the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 contain a presumption as to the genuineness of a newspaper or journal similar to Section 81 of the repealed Evidence Act 1872?
  • Can a witness who has a history of personal enmity and physical altercations with the accused be considered an independent or reliable recovery witness?
  Read full judgment →