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.

• Zahid Malik and 3 others vs Abdul Shakoor1993 CLC 1732 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1443 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Mirza vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 37 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
• Zafar Mirza vs Mst. Naushina Amir Ali1993 PLD Karachi 775 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-29
  rented premisesevictiondefault in rentlegal heirssubstantive evidencecross-examinationaffidavit-in-evidencestatutory tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Rent Controller's order directing the appellant to vacate rented premises due to the deceased original tenant's default in rent payment. The core legal questions were whether a written statement and an affidavit-in-evidence of a deceased party, who was not cross-examined, constitute substantive evidence, and whether the legal heirs of a deceased tenant are liable for eviction based on defaults committed by the predecessor during his lifetime. The Court held that neither a written statement nor an affidavit-in-evidence of a deceased person who did not appear for cross-examination can be treated as substantive evidence, as pleadings are not evidence by themselves. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that legal heirs succeeding to a tenancy inherit the defects of that tenancy, including defaults committed by the predecessor. Consequently, the legal heirs are bound by the default committed by the deceased tenant, and the eviction order was upheld. The principle established is that a tenant's legal heirs are liable for the predecessor's defaults, and un-cross-examined affidavits or pleadings of a deceased party lack probative value.

  Questions settled

  • Can a written statement or an affidavit-in-evidence of a deceased party be treated as substantive evidence if the deponent was not cross-examined?
  • Are the legal heirs of a deceased tenant liable for eviction based on rent defaults committed by the predecessor during his lifetime?
  • Does the right of legal heirs to continue as tenants remain subject to the outcome of pending eviction proceedings initiated against the original tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The State1993 MLD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
• Yousuf vs Assadulhaq and another1993 CLC 1787 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03Read full judgment →
• Yousuf and 14 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2534 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-01Read full judgment →
• Younus and 7 others vs S. Aziz Ahmed1993 CLC 2380 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-20
  first rent appealevictionpersonal requirementbona fide needimpairment of utility and valueroof tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenged an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi South, allowing an eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenants on the grounds of impairing the value and utility of the building and personal requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the tenants had unauthorizedly constructed on the roof and closed the staircase thereby impairing the property, and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal need for the premises. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to prove impairment of the utility and value of the building through expert evidence like an architect or engineer, thereby setting aside the Rent Controller's finding on that ground. However, the Court upheld the finding on personal requirement, noting that the landlord's consistent and unshaken testimony regarding family discord and the need to reside in his own property remained unrebutted. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's assertion of bona fide personal use, when consistent with pleadings, supported by oath, and left unshaken in cross-examination without rebuttal, must be accepted as correct, whereas allegations of structural impairment require formal expert testimony.

  Questions settled

  • Whether expert evidence from an architect or engineer is necessary to prove that unauthorized construction or closure of a staircase has impaired the material value and utility of a building?
  • Does the roof of a multi-story tenement building form part of a single upper-floor tenancy unless explicitly provided otherwise?
  • Can a landlord's claim for bona fide personal requirement be accepted when supported by oath and left unshaken during cross-examination without rebuttal by the tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Workers Union of P.Ia. Institute of Planetaria, Karachi vs Fida1993 PLD Karachi 713 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-03
  intra-court appealmaintainabilityLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969trade union registrationoriginal orderconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal addressed the maintainability of an intra-court appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge in a constitutional petition relating to the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether an intra-court appeal is barred under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, when the proceedings arise out of a statute that provides a right of appeal against the original order, even if that right is available to only one party. The Sindh High Court held that the appeal was not competent because the relevant statute, specifically section 8(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides a right of appeal against the original order concerning trade union registration. The court laid down the principle that the competency of an intra-court appeal under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 depends on whether the law applicable to the proceedings provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review against the original order, and it is immaterial whether that right of appeal is granted to both parties or only to one.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an intra-court appeal is competent under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 when the underlying proceedings originate from a statute providing an appeal against the original order?
  • Does section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 require the right of appeal to be available to both parties for the bar against an intra-court appeal to apply?
  • What constitutes an 'original order' in proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the purpose of determining the maintainability of an appeal?
  • Does section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provide a right of appeal against the registration or rejection of registration of a trade union?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-03Read full judgment →
• Wasiuddin Khawar vs Mst. Marrium Bai through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
• Waseem Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2149 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Shafiq Ahmad1993 MLD 2549 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-10Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Hakeem Muhammad Khan and 2 others1993 MLD 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
• Waheed Aslam Dar vs Abdul Sattar Shakoor Usmani1993 CLC 2508 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Uris vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 492 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-18Read full judgment →
• Uris vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 755 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-16Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd., Karachi vs M/s. Nishat Cinema and 2 others1993 MLD 1700 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs M/s. Bahawalpur Textile Mills Limited, Karachi1993 MLD 1780 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Messrs Akbar Cotton Mills Limited and another1993 CLC 1560 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Umubyeyi Christine, vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1606 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04
  plea of guiltcustoms smugglingheroin recoverymandatory supply of documentsexpert opinionchemical examiner reportretrialcustoms trial
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated appeals under section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969, and section 412, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenge the convictions of two foreign nationals for drug-related offenses under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, following their pleas of guilt before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi. The core legal questions involve the legality of convictions based on a plea of guilt where mandatory provisions relating to the supply of witness statements were violated, where charges were framed without chemical examiner reports certifying the recovered substance as an intoxicant, and where the admitted facts did not constitute an offense. The Sindh High Court held that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of supplying copies under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 causes incurable prejudice, that framing a charge requires sufficient material including an expert chemical report establishing the nature of the recovered substance, and that an accused cannot be convicted on a plea of guilt if the facts do not constitute an offense. The court set aside the convictions and ordered a retrial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is barred under section 412 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a conviction is recorded on a plea of guilt?
  • Is non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of supplying documents under section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 curable under section 537?
  • Can an accused be legally charged and convicted for possessing an intoxicant in the absence of an expert chemical examiner report?
  • Can an accused be convicted upon a plea of guilt if the facts on record do not constitute an offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Umrao Khan and 13 others vs The Secretary, Ministry of Finance C.B.R., Islamabad and 3 others1993 MLD 457 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-23Read full judgment →
• U.K. Motor Body Builders vs Sindh Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and another1993 CLC 320 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• U.K. Motor Body Builders vs Sindh Road Transport CorporationK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 32 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Messrs Iftikhar Brothers1993 CLC 1491 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-03
  arbitration awardrule of the courtescalation chargesarbitration clauseexcess of authorityestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The appellants, Trustees of the Port of Karachi, had contracted with the respondents, M/s. Iftikhar Brothers, for the construction of a hospital floor. Following completion of the work, the respondents raised claims for escalation charges and damages, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator pursuant to clause 60 of the contract. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the respondents, and the High Court dismissed the appellants' objections. The core legal question was whether the dispute concerning escalation charges fell within the scope of the arbitration clause and whether the arbitrator acted in excess of authority. The court held that clause 60 of the contract, which broadly encompassed disputes of any nature and the interpretation of relevant documents including government instructions, covered the escalation claim. Furthermore, the court held that the appellants, having themselves nominated the arbitrator, were estopped from challenging the reference, which could alternatively be treated as a fresh agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a claim for escalation charges falls within the scope of a general arbitration clause covering disputes of any nature arising under a contract?
  • Can a party that itself nominated an arbitrator under an arbitration clause subsequently object that the dispute was not covered by the terms of the contract?
  • Whether government instructions affecting contracts and tenders constitute relevant documents for interpretation within the meaning of an arbitration clause?
  • Does subsection (8) of section 18 of the Karachi Port Trust Act bar a reference to arbitration?
  Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi through Secretary vs Gujranwala1993 CLC 744 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-09Read full judgment →
• Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for Pakistan vs Inamur Rehman1993 CLC 2033 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-11
  amendment of plaintOrder 6 Rule 17cause of actionlimitation periodinfructuous statutory claimforeign exchangecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the amendment of a plaint to include a claim for the rupee equivalent of foreign currency. The core legal question concerned whether an amendment to a plaint introducing a time-barred claim should be permitted when the plaintiff had previously pursued an alternative statutory remedy before the Federal Government under the Foreign Exchange (Prevention of Payments) Ordinance 1972, which later became infructuous due to the Supreme Court invalidating the successor legislation. The court held that the amendment ought to be allowed liberally as it did not introduce a new cause of action, but rather flowed from the same factual matrix regarding moneys received by the defendant. The court laid down the principle that the liberal approach governing amendments of pleadings to advance substantial justice and prevent technical defeats applies equally to High Courts and trial courts under Order 6, Rule 17, and is not confined solely to the apex court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment of a plaint can be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, when a fresh suit for the newly added claim would be barred by limitation?
  • Does the power to liberally allow amendments of pleadings to ensure complete justice vest exclusively in the Supreme Court, or is it equally exercisable by subordinate and High Courts?
  • Does the substitution of a claim previously pursued under a special statutory mechanism constitute setting up a new and distinct cause of action?
  • What constitutes special circumstances justifying the grant of an amendment of the plaint after a significant lapse of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Tirathdas and anothers vs Ganga Ram1993 CLC 1266 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Taher Khan and another1993 P Cr. L J 2285 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-27
  acquittal appealmaintainabilityPublic ProsecutorAssistant Advocate-Generalcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of eighteen acquittal appeals filed by the State against the respondents, who were earlier acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether an appeal against acquittal filed under the signature of an Assistant Advocate-General, who was neither authorized by the Provincial Government nor nominated as a Public Prosecutor, is maintainable under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Relying on established precedent, the Sindh High Court held that an appeal against acquittal preferred by an Assistant Advocate-General who lacks nomination as a Public Prosecutor and is not directed by the Provincial Government or Public Prosecutor is incompetent and not maintainable. Consequently, the court dismissed all eighteen acquittal appeals as not maintainable, laying down the principle that statutory requirements regarding the competence of the person filing an appeal against acquittal must be strictly fulfilled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against acquittal filed by an Assistant Advocate-General who is not nominated as a Public Prosecutor is maintainable?
  • Can an Assistant Advocate-General file an appeal against acquittal without a direction from the Provincial Government under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What are the jurisdictional requirements for presenting a valid appeal against acquittal on behalf of the State?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nawab Muhammad Jahangir Khanji1993.P Cr. L J 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muneer Ahmed And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 21 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-16Read full judgment →
• The State through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh vs Muneer Ahmad and 6 others1993 P Cr. L J 128 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-21Read full judgment →
• The State through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh vs Ali Muhammad Hingoro1993 P Cr. L J 519 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-06
  cancellation of bailfurther inquiryconfessional statementco-accusedcriminal conspiracydiscretionary orderevidentiary value
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was moved by the State seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), in a case involving charges under sections 302, 109, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the confessional statement of a co-accused implicating the respondent. The State argued that this confession, combined with allegations of criminal conspiracy, warranted the cancellation of bail. Conversely, the respondent contended that he was falsely implicated due to political vendetta, noting that five prosecution witnesses examined at trial had failed to implicate him. The High Court observed that the trial court's order was based on a finding that the case required further inquiry. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that a confession by a co-accused alone is insufficient to connect an accused to the crime. Finding the trial court's order neither perverse nor arbitrary, and noting the absence of evidence of misuse of bail, the Court dismissed the State's application, affirming that interference with discretionary bail orders is unwarranted absent perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Can bail be cancelled solely on the basis of a co-accused's confession when no other evidence connects the accused to the crime?
  • Under what circumstances is a High Court justified in interfering with a trial court's discretionary order granting bail?
  • Is the confession of a co-accused sufficient to establish reasonable grounds for believing an accused is guilty of an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment?
  Read full judgment →
• The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Karachi vs A.1993 MLD 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax vs M/s. Rizki Ink Company LimitedPTCL 1993 CL. 443 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax,East Zone, Karachi vs Zafar Ali1993 PTD 39 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Zone, Karachi vs Habib DostPTCL 1993 CL. 289 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Zone, Karachi vs Habib Dost1993 PTD 105 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone-C, Karachi ' vs M/s.1993 PTD 58 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-02Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Messrs1993 PTD 46 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, South Zone, Karachi vs M/s. Iran1993 PTD 110 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-07Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, East Zone, Karachi vs Messrs Gujrat1993 PTD 756 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-11Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'C', Karachi vs Habib1993 PTD 83 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
• The Additional Chief Secretary, Local Government, Public Health1993 MLD 635 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-13
  revision applicationmaintainabilityland acquisitionappealable ordercourt feesconversion of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a Revision Application filed by the Provincial Government against an order of the District Judge, Badin, who rejected a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer regarding land acquisition proceedings. The core legal questions were whether a Revision Application is maintainable against an order that is appealable under the Land Acquisition Act, and whether a Revision Application can be converted into an appeal when the applicant has failed to pay the requisite court fees. The Court held that the Revision Application was not maintainable because the impugned order was appealable under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, explicitly bars revision where an appeal lies. Furthermore, the Court refused to convert the Revision Application into an appeal, noting the applicant's failure to pay the necessary ad valorem court fees and the lack of any effort to rectify this deficiency despite the objection being raised well in advance. The principle established is that a revision petition is incompetent against an appealable order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision application maintainable against an order that is appealable under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can a revision application be converted into an appeal if the applicant has failed to pay the required ad valorem court fees?
  • Does Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit a revision application where an appeal lies against the impugned order?
  Read full judgment →
• Tassadduq Hussain vs Abdullah1993 CLC 1909 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Khalil and anothers vs Matinur Rahman Khan1993 PLD Karachi 780 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
• Tariq Aziz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2499 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-04Read full judgment →
• Tariq Aziz Siddiqui and anothers vs Farooq Hassan and 4 others1993 CLC 1793 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Mehboob and 2 others vs Noor Muhammad and 9 others1993 PLD Karachi 207 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-24
  Evacuee propertyConstitutional jurisdictionCompromise decreeNotified OfficerRepeal ActTransfer of propertyJurisdiction of tribunals
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Secretary (E.P.)/Notified Officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, which directed the transfer of property tenements to private respondents. The core legal question was whether the Notified Officer possessed the jurisdiction to order such transfers following a compromise decree recorded by the Supreme Court. The High Court held that the compromise, by setting aside the previous High Court judgment, effectively revived the original transfer in favor of the petitioners, thereby perfecting their title. Consequently, the property ceased to be "available for disposal" under the Repeal Act, stripping the Notified Officer of any jurisdiction to interfere. The Court established that a Notified Officer’s authority is strictly limited to cases pending at the time of repeal or those specifically remanded by superior courts. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that tribunals acting in excess of their jurisdiction or committing errors of law are subject to correction through constitutional jurisdiction, as every individual has the right to be dealt with in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Notified Officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 have jurisdiction to adjudicate property rights after title has been perfected by a compromise decree?
  • What is the effect of a Supreme Court compromise order that sets aside a High Court judgment on the availability of property for disposal under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  • Can a tribunal's decision be quashed under constitutional jurisdiction if it commits an error of law or acts in excess of its jurisdiction?
  • Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 grant a Notified Officer the power to review or nullify orders passed by a previous Notified Officer acting as an appellate authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Ahmed and another vs Nasarullah Khan1993 MLD 657 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Tahir Mehmood Shaikh vs Messrs Prism Communication Ltd.1993 MLD 637 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain vs Saeed Ahmed Khan Lodhi1993 CLC 519 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-18
  rented premisesstriking off defencearrears of rentsummary inquiryejectmentvague orderrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two consolidated appeals challenging orders passed by a Rent Controller that struck off the appellant-tenant's defence and ordered eviction due to alleged non-compliance with a previous order regarding the payment of arrears for electricity, water, and conservancy charges. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller's order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was sufficiently specific to justify the penal consequences of striking off the defence under Section 16(2) of the same Ordinance. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's order was vague and uncertain because it failed to determine the specific amount of arrears due after considering the material and accounts submitted by both parties. The Court established the principle that an order under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance must be based on a summary inquiry that explicitly determines the precise amount of arrears owed. Consequently, because the foundational order was defective and vague, the subsequent penal order striking off the defence was set aside, and the cases were remanded for a fresh, specific determination of arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Must a Rent Controller determine the specific amount of arrears before ordering a tenant to deposit them under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a penal order striking off a tenant's defence under Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 be sustained if the underlying order for deposit of arrears is vague?
  • Is an interim order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 appealable?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali and another vs H. Akbar Ali & Co.1993 MLD 755 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1489 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17
  post-arrest bailretraction of statementaffidavit before Oath Commissioneremigration offencecredibility of witnessesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court arising from charges under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value and authenticity of affidavits sworn by prosecution witnesses before an Oath Commissioner rather than an officer of the trial court, retracting their earlier statements made to the police under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether such retraction warrants the grant of bail. The High Court held that while an accused is generally entitled to bail when main witnesses retract their statements and do not support the prosecution, affidavits sworn before an Oath Commissioner without proper verification of the witnesses' personal appearance before the court are questionable and require proof of authenticity. The court concluded that the applicant must approach the trial court afresh, ensuring the witnesses physically appear before it to verify the affidavits, and accordingly dismissed the bail application with liberty to reapply if necessary.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of affidavits sworn by prosecution witnesses before an Oath Commissioner instead of the trial court?
  • Does the retraction of police statements by prosecution witnesses via affidavit automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
  • How should a trial court handle bail applications supported by retracted statements of material witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Waqar Hussain and anothers vs Messrs National Refinery Ltd.1993 CLC 2497 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-13
  interim injunctionspecific performancebreach of contractbalance of convenienceirreparable lossvoidable contracttemporary injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arose from an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs, Syed Waqar Hussain and another, seeking to restrain the defendant, Messrs National Refinery Ltd., from committing a breach of a Drums Supply Agreement dated 22-3-1990 or from assigning the contract to a third party pending the disposal of their suit for specific performance, perpetual injunction, and damages. The core legal questions involved whether a prima facie case and balance of convenience existed for granting a temporary injunction in a contract dispute, and whether the agreement was void ab initio due to alleged coercion and political pressure. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong arguable case, that the agreement had been acted upon for months without objection, and that claiming damages alongside specific performance did not bar interim relief under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court concluded that irreparable loss and balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs and consequently allowed the injunction application, laying down that interlocutory relief should maintain the status quo when serious triable issues regarding contract performance and validity require evidence at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff claiming damages in a suit for specific performance is barred from seeking a temporary injunction against a breach of contract?
  • Can a party to a commercial contract unilaterally declare the agreement void ab initio after acting upon it for an extended period?
  • Whether an interim injunction can be granted to restrain the breach of a manufacturing and supply agreement pending a full trial on merits?
  • Does the existence of alternative claims for monetary compensation preclude the court from finding irreparable loss in interlocutory proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Wahid Ali Kazmi vs The Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication1993 CLC 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Sardar Hussain Jaffery and anothers vs Dr. Muhammad Ali Khan1993 CLC 1711 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Sajid Ali Asif through Legal Heirss vs Mumtaz Ahmed and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 520 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03
  declaration and cancellation of documentspower of attorney forgerybona fide purchaser for valuetransfer of propertyvoid sale-deedcompromise agreementpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit for declaration, cancellation of documents, and possession was instituted by the original plaintiff (and continued by his legal heirs upon his death) regarding a residential plot in Karachi originally allotted by the Karachi Development Authority. The core legal question revolved around whether the subsequent sale-deeds and power of attorney executed through intermediaries were forged and void, and whether the contesting defendant qualified as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The Sindh High Court held that the power of attorney used to transfer the property was a forged document executed without authority, rendering the subsequent conveyance deeds void ab initio. The Court further held that the contesting defendant could not be treated as a bona fide purchaser due to gross negligence, failure to inspect original title documents, and suspicious haste in the transaction. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the cancellation of the fraudulent instruments and restoration of possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney executed without the knowledge and consent of the principal is void ab initio?
  • Can a purchaser of immovable property claim the protection of a bona fide purchaser for value without notice when original title documents are missing?
  • Whether an unacted-upon compromise agreement executed during the pendency of a suit operates as an agreement for sale or loses its force upon dismissal of the compromise application?
  • Does a mutation entry in the record of rights create title to immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Saad Bin Zarif vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 223 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-15
  inherent jurisdictiondelay in challanquashment of proceedingsinvestigationcentral excise dutycorrupt practices
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed seeking a declaration that delay in submitting a challan by the State is illegal, a direction to the Federal Investigation Agency to immediately submit the challan, or alternatively the quashment of proceedings against the applicant who was implicated in an F.I.R. concerning the illegal manufacturing of cigarettes and evasion of Central Excise duty. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, can issue a direction to the investigating agency to complete investigation and submit a challan against an accused person within a specified time. The court held that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court does not empower it to issue a direction commanding the police or investigating agency to submit a challan forthwith. The key principle laid down is that while the investigating agency is expected to complete investigations and submit reports without unnecessary delay under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, courts are not competent to issue a mandamus or directive to compel the completion of investigation and submission of the challan.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can direct the investigating agency to complete the investigation and submit a challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include the power to compel the submission of a police report?
  • Is the submission of a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a bar to further investigation by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Qaim Ali Shah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 551 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-07
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustinherent jurisdictionabuse of processpublic servanterror of judgmentstate land allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashing of proceedings pending against the applicant, a former Chief Minister of Sindh, under Sections 406 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicant had dishonestly disposed of state land to private builders at a nominal price, causing a massive pecuniary loss to the state. The core legal question was whether the applicant's actions, performed in accordance with the Sindh Government Rules of Business 1986, constituted criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the trial. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings, holding that the applicant acted within the scope of his statutory authority upon recommendations of the relevant department, and that a mere error of judgment by a Chief Executive does not invite penal action. Furthermore, the subsequent ratification of the land leases by the successor government at the same price negated any allegation of dishonest intent.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bona fide error of judgment by a Chief Executive in the disposal of state land invite penal action under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can criminal proceedings for breach of trust be maintained against a public official when the underlying administrative action was subsequently ratified by a successor government?
  • Under what circumstances should the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash a trial at an initial stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Qaim Ali Shah vs Atta Muhammad Murri and 6 others1993 MLD 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Ali vs Muhammad Haleem1993 CLC 1807 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Muzaffar Hussain Jafri vs Khawaja Fazal Ahmad1993 MLD 1707 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-10
  ejectmentbona fide personal userent controllerlandlord and tenantburden of proofrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by a landlord against his tenant, seeking possession of a shop for bona fide personal use. The core legal question was whether the landlord had sufficiently established his good faith requirement for the premises to warrant eviction. The court held that the landlord failed to prove his bona fide need. The judgment emphasized that a landlord’s mere assertion of personal requirement, even on oath, is insufficient to justify ejectment. The court noted significant inconsistencies between the landlord’s initial application and his subsequent evidence, particularly regarding the specific nature of the proposed business and the family member intended to operate it. Furthermore, the landlord’s admission that he could accommodate his needs in an alternative shop within the same premises undermined his claim of necessity. The court affirmed that bona fide personal requirement must be established through strong, objective evidence rather than mere desire. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Rent Controller’s decision that the landlord’s claim lacked the requisite good faith.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord's mere statement on oath sufficient to prove the bona fide personal requirement for ejectment of a tenant?
  • Does an inconsistency between the initial ejectment application and the evidence filed by a landlord undermine the claim of bona fide personal use?
  • Can a landlord succeed in an ejectment application if they admit to having alternative premises available that could accommodate their stated needs?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Musarrat Hussain Zaidi and another vs Syed Salim Jawaid Zaidi1993 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-03
  partition suitappeal by non-partyleave to appealsealing of propertycriminal procedure codeofficial assignee reportstatus quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court regarding the sealing and partitioning of a disputed property. The core legal questions involved whether a non-party to a suit could file an appeal without obtaining prior leave of the court, the correct scope and construction of sealing orders passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the property in question was capable of being partitioned by metes and bounds. The court held that a stranger to a suit can only appeal with the leave of the appellate court upon establishing an affected interest, which the second appellant failed to do. Furthermore, the court found that the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate pertained strictly to the restaurant rather than the entire building, and that the Single Judge had misconstrued the Official Assignee's report regarding the divisibility of the property. The appeal was partly allowed to correct the finding on the property's divisibility while upholding the preliminary objection against the non-party appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who is not a party to a suit file an appeal against an order passed therein without obtaining prior leave of the appellate court?
  • What criteria must an appellant establish to obtain leave from an appellate court when they were not a party to the original suit or proceeding?
  • Whether an order passed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for sealing a premises extends beyond the specific portions designated in the order?
  • Does a report by an Official Assignee stating that a property is incapable of division in its present position support a finding of divisibility?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Munawar Ali vs Tariq Shoaib1993 CLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Mir Khan vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 344 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Masroor Ahsan vs The State1993 MLD 835 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Khursheed Ali JAFFERYAppeliant vs Jamiluddin Siddiqui1993 CLC 2511 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-16
  personal requirementmarried daughterpower of attorneyrented premisesejectment appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises on the ground of personal requirement for the landlord and his married daughters. The appellant challenged the maintainability of the eviction application, contending that the power of attorney executed in favour of the landlord's daughter was forged, that the landlord failed to explain the availability of another property in his possession, and that the personal requirement of a landlord under the relevant rent law does not extend to married, independent daughters. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a power of attorney authenticated by a notary public carries a presumption of authenticity under the law, that a landlord is only required to plead material facts constituting a cause of action rather than exhaustive details of other properties, and that the statutory definition of personal use under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance includes a son or daughter without the qualification of dependency. The court thus affirmed the eviction order while granting the tenant four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney authenticated by a notary public requires formal proof of execution unless its genuineness is disputed by the principal?
  • Does the personal requirement of a landlord under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance extend to his married and independent daughters?
  • Is a landlord obligated to provide exhaustive details or reasons regarding other properties in his possession when seeking eviction for personal use?
  • Does the expression 'personal use' in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance require a son or daughter of the landlord to be financially dependent upon him?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Israr Ali and anothers vs Mst. Ahmadi Begum and another1993 CLC 770 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Hussain Zaidi vs Dr. Zaheer Umer1993 CLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasan Abbas Rizvi vs The StateK.L.R 1993 Criminal Cases 464 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasan Abbas Rizvi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Haider Abbas Rizvi vs Muhammad Javed Aslam1993 CLC 1812 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah and another vs Syed Muhammad Hussain1993 PLD Karachi 369 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-28
  civil revisionadverse possessionprivate partitionownership disputerevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application challenged the appellate court's judgment which set aside the trial court's decree for declaration and injunction concerning disputed land. The applicants claimed ownership through private partition after their grandfather's death and alternatively by adverse possession. The respondents asserted ownership through their father's purchase from the Barrage Department and subsequent inheritance. The High Court, exercising its revisional powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, found that the appellate court correctly held that the applicants failed to establish the ingredients for adverse possession and that their evidence for private partition was insufficient against the documentary evidence presented by the respondents. The Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is primarily for correcting jurisdictional errors, not erroneous decisions of fact unless perverse, and affirmed that a party claiming title through purchase/inheritance cannot simultaneously succeed on a plea of adverse possession. The revision application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code?
  • Can erroneous decisions of fact be revised under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code?
  • What are the essential ingredients a person must show to claim title to immovable property by adverse possession?
  • Can a party simultaneously plead valid title through purchase/inheritance and adverse possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Farasat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 201 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Farasat Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 848 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Amir Hyder Abidi vs Muhammad Iqbal1993 CLC 481 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Shah Alias Shahji vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 477 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Shah alias Shahji vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03
  circumstantial evidenceretracted judicial confessionself-exculpatory confessionabscondencebenefit of the doubtmurdercriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the appellant's conviction and sentence for murder under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, handed down by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including alleged illicit intimacy, abscondence, the recovery of a blood-stained mattress and weapons, and a retracted judicial confession. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence and the self-exculpatory retracted confession were sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the confession was inadmissible and unreliable due to delay, lack of procedural precautions by the magistrate, and its self-exculpatory nature. The court further found the remaining circumstantial links—abscondence, recoveries, and motive—unproven or legally insufficient, and noted that incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted on the principle of benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based solely on circumstantial evidence when a vital link in the chain of evidence fails?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession that is self-exculpatory in nature sufficient to sustain a murder conviction?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to put incriminating circumstances to an accused person during their examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does evidence of mere abscondence, standing alone, suffice to prove guilt in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Imam Zaidi and 2 others vs Haji Usman Bhai1993 CLC 538 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Akbar Ali and 5 others vs Pakistan Steel Mills Ltd., Karachi through its Chairman and 2 others1993 MLD 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-06Read full judgment →
• Subedar (Retd.) Malik Ghulam Hussain vs Jamil Ahmed Khan and 7 others1993 MLD 521 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-14
  cooperative societiesnatural justiceaudi alteram partemwrit jurisdictionattachment of propertyshow-cause noticelachesalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order attaching the petitioner's immovable property following an inquiry into the affairs of a Cooperative Housing Society. The core legal questions were whether the Registrar possessed the authority to assess damages under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, during an inquiry, and whether the attachment of the petitioner's property without a show-cause notice was legally sustainable. The Court held that while the Registrar is empowered under Section 44-B of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, to exercise powers under Section 50-A during an inquiry, the specific attachment order against the petitioner was unlawful. The Court ruled that the action violated the principles of natural justice, specifically the maxim audi alteram partem, as the petitioner was neither a party to the initial proceedings nor granted an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against orders passed without jurisdiction, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedies or claims of laches, as the attachment constituted a continuous cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Registrar have the power to exercise assessment of damages under Section 50-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, during an inquiry conducted under Section 43?
  • Is an attachment order issued against a person without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity of hearing violative of the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against an order passed without jurisdiction, even if the petitioner has not exhausted alternative statutory remedies?
  • Does an order of attachment of property constitute a continuous cause of action for the purpose of determining laches in a writ petition?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance'corporation of Pakistan, Karachi vs M/s.1993 PLD Karachi 642 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02
  default in payment of rentevictionpostal money ordergrace periodtender of rentpresumption of official actsrent premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a landlord's appeal arising from an eviction application filed on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question concerns whether the tenant committed a default in paying rent for the period beginning January 1985, and whether the modes of tender utilized by the tenant—including an offer of cash payment and dispatch through a postal money order—constituted valid payment under the law. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of a written tenancy agreement, the tenant was entitled to a grace period totalling seventy days to clear the rent. The Court further ruled that cash tenders made within this period and the subsequent dispatch of a postal money order—which carries statutory presumptive value under the relevant ordinance and the Qanun-e-Shahadat—validly absolved the tenant of default. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that established statutory grace periods and prescribed alternative modes of payment protect a tenant against eviction for default when utilized bona fide.

  Questions settled

  • What is the total grace period available to a tenant for the payment of monthly rent in the absence of a written agreement under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a postal money order receipt constitute valid proof of rent payment under section 10(4) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 without necessarily requiring the examination of the postman?
  • What modes of rent payment are expressly contemplated under section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the presumption attached to official acts under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 apply to the dispatch of a postal money order for rent?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Pakistan National1993 CLC 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-29
  fair rent determinationRent Controllercommercial tenancyrent enhancementSindh Rented Premise Ordinancemarket value of rentinflationary trends
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the judgment of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent for premises occupied by the appellant in Muhammadi House, Karachi. The respondent sought an enhancement of rent, citing increased maintenance costs, inflation, and the imposition of betterment taxes. The appellant contested the enhancement, arguing that the proposed rates were unreasonable and that the application was a counterblast to separate eviction proceedings. The core legal question concerned the criteria for determining fair rent under the Sindh Rented Premise Ordinance. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller correctly exercised discretion by considering current market rates, inflationary impacts, and the substantial increase in construction costs. The Court established that rental rates from stagnant, decade-old lease agreements do not constitute a valid benchmark for fair rent. Instead, the Rent Controller may properly rely on recent lease agreements within the same building as evidence of equitable value. Furthermore, a landlord's failure to initiate rent enhancement proceedings against all tenants does not bar them from seeking fair rent against a specific tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller determine fair rent based on recent lease agreements within the same building?
  • Does a landlord's failure to file for rent enhancement against some tenants preclude them from seeking fair rent against others?
  • Are rental rates from decade-old lease agreements a valid benchmark for determining current fair rent?
  • Must a Rent Controller consider inflationary trends and rising maintenance costs when fixing fair rent?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan, through Assistant Director, BankingK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 94 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs M/s Raza Enterprises And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 13 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
• Society for Conservation and Protection of Environment (Scope), Kara_cd3f2c781993 MLD 230 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-12Read full judgment →
• Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited And Other vs FerozsonsK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 112 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• Sindh Industrial Trading Estates vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1993 MLD 1258 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sindh Engineering & Bangle Works Hyderabad through 4 Partners vs Habib Bank Ltd1993 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-18
  promissory noteindependent cause of actionmortgage and hypothecationdefault in installmentsrecovery suitNegotiable Instruments Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges a judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, which decreed a recovery suit filed by the respondent bank against the appellant firm for a loan with interest. The core legal questions involved whether a suit based on a promissory note is maintainable when the loan is also secured by hypothecation and equitable mortgage, and whether non-presentation of a promissory note under Section 67 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defeats a recovery claim upon default of instalments. The court held that a promissory note provides an independent cause of action, and securing a loan by a mortgage does not bar a creditor from suing on the promissory note, subject to the procedural restrictions of Order XXXIV Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, Section 67 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not apply when an independent installment agreement dictates that default on a single installment matures the entire balance payable on demand. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit on the basis of a promissory note maintainable when the loan is additionally secured by the hypothecation of stock and machinery and an equitable mortgage of property?
  • Does the failure to present a promissory note for payment under Section 67 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 bar recovery when default occurs on structured installments?
  • Can a creditor enforce a promissory note independently of a mortgage executed for the same loan facility?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees Social Security Institution vs Habib Sugar Mills1993 PLD Karachi 61 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-19
  revisional jurisdictionconcurrent jurisdictionforum of appealcivil procedurevaluation of suitrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application impugned an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nawabshah, rejecting an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. in a suit valued at one thousand rupees. A preliminary question arose regarding the appropriate forum for the revision application in light of the amendment to section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code conferring concurrent revisional jurisdiction on District Courts. The Sindh High Court held that while both the High Court and the District Court possess concurrent jurisdiction to entertain revision applications, the analogy of section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code read with section 18 of the Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 and section 115(2) of the Civil Procedure Code requires litigants to approach the court of the lowest grade competent in the first instance, which in this case was the District Court. Consequently, the High Court ordered the return of the revision application to the applicants for presentation before the District Judge, Nawabshah.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court and the District Court have concurrent revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply by analogy to regulate the choice of forum for filing a revision application?
  • Should a revision application against an order in a suit within the appellate jurisdiction limits of the District Judge be filed before the District Court first?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees Social Security Institution vs Aishama InternationalK.L.R.1993 Labour & Service Cases 109 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-05Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The S.D.M., Rohri and others1993 P Cr. L J 2292 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
• Sherali vs Mst. Seema Begum1993 CLC 2368 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-18Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 90 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shera vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 474 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shera vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2168 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-25Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Nasim vs Haji Mohiuddin and 3 others1993 MLD 1802 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-15Read full judgment →
• Shakil Ahmed vs Ashfaq Ahmed1993 CLC 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →