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.

• Noorul Amin Bachani and others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department and others1993 CLC 727 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25
  audi alteram partemnatural justicecancellation of sanctionindustrial undertakingshow cause noticeadministrative orderconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of a sanction granted to the petitioners under the West Pakistan Industrial (Control on Establishment and Enlargement) Ordinance 1963 to establish a sugar mill in Sanjar Chang, Tehsil Tando Allahyar. Following the sanction, the petitioners had prepared a feasibility report, obtained financial commitments, entered into contracts for machinery, and acquired land. Thereafter, the Government of Sindh cancelled the sanction without issuing a show-cause notice or affording a hearing, and granted permission to another entity for the same location. The core legal question was whether administrative sanction cancellation requires compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, even if the terms of the sanction letter or statute do not explicitly provide for notice. The High Court held that any administrative or judicial order adversely affecting vested rights or property must be preceded by an opportunity of hearing. The absence of an explicit notice requirement does not exclude audi alteram partem. Consequently, the court set aside the cancellation orders as unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Is an administrative authority required to observe the principle of audi alteram partem before cancelling an industrial sanction?
  • Does the absence of an explicit notice provision in a sanction letter exclude the right of a hearing before passing an adverse order?
  • Can an order affecting a person's rights or property be legally sustained if passed without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin and 3 others vs M/s. Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd.1993 CLC 2204 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-27
  temporary injunctionbalance of conveniencepublic projectland acquisitionprima facie caseproperty ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing an injunction application in a suit for injunction, recovery of possession, and alternative compensation. The appellants claimed exclusive ownership of certain lands allegedly encroached upon by the first respondent for an industrial estate without lawful land acquisition. The core legal question was whether a temporary injunction should be refused and possession disturbed or permitted in cases involving public utility projects where ownership is disputed and compensation remains unpaid. The court held that while public projects of great importance should not be abruptly halted by injunctions and the balance of convenience might lie against disturbing ongoing works, authorities cannot grab land without complying with legal acquisition formalities. Consequently, the High Court modified the impugned order, refusing to disturb the ongoing project land to prevent greater inconvenience, but granting an injunction in respect of the land not utilized so far and not immediately in use. The key principle laid down is that while the balance of convenience may preclude injunctions against active public utility projects, private property cannot be lawfully appropriated without adhering to statutory acquisition procedures.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction can be refused solely because the plaintiff alternative prayed for compensation?
  • Does the existence of a public utility project permit an agency to occupy private land without following statutory land acquisition procedures?
  • Whether an injunction should be granted in respect of land not yet utilized or immediately in use for a public project despite ongoing development on other parts of the property?
  Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin and 3 others vs Mrs. Kaityun B. Khambatta1993 MLD 2217 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1437 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State. and 4 others1993 PLD Karachi 355 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Hussain vs The State1993 MLD 2189 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Noor Ali and another vs Syed Fareeduddin1993 MLD 1832 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed Khuhro vs Syed Qabool Muhammad Shah and another1993 MLD 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-17Read full judgment →
• Nippon Paint Co. Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Marks1993 MLD 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-18Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed Elmi vs S. Maqbool Ahmed1993 CLC 2375 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd.s vs M/s. P & 0 and B.I. Cunard1993 PLD Karachi 533 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Nazzaz Ali vs Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue and 3 others1993 MLD 1333 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Nazim F. Haji, Chief Citizen, Police Liaison Committee, Karachi vs Commissioner Karachi and others1993 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
• Nazar Abbas Malik vs Mst. Sagheera Begum1993 MLD 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
• Nayyar Mumtaz vs District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner (Karachi1993 MLD 840 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Nawadat Khan vs Mst. Surraya1993 PLD Karachi 491 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-13
  rent appealpersonal requirementgood faithbona fide needeviction applicationSindh Rented Premises Ordinanceunemployed sondisclosure of business
  Summary & questions settled

  This statutory rent appeal was filed under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 against the Rent Controller's order granting the landlord's eviction application. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant from a shop on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for her adult, unemployed son. The tenant contested the claim, arguing that the landlady failed to specify the nature of the proposed business, availability of capital, or prior experience, and that a prior eviction application had been withdrawn by her late mother. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, the landlord is only required to show that the requirement is made honestly and in good faith. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that non-disclosure of the specific business, capital, or experience is not fatal to the application, as such details do not form part of the cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord required to state the specific nature of the business to be conducted when seeking eviction for personal use under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the non-disclosure of available capital or business experience disentitle a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement?
  • How is the term 'good faith' defined and applied in rent proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Asghar and 2 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 537 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-02Read full judgment →
• National Development Finance Corporation vs M/s. Rawal Papers1993 MLD 1562 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• National Development Finance Corporation vs Fazal Sugar Mills Ltd.1993 CLC 642 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20
  winding up petitioninability to pay debtsbona fide disputecorporate insolvencycreditor rightsCompanies Ordinance 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the National Development Finance Corporation seeking the winding up of Fazal Sugar Mills Limited under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, due to the company's failure to repay a substantial loan. The core legal question was whether the respondent company could be wound up for inability to pay debts when it alleged a bona fide dispute regarding the debt and had initiated a separate civil suit for damages against the creditor. The Court held that the winding-up petition should be granted. It established that while a bona fide dispute regarding a debt can preclude winding-up proceedings, the mere filing of a civil suit for damages does not automatically constitute such a dispute. The burden lies on the company to demonstrate a genuine, prima facie dispute, which the respondent failed to do. Furthermore, the court found the project defunct and the company unable to prove its commercial solvency. Consequently, the court ordered the winding up of the company and appointed an Official Liquidator to manage its affairs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere filing of a civil suit for damages by a company against a creditor constitute a bona fide dispute sufficient to defeat a winding-up petition?
  • What is the legal test for determining whether a company is unable to pay its debts under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish a bona fide dispute in winding-up proceedings?
  • Can a winding-up petition be maintained when a company is unable to prove its commercial solvency?
  Read full judgment →
• National Detergents Limited vs Mod International (Pvt.) Ltd.1993 MLD 590 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-30
  trade mark infringementinterim injunctionpassing offphonetic similarityregistered trade markprima facie casebalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for an interim injunction in a suit for declaration, damages, and accounts filed by National Detergents Limited against Mod International (Pvt.) Limited. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from infringing its registered trade mark "Flair" and from passing off its goods by using the deceptively similar trade mark "Flare" or "French Flare". The core legal question was whether the defendant's use of the phonetically and visually similar trade mark constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade mark and warranted an interim injunction. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff established a good prima facie case of trade mark infringement and passing off, finding phonetic and visual similarity between "Flair" and "Flare" and noting that the addition of descriptive words like "French" did not cure the infringement. The court laid down the principle that where a defendant uses a mark identical or nearly resembling a registered trade mark, statutory protection is absolute, and additions or variations by the defendant will not save them from an action for infringement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the use of a phonetically and visually similar trade mark constitutes an infringement of a registered trade mark?
  • Does the addition of a prefix or word to an infringing trade mark save the defendant from an action for trade mark infringement?
  • What constitutes a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction in trade mark infringement and passing off suits?
  • Is it necessary to examine the likelihood of deception or confusion when the defendant's trade mark is virtually identical to the registered trade mark?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Shaukat Hussain1993 MLD 2578 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Sh. Muhammad Sharif and 3 others1993 CLC 2272 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide uselandlord and tenantrent controllergood faithwilful defaultSindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a bank, challenged an ejectment order issued under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on grounds of personal use. The core legal questions addressed whether the landlord's failure to specify the nature of the intended business in the application, the non-examination of the beneficiaries of the premises, and the existence of other available spaces invalidated the claim of bona fide personal need. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Rent Controller’s finding of bona fide requirement. The Court held that specifying the nature of the intended business is not a material fact required in an ejectment application, nor is there a legal obligation to produce the specific beneficiaries as witnesses. Furthermore, the Court established that the assessment of the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation remains the landlord's prerogative, not the tenant's. The judgment clarified that "good faith" is the central criterion for personal need, and once established, the landlord's claim prevails regardless of the hardship caused to the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Is it a mandatory requirement to specify the nature of the intended business in an ejectment application filed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the failure to produce the beneficiaries of the premises as witnesses in court invalidate a landlord's claim for personal use?
  • Is the determination of the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation a prerogative of the landlord or the tenant?
  • Can a landlord's claim for personal use be defeated solely by the existence of other open spaces in the building that are reserved for parking under approved construction plans?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and 7 others vs Emirates Bank International1993 CLC 2009 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19
  interlocutory ordermaintainability of appealBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinancespecial lawpledged goodscontempt of courtintervenor
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was directed against an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge directing the appellants (intervenors) to deposit Rs. 29.5 million in court on account of the sale of pledged goods. The core legal question was whether an appeal against an interlocutory order passed by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 is maintainable before the High Court. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable, ruling that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 is a special law overriding general law, and its Section 12(1) expressly bars appeals against interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the entire case. The key principle laid down is that to achieve the legislative intent of expeditious recovery of bank loans and speedy disposal of suits, interlocutory orders of Special Courts cannot be challenged in appeal or revision before the High Court until the final determination of the entire case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the bar against appeals from interlocutory orders under section 12(1) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 apply to intervenors and non-parties as well?
  • Can the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 override the express restrictions on appeals contained in a special enactment like the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Shaikh vs Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies United1993 MLD 162 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Naseem Ahmed vs Haji Usman and another1993 MLD 1695 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bakhsh Soomro vs Karachi Development Authority and another1993 MLD 463 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
• N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology vs Tariq Ali and 21993 PLD Karachi 626 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19
  rejection of plaintdismissal for non-prosecutionbar of fresh suitcivil revisionres judicataadjourned date of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the trial court, which was subsequently set aside on appeal and remanded for trial. The applicant university contended that the respondent's fresh suit was barred under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as a previous suit on the same matter had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The High Court of Sindh examined whether a mere statement in the plaint regarding the dismissal of a prior suit for non-prosecution automatically attracts the penal bar of Order IX Rule 9. The Court held that the bar under Order IX Rule 9 is an exception to the general rule, penal in nature, and must be strictly restricted to its precise terms, which require the defendant's presence at the time of dismissal under Rule 8. Since such facts could not be conclusively spelled out solely from the face of the plaint, the rejection of the plaint was unjustified. The revision was dismissed, and the matter was remanded for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely because it mentions that a previous suit was dismissed for non-prosecution?
  • Is the bar against filing a fresh suit under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable if the defendant's presence on the date of dismissal is not established?
  • Does a dismissal of a suit for default or non-prosecution constitute a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the purposes of res judicata?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Zahra Industries Ltd. through Managing Director vs Government of1993 CLC 1659 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Vohra Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 1912 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-18Read full judgment →
• M/s. Valika Woollen Mills Company Ltd., Karachi vs Government of1993 MLD 1291 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-03Read full judgment →
• M/s. United Bank Ltd. vs Haji Abdul Razzak & Co.1993 MLD 2575 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. S.M. Abdullah & Sons, Karachi vs M/s. Crescent Star Insurance1993 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-08
  insurance premiumvoid contractillegal contractstatutory penaltyinsurance policyrecovery of premium
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court upholding a decree in favor of an insurance company for the recovery of unpaid insurance premiums. The core legal question was whether an insurance policy issued in contravention of statutory requirements regarding the advance collection or guarantee of premiums is rendered null and void, or illegal. The court held that where a statute prescribes penalties for the non-observance of its provisions without expressly declaring transactions made in breach thereof to be void or illegal, such contravention does not invalidate the underlying contract. The key principle laid down is that the nullification of a contract by implication is not warranted merely due to the statutory breach of a provision whose object is primarily to ensure the recovery of dues or revenue, provided the statute itself provides specific penalties for the violation and does not prohibit the contract.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of an insurance policy without receiving the premium in advance render the contract void or illegal?
  • What is the legal effect of a statutory breach when a statute imposes penalties but does not explicitly declare the contravening transaction void?
  • Can a contract be declared void by implication merely due to the non-observance of provisions relating to the collection of insurance premiums?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Rafidian Bank, Iraq vs M.L. International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and 31993 MLD 1234 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Paragon Company vs Government of Sindh through Director Local1993 MLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Motors Ltd./Decreeholder/Judgment Debtor vs The1993 CLC 923 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. National Cables (Pvt). Ltd vs The Additional Secretary, Ministry OfPTCL 1993 CL. 278 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Na. Industries, Karachi vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central1993 PTD 45 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12
  advisory jurisdictionincome tax referencereview applicationmaintainabilitymerger doctrineIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This review application was filed by the petitioner seeking a review of a judgment delivered by the Sindh High Court on 19-9-1991, which had declined to answer a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to review its own judgment rendered in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under the Income Tax Ordinance. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the High Court's jurisdiction in income tax references is purely advisory and special, not original or appellate, and thus not subject to review. The Court upheld this objection, noting that the High Court does not act as a Civil Court in such references, thereby precluding the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding review. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, causing the High Court's judgment to merge into the Supreme Court's order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review application as not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to review a judgment rendered in its advisory capacity regarding an income tax reference?
  • Is the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in income tax references considered original or appellate jurisdiction?
  • Does the doctrine of merger apply when a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment has been dismissed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. N.A. Industries, Karachi vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1993 CL. 60 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. M.Z. Corporation, Karachi through Proprietor Muhammad Zahcer1993 MLD 1764 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
• M/s. Kaghan Impex and others vs Deputy Collector, Customsii and1993 CLC 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-24
  customs valuationimport dutynatural justiceright to be heardbill of entryarbitrary assessmentremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the arbitrary rejection of declared import values by Customs Authorities regarding V-Belts imported from Korea. The core legal question was whether the Customs Authorities could unilaterally reject the declared value of imported goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, without providing the importer an opportunity to be heard or disclosing the evidence relied upon for such valuation. The Court held that the valuation fixed by the Customs Authorities was without lawful authority, as it was determined without evidence or notice to the petitioners. Following the precedent set in Indus Automobile (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue, the Court remitted the matter to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for redetermination. The key principle laid down is that while Customs Authorities possess the jurisdiction to determine the value of imported goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, such assessments must be based on disclosed evidence, and the importer must be granted a fair opportunity to meet that evidence and present rebuttal material before a final valuation is determined.

  Questions settled

  • Can Customs Authorities reject the declared value of imported goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969 without disclosing the evidence relied upon?
  • Is it mandatory for Customs Authorities to provide an importer an opportunity to be heard before determining the value of imported goods?
  • What is the appropriate remedy when Customs Authorities fix the value of imported goods without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. International Trade and Marketing through Proprietor vs Integra1993 CLC 2223 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
• M/s. General Construction Limited vs M/s. Pakistan Defence Officers1993 MLD 1282 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
• M/s. Erum Developers through Abdul Hamid Habib vs Karachi Trucks1993 MLD 1778 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Eastern Poultry Services, And Another vs The Government ofK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 93 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ciba-Geigy (Pak) Limited vs Muhammad Safdar1993 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bayer Pharma Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Income Tax "a1993 PTD 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Ashrafi Abbasi Associates vs New Town Cooperative Housing1993 PLD Karachi 543 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Alrehman International through Chairman vs Tariq Rashed and1993 CLC 2258 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentlandlord and tenantsublettingagreement to sellrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from an ejectment order passed by the Sixth Rent Controller South, Karachi, directing the appellant and respondent No. 2 to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent No. 1 on the ground of default in the payment of rent and unlawful subletting. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the appellant remained liable to pay rent as a tenant despite setting up an agreement to purchase the premises from the landlord, where no final sale-deed had been executed. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that until ownership is formally transferred via a registered sale-deed, the relationship of landlord and tenant persists, and the tenant remains under a legal obligation to pay rent regularly. The court laid down the principle that an agreement to sell does not extinguish the tenancy or absolve the tenant from the liability to pay rent unless the sale transaction is fully completed through a registered conveyance, and failure to pay rent during this period constitutes valid grounds for eviction due to default.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to purchase leased premises extinguish the relationship of landlord and tenant prior to the execution of a registered sale-deed?
  • Is a tenant liable to pay rent during the pendency of an agreement to sell when the sale has not been finalized?
  • Does failure to pay rent from the stipulated date constitute valid grounds for eviction on the basis of default?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Allied Bank Ltd.---Appellaht vs M/s. Rahmat Sons Ltd.1993 MLD 844 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
• M/s. Adamjee Insurance Company Limited vs P & 0 and B.I. Cunard1993 PLD Karachi 606 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Ab Sukab vs M/s. Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Opponent1993 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Iqbal vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 125 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-16
  quashment of proceedingsrevisional jurisdictiondesecration of Holy Quranbail cancellationinherent powersinterlocutory stage
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought quashment of proceedings under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against an order of the Sessions Judge passed in revision under section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which set aside a bail order granted by a Magistrate and held that the case attracted section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than section 295, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby negating the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The core legal questions involved whether the Sessions Judge rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction to cancel bail based on the correct applicable penal provision, and whether the High Court should interfere under section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 at an interlocutory stage to evaluate witness credibility. The Sindh High Court held that where the F.I.R. discloses burning of the Holy Qur'an, section 295-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies, rendering the Magistrate's initial bail order without jurisdiction, and that the High Court will not hold inquiries into witness reliability or interfere at an interlocutory stage under inherent jurisdiction when other remedies and specific provisions exist. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant bail in a case falling under section 295-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to assess the reliability of witnesses at an interlocutory stage?
  • Does the recording of statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contrary to the prosecution version automatically warrant quashment of proceedings?
  • When can a Sessions Judge exercise suo motu revisional powers under section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an improper bail order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Akbar Fibre Mills Ltd. and 4 others1993 CLC 2209 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque Ahmad vs Registrar, N.E.D. University of Engineering &1993 CLC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ali and 5 others vs Syed Latifuddin Fakhri1993 CLC 1696 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd.1993 CLC 1299 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
• Musawar Hussain Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 60 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Musawar Hussain Shah vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 706 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muqeem and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs Messrs International Building Industries (Pvt.)1993 CLC 523 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Shaikh vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 532 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Shaikh and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1919 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02
  post-arrest bailco-accused confessionjudicial confessionexplosives acttentative assessmentbail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two criminal bail applications filed by co-accused Mumtaz Ali Shaikh and Shahid Hussain, who were facing trial before a Special Court under sections 3 and 4 of the Explosives Act. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the primary evidence against one applicant was solely a co-accused's confession, and against the other, a judicial confession surrounded by doubtful circumstances and delayed forensic analysis. The Sindh High Court held that bail should be granted to both applicants. The court laid down the key principles that a confession of a co-accused cannot form the sole basis for conviction or sustain denial of relief without other supportive evidence, and that courts may conduct a tentative assessment of the legality and surrounding circumstances of a judicial confession at the bail stage rather than relying on it unconditionally.

  Questions settled

  • Can the confession of a co-accused serve as the sole basis to deny post-arrest bail to an accused?
  • Whether a tentative assessment of the legality of a judicial confession can be made at the bail stage?
  • Does the unexplained release of the main accused named in the FIR justify granting bail to a remaining co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ahmed vs Mst. Razia Zaheer1993 CLC 1602 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-18
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentsubstitution of legal representativetransfer of propertyburden of proofrent caseactionable claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of eviction passed against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The original landlord filed the rent case but passed away during its pendency, whereupon the respondent daughter was substituted as a party on the basis of a relinquishment deed executed by other legal heirs. The core legal questions involved whether a transferee or legal representative can continue ejectment proceedings for pre-existing default, whether a letter of administration is mandatory under Muslim Law for inheriting and pursuing rent proceedings, and how the burden of proof operates regarding non-payment of rent. The Sindh High Court held that while a transferee cannot independently claim arrears of rent without an express assignment, a successor or transferee can lawfully continue pending ejectment proceedings commenced by the predecessor. Furthermore, heirs under Muslim Law acquire rights by operation of law without needing letters of administration, and the tenant failed to discharge the burden of proving rent payment. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transferee or successor continue ejectment proceedings for default commenced by the original landlord?
  • Does a Muslim heir require a letter of administration under the Succession Act 1925 to be joined as a party in a rent case?
  • Where non-payment of rent is alleged, upon whom does the burden of proof lie when the landlord denies receipt?
  • Is a right to recover arrears of rent considered an actionable claim distinct from the right to pursue pending eviction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ali Khan and 2 others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works Islamabad and 2 others1993 CLC 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-04
  rejection of plaintres judicataconstructive res judicataConstitutional petitionSettlement DepartmentPermanent Transfer Deedcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application was filed before the High Court of Sindh challenging the concurrent findings of the Senior Civil Judge and Fourth Additional District Judge, Karachi, whereby the applicants' plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The dispute concerned the cancellation of a Permanent Transfer Deed regarding a tenement and its subsequent transfer to respondent No. 3. The predecessors-in-interest of the applicants had previously challenged the cancellation through a Constitutional petition, which was dismissed in limine due to laches and the presence of factual questions. Subsequently, the applicants filed a civil suit, where the plaint was rejected on the basis of res judicata. The High Court held that the core controversy had attained finality through the decision in the Constitutional petition, barring re-agitation in a civil suit under the general principles of res judicata. Furthermore, the court held that rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is not strictly confined to the four corners of the plaint when extraneous material demonstrates a bar. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a Constitutional petition bar a subsequent civil suit concerning the same subject matter under the general principles of res judicata?
  • Can a court look into material produced in defence beyond the averments of the plaint when considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply where Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply in terms?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ali and 3 others vs Sono and another1993 PLD Karachi 342 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-19
  column 2 of challansummoning of accusedcognizance of offencetrial court jurisdictionrevision applicationcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Dadu, which directed the applicants—who were placed in column No. 2 of the police challan—to be summoned and tried as co-accused alongside those sent up for trial by the police. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the jurisdiction to summon persons placed in column No. 2 of a challan to face trial without first recording evidence. The Court held that the trial court is fully competent to summon such persons to stand trial upon taking cognizance of the offence, and it is not a legal requirement to record evidence prior to issuing such summons. The Court relied on established precedents confirming that a Magistrate or Sessions Judge takes cognizance of the offence as a whole, rather than only of the specific offenders named in the police report. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision application, finding no illegality or impropriety in the Sessions Judge's order, as the applicants were named in the FIR and implicated by witness statements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court summon persons placed in column 2 of a police challan to stand trial?
  • Is it a legal requirement for a trial court to record evidence before summoning an accused person placed in column 2 of a challan?
  • Does a trial court take cognizance of the offence as a whole or only of the specific offenders named by the police?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs M/s. Lucas Services (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi1993 CLC 245 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusuf vs Mst. Quresha Begum1993 PLD Karachi 502 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementsuppression of material factsco-ownerrent appealSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller allowing a rent application filed under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the ejectment of the appellant from the disputed flat on the ground of personal requirement due to the respondent's retirement from government service. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent landlady established a bona fide personal need, whether the application was maintainable without joining other co-sharers/legal heirs, and the effect of suppressing the ownership of an adjacent flat. The Sindh High Court held that the respondent failed to establish a bona fide personal requirement and had suppressed material facts regarding the ownership of the adjacent flat, mirroring a previous failed ejectment attempt by her late mother. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was set aside. The key principle laid down is that personal requirement under rent laws must be scrutinized carefully to ensure it is genuine and not a mere wish, and suppression of material facts such as co-ownership of alternative premises vitiates the claim of bona fide need.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement must disclose the ownership of other adjacent premises?
  • Can an ejectment application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be maintained when the landlady suppresses material facts regarding alternate property?
  • Whether a co-owner can unilaterally maintain an ejectment application without joining other legal heirs of the deceased original owner?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of bona fide personal need in rent restriction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Sarabevi alias Kaniz Fatima1993 CLC 345 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs Essajee Ebrahimjee & Co. and 4 others1993 CLC 2245 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin Qureshi vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department, Karachi and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wasi Qureshi vs Abdul Majeed and another1993 MLD 212 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tanweer vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1643 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Dahri vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 726 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26
  post-arrest baildacoityidentification paradefurther inquiryjudicial confessionwrongful detentionpolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from an armed bank dacoity where a security guard was killed, leading to charges under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant sought post-arrest bail after his application was rejected by the Sessions Court. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed to connect the applicant to the offence, or if the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court of Sindh observed that the applicant's name and features were absent from the FIR, natural bank witnesses failed to identify him, and the identifying witnesses were police officials who had custody of him, raising a strong possibility of exposure. Additionally, a telegram sent by an advocate prior to the officially recorded arrest indicated wrongful detention. The Court held that the cumulative circumstances, including a self-exculpatory judicial confession and questionable identification procedures, made the case one of further inquiry. The application was allowed, and bail was granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of natural eyewitnesses to identify an accused, coupled with identification only by police officials who had custody of the accused, makes a case fit for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is documentary evidence, such as a prior telegram and habeas corpus petition, suggesting the accused was arrested earlier than the official arrest date?
  • Does a self-exculpatory judicial confession that does not implicate the accused or connect him to the crime constitute reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of an offence under Section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can bail be refused solely on a single incriminating circumstance, such as the ownership of a vehicle allegedly used in a crime, when all other attending circumstances point towards a case of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Dhariwal and another vs Mst. Sofia Begum and 91993 MLD 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid . vs Khalid Mehmood Tabassum and 4 others1993 MLD 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaheen vs Miss Sultan Jehan1993 CLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Shah and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 483 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq Shah And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 203 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Shahid Hafeez1993 PLD Karachi 308 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sanaullah vs Allah Din1993 MLD 399 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needres judicatachange of circumstanceslandlord and tenantSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenged the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant-landlord's eviction application filed under section 15 of the Ordinance. The appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on grounds of default, reconstruction, and personal requirement for his children. During the hearing, the appellant pressed only the ground of personal requirement for his family. The respondent raised a preliminary objection of res judicata, citing a prior dismissed ejectment application, and alleged mala fides regarding rent enhancement. The court held that the needs of children are distinct from the landlord's personal needs under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that changed circumstances such as marriages and a growing family permit subsequent ejectment applications. The court found the landlord's need to be in good faith, noting that the landlord is the sole judge of his family's accommodation sufficiency. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Rent Controller's order was set aside, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application filed on the ground of personal need of family members is barred by res judicata when a previous application filed by the landlord was dismissed?
  • Can a landlord file a subsequent ejectment application for personal requirement in the event of changed circumstances such as the growth and marriage of family members?
  • Is the landlord considered the sole judge regarding the suitability and sufficiency of residential accommodation for his family?
  • Does the use of the word 'or' in section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, make the needs of a spouse or children independent from the needs of the landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1612 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghiruddin vs S.M. Qadir1993 MLD 2553 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs United Bank Limited, Karachi1993 CLC 1830 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 509 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed alias Gul Frosh vs Syed Umer and another1993 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Umrani vs Government of Sindh through Chief1993 PLD Karachi 735 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-01
  illegal detentionquashment of proceedingsabuse of processadmissibility of confessionanti-state activitiesremandcriminal investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged their arrest and detention by law enforcement agencies, followed by their subsequent prosecution for anti-state activities. The core legal questions concerned the legality of detention without remand, the admissibility of confessions obtained during such custody, and the validity of FIRs registered after prolonged illegal confinement. The Court held that the initial detention was illegal as it lacked remand orders or registration of cases. Furthermore, the confessions recorded during this period were inadmissible due to procedural irregularities and the absence of a valid investigation. The Court observed that the FIRs were managed affairs and verbatim copies across different districts, indicating a pre-planned scheme rather than genuine investigation. Consequently, the Court ruled that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the Court, as they were based on hearsay and lacked any tangible evidence for conviction. The Court laid down the principle that courts possess inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings that are demonstrably false, based on hearsay, and constitute an abuse of the judicial process, thereby ordering the immediate release of the petitioners.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court quash criminal proceedings if they are based on hearsay and constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Is a confession recorded while an accused is in illegal custody of a law enforcement agency admissible in evidence?
  • Does the failure to comply with mandatory procedures under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render a judicial confession valueless?
  • Can law enforcement agencies detain individuals without obtaining remand orders from a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz alias Nanna vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1456 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Shaz Din vs The State1993 MLD 217 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseeruddin vs Mst. Hashmat Bibi1993 PLD Karachi 300 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-18
  bona fide personal useevictionlandlord and tenantownership of premisesrent appealSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's eviction application filed against the respondent tenant on various grounds including default, nuisance, subletting, impairing utility, and bona fide personal use. During the appeal, the appellant challenged only the findings concerning bona fide personal use, arguing that his need for the shop to expand his business was established. The Sindh High Court examined the record and noted that the property in question stood in the name of the appellant's son, not the appellant. Under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, while a landlord need not always be the owner, a person claiming to be a landlord without being the owner must disclose this and prove authorization to receive rent, which the appellant failed to do. Furthermore, the statute defines personal use as use by the owner, spouse, or children; since another son was the owner, the father and brothers could not claim personal use. Additionally, evidence revealed that the appellant had acquired vacant shops during the pendency of the proceedings and re-let them, thereby negating any bona fide requirement. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who is not the owner of the demised premises can initiate eviction proceedings without pleading and proving authorization from the actual owner to receive rent?
  • Can a father and sons claim personal bona fide use of a shop under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 when the property stands in the name of another son?
  • Does the re-letting of a shop that fell vacant during the pendency of eviction proceedings nullify the landlord's plea of bona fide personal requirement?
  • What constitutes 'personal use' under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 with regard to family members of the owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musa Ansari and anothers vs Gul Sahib Jan Khattak and 51993 CLC 1776 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mian vs Syed Shamimullah and 2 others1993 PLD Karachi 146 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-11
  civil revisionmutationpower of attorneydeclaratory suitpossessionSpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application arises out of a civil dispute concerning the transfer of a quarter originally allotted by the Pakistan Refugees Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, later succeeded by the House Building Finance Corporation. The applicant, who had previously executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the first respondent and handed over possession, subsequently revoked the power of attorney and objected to the transfer of the quarter to the second respondent. Despite this, the Corporation transferred the property. The Trial Court decreed the applicant's suit for declaration and cancellation, but the Appellate Court reversed it. The core legal questions involved the competence of the Corporation to effect mutation amidst disputed facts and the maintainability of a declaratory suit without seeking consequential relief for possession. The Sindh High Court held that the Corporation ought to have refrained from transferring the property upon revocation of the power of attorney and raised objections, but also ruled that the applicant's suit was barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for failing to seek recovery of possession, and that the revision petition suffered from unexplained laches. The revision application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statutory corporation like the House Building Finance Corporation can effect a property transfer or mutation in the face of disputed facts and revoked authority?
  • Is a suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation maintainable without seeking the consequential relief of recovery of possession under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act?
  • What constitutes a reasonable period of time for filing a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code when no strict limitation period is prescribed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Butt vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1491 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kabiruddin vs Muhammad Muniruddin through his Legal1993 CLC 747 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29
  specific performanceburden of proofprofessional privilegelimitation periodforged documentsproperty disputesale agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  The appeals concern a property dispute over a plot in Nazimabad, Karachi, where two parties claimed ownership based on separate agreements with the original allottee, Muniruddin. The core legal questions involved the authenticity of the appellant's alleged sale agreement and receipts, the validity of the respondent's claim, and whether the respondent's suit for specific performance was barred by limitation. The Court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the execution of his documents, which were found to be forged or unreliable, while the respondent’s claim was substantiated. The Court affirmed the decree for specific performance in favor of the respondent. Key principles laid down include that the burden of proving a disputed document lies on the party asserting it; an advocate is prohibited from disclosing professional communications unless they relate to illegal purposes; and in suits for specific performance where no performance date is fixed, the limitation period commences from the date the plaintiff receives notice of refusal to perform, not the date of the agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prohibition on an advocate disclosing professional communications apply even when no legal proceeding is pending?
  • When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale commence if no date for performance is fixed?
  • Is a court permitted to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures to determine the genuineness of a document?
  • Does the privilege of an advocate regarding professional communication extend to documents prepared in furtherance of fraud or illegal purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax and Custom Cases 72 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1458 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Mst. Bushra Fayyaz1993 MLD 702 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17
  personal bona fide requirementejectmentrent controllerlandlord-tenant disputemisreading of evidencealternative accommodationburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant tenant from a shop on the ground of the landlady's personal bona fide requirement. The respondent landlady sought possession to establish a car showroom for her husband, an automobile engineer. The appellant contested the claim, alleging mala fides and asserting that the landlady already possessed alternative accommodation and that her husband was already engaged in a similar business. The High Court found that the Rent Controller had misread the evidence and ignored critical admissions by the respondent's husband, specifically that the landlady already possessed two shops in the same building and that her husband was already operating a workshop elsewhere. The Court held that the landlady failed to establish her bona fide requirement, noting that her claim regarding her children was vague and lacked necessary particulars. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside, establishing that a landlord must provide specific details to substantiate a claim of personal requirement to enable a tenant to effectively defend against it.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's failure to disclose existing vacant premises in their possession defeat a claim of personal bona fide requirement?
  • Is a landlord required to provide specific particulars regarding the needs of their family members to establish a bona fide requirement for eviction?
  • Can an eviction order be sustained if the Rent Controller misreads material evidence regarding the landlord's existing business operations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Abdul Habib1993 PLD Karachi 181 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-04
  rented premiseseviction applicationstatutory interpretationrent controller jurisdictiondefinition of buildingfixtures and fittingsindustrial premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an eviction application filed by the appellant against the respondent regarding a "saw mill." The core legal question was whether a saw mill constitutes "premises" or "building" as defined under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, thereby granting the Rent Controller jurisdiction to entertain the eviction application. The High Court held that a saw mill does not fall within the statutory definition of "building" or "premises" under the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that the inclusion of "fittings and fixtures" in the definition of "building" does not extend to industrial machinery or factory setups. Consequently, the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Court affirmed that statutory interpretation must rely on the plain meaning of the text; if the legislature intended to include factories or mills within the definition of "building," it would have explicitly stated so. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Rent Controller's decision that the matter was outside the scope of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does a saw mill constitute 'premises' or 'building' within the meaning of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a Rent Controller exercise jurisdiction over an eviction application concerning an industrial unit like a saw mill?
  • Does the definition of 'building' under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, include industrial machinery or factories?
  • Is a court permitted to modify statutory definitions to include items not explicitly mentioned by the legislature?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs 1st. Rabia and another1993 CLC 1772 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →