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.

• Muhammad Ismail and 3 others vs Province of Sindh through the Chief1993 CLC 1789 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Irfan Khan and 3 others vs Muhammad Rafique Kanpur alias1993 P Cr. L J 426 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Manager (Auqaf) East and 3 others1993 MLD 1745 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Lakhani vs The State and 2 others1993-P Cr. L J 1386 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2487 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 410 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan and 4 others1993 PLD Karachi 478 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-06
  evacuee trust propertyconstitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionAshnan Ghatbona fide purchaserSection 41 Transfer of Property Actfindings of factreligious endowment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged orders of the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan and the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board declaring certain transferred property (Khatri Panchayat Bathing Ghat/Ashnan Ghat) as Evacuee Trust Property. The Settlement Department had previously transferred the property to original allottees who subsequently sold it to the petitioners. The respondents contended that official survey records and evidence established the property as a religious and charitable endowment (Ashnan Ghat) under Hindu Law. The High Court affirmed the lower authorities' decisions, holding that findings of fact based on legal evidence regarding the evacuee trust character of property cannot be re-agitated or interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 unless shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. Additionally, the court held that transferees cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers for value under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 against evacuee property actions, as their remedy lies solely against their vendors.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 interfere with a finding of fact regarding evacuee trust property recorded by statutory authorities where supported by evidence?
  • Does entry in property register records describing property as an Ashnan Ghat create a presumption of religious endowment under Hindu law?
  • Can a purchaser of transferred evacuee property claim protection as a bona fide purchaser for value under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1930 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hasan through Legal Heirs vs Abdul Ghani and 4 others1993 PLD Karachi 623 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 524 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-25
  quashment of proceedingsacquittal before chargehouse trespasslandlord and tenantinherent powersrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed to seek the quashment of proceedings arising from a complaint under section 448 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is empowered under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused before the framing of a charge without recording prosecution evidence, and whether the revisional court erred in setting aside such an acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that while a Magistrate does possess the inherent power under section 249-A to acquit an accused prior to the framing of a charge if the charge is groundless, the trial Magistrate erred in this case by acquitting the accused without examining witnesses despite a prima facie disclosure of an offence. The key principle laid down is that although section 249-A can be invoked before framing a charge, premature acquittal is impermissible where the complaint and initial statements disclose a prima facie case requiring proper trial evaluation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate acquit an accused under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the framing of a charge?
  • Whether an order of acquittal passed under section 249-A can be sustained when a prima facie case under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is disclosed on the face of the complaint?
  • When is the High Court justified in interfering with an order passed by a competent court issuing process against an accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habibullah Siddiqui vs Haji Habib Jafferali and 2 others1993 MLD 1050 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazal Karim vs Muhammad Khan Junejo and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State1993-MLD 86 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub Qureshi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 472 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atiqur Rehman Usman vs Muhammad Siddiq1993 CLC 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atique vs Muhammad Hanif Khan1993 MLD 871 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and another1993 PLD Karachi 440 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through its1993 MLD 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Khan vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Special Education and Social Welfare, Islamabad and 2 others1993 PLD Karachi 41 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-31
  Wafaqi MohtasibOmbudsman jurisdictionservice grievanceouster clauseconstitutional petitiontermination recommendationdirect appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Acting Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) recommending the termination of the petitioner's appointment as Associate Professor of Microbiology and subsequent re-advertisement of the post, as well as a consequential show-cause notice issued by the Ministry of Health. The complaint before the Ombudsman had been lodged by a colleague seeking the same post. The primary legal questions concerned whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 to entertain a public servant's service-related grievance and recommend termination of employment, and whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction was barred. The High Court held that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction was barred by Article 9(2) because the complaint concerned a personal service grievance against the Agency where the complainant worked. Furthermore, under Article 11, the Ombudsman could only recommend disciplinary proceedings, not direct termination. The statutory bar under Article 29 does not preclude judicial review when an order is ultra vires. The petition was accepted, and the impugned order and notice were declared void.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint from a public servant regarding a personal grievance relating to service in the Agency where they are employed?
  • Can the Wafaqi Mohtasib recommend the termination of a public servant's appointment under Article 11 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983?
  • Does Article 29 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 bar the High Court from exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where the Ombudsman's order is ultra vires or without jurisdiction?
  • Is a constitutional petition against an Ombudsman's order barred by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when the dispute concerns direct appointment rather than terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Gujar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1389 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 2 others vs The State1993 MLD 2342 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), KarachiPTCL 1993 CL. 178 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Syed Ghulam Murtaza and others1993 CLC 185 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03
  civil revisionappellate court judgmentremand of caseburden of proofdocumentary evidencenon-production of original document
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the applicant's suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning an immovable property. The core legal question revolves around whether the lower appellate court properly evaluated the evidence, particularly regarding an unexhibited photocopy of a settlement authority's order, and whether it fulfilled its legal duty to properly discuss evidence and findings on all issues. The Sindh High Court held that the first appellate court failed to properly scrutinize the evidence and record adequate reasons while reversing findings on certain issues, thereby violating appellate adjudication principles. The Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the matter back to the first appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, specifically requiring compliance with procedural rules for appellate judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can reverse findings of the trial court without discussing the relevant evidence and recording proper reasons?
  • Can a document not formally produced in evidence, but available on the record, be looked into by the court?
  • Whether an appellate judgment that fails to comply with the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Obaidullah Khan1993 MLD 2227 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Syed Muhammad Sadiq1993 CLC 1819 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-29
  default in rentelectricity billsSindh Rented Premises Ordinanceevictionrent appealdeposit of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant on various grounds including default in payment of rent and electricity bills. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant committed a default in the payment of monthly rent and electricity bills. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant was regularly depositing rent in the office of the Rent Controller due to strained relations and refusal of the landlord, and therefore no default was established regarding rent or electricity bills. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside. The key principle laid down is that where landlord-tenant relations are strained and rent has been regularly deposited in the Rent Controller's office, a tenant cannot be termed a defaulter simply because rent was not tendered personally, absent a demand or willingness by the landlord to accept it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be held to be a defaulter in payment of rent when depositing the same regularly before the Rent Controller due to strained relations with the landlord?
  • Does the failure to tender rent personally to the landlord constitute a default in rent when the landlord previously refused to accept it?
  • Whether electricity charges payable through a shared meter can form the basis of a valid eviction order on the ground of default?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1632 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-31
  murderocular testimonycapital punishmentcommutation of sentenceres gestaecounter-reportcriminal appealmedical evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of three appellants under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular testimony from related witnesses, the admissibility of a counter-report lodged by one of the accused as corroborative evidence, and whether the absence of previous enmity warranted a reduction in sentence. The Court held that the ocular testimony was credible, as minor contradictions and improvements did not undermine the core facts, and the presence of the witnesses was corroborated by the counter-report. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a counter-report, being part of the same transaction, is relevant under the doctrine of res gestae. While maintaining the conviction, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, establishing that the absence of previous enmity and the inability to ascribe the fatal blow to a specific individual are extenuating circumstances justifying a lesser penalty. The Court also granted the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a counter-report lodged by an accused be used as corroborative evidence against co-accused?
  • Does the absence of previous enmity between the accused and the deceased justify a lesser sentence than death?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when it is unclear which specific accused delivered the fatal blow?
  • Does the principle of falsus uno falsus in omnibus apply to criminal justice in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad vs Government of Pakistan and others1993 PLD Karachi 656 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 527 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. vs Administrator of Karachi1993 MLD 849 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03
  octroitransit passcustoms bonded warehousere-exportmunicipal taxationnoscitur a sociisinterpretation of statutes
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners imported goods into Pakistan under valid import licenses for the express purpose of re-exporting them to Iran. These goods were held in a Customs bonded warehouse upon arrival. The petitioners sought a transit pass from the respondent municipal authorities to move the goods out of the warehouse for re-export without paying octroi. The respondents refused, arguing that the contract of sale between the petitioners and the Iranian buyers, having been concluded in Karachi, constituted a 'sale' within the octroi limits, thereby attracting the tax. The Court held that the definition of 'octroi' in the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules, 1964, refers to a tax on goods imported for consumption, use, or sale within octroi limits. Applying the principle of noscitur a sociis, the Court determined that 'sale' in this context implies actual delivery and consumption within the limits, not merely a contract of sale executed therein. Since the goods were destined for export and not for local consumption or use, the respondents lacked the authority to levy octroi. The Court declared the refusal to issue a transit pass without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract of sale executed within municipal limits for goods destined for export constitute a 'sale' for the purposes of levying octroi?
  • Under the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules 1964, does the term 'sale' in the definition of octroi imply actual delivery and consumption within the octroi limits?
  • Can municipal authorities levy octroi on goods held in a Customs bonded warehouse that are intended for direct re-export?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Jamil Ahmed1993 MLD 2284 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Hashmi vs Syed Sultan Ahmed Rizvi and others1993 CLC.935 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 489 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Shah Zaman And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 108 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Munif vs Government of Sindh through Chief1993 CLC 2213 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal and others vs Government of Sindh, through Chief1993 MLD 14 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Adam and 2 others vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 504 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-03
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processcriminal original applicationfalse implicationcustody disputeinconsistent statementsharassment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an application moved under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of direct complaint Case No. 594 of 1990 pending before the Additional City Magistrate No. III, Central, Karachi, for offences under sections 452, 454, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants amounts to an abuse of the process of the court, given that the complainant named three different sets of accused persons on three separate occasions and shifted the date of the incident. The Sindh High Court held that the criminal proceedings were instituted falsely out of a dispute over the custody of a minor child and would result in unnecessary harassment without any likelihood of conviction. The court established the principle that where a complainant repeatedly changes the version of events, substitutes accused persons, and uses criminal proceedings as a pressure tactic to settle custody disputes, allowing such proceedings to continue constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the institution of a criminal complaint with inconsistent statements and multiple versions regarding the accused constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is no likelihood of the accused being convicted?
  • Whether criminal proceedings initiated primarily to exert pressure in a civil or custody dispute can be allowed to continue?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir vs The State1993 MLD 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aamir and Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 47 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhamma D Siddiq vs Rashid Alam1993 MLD 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst.Naz Bibi vs Abdul Wahab1993 CLC 1183 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zulekha and 8 others vs Zikrur Rehman1993 MLD 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Alam vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1450 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Waheeda Khanum vs Ghulam Hussain1993 PLD Karachi 171 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughrabai vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 477 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakooran vs Abdul Rashid through his L.Ts. and another1993 CLC 1270 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shabeona Per Veen vs M/s. Defence Officers, Housing Society1993 CLC 2523 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-27
  rejection of plaintcivil revisionjurisdictiondeclaration and injunctionmaterial irregularityvaluation of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Petition challenged the concurrent orders of the lower courts, which had returned the petitioner's plaint for lack of jurisdiction in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding a plot of land. The petitioner had sued the respondent, a housing society, after the cancellation of the allotment of a plot she claimed to have purchased. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its power to return the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, based on jurisdictional objections raised after the written statement had already been filed. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by failing to apply their minds to the legal requirements for rejecting a plaint. The Court emphasized that for rejection under Order VII, Rule 11, the plaint itself must be barred by law based on its own averments, and that defenses regarding valuation and maintainability should be addressed during the trial rather than as grounds for summary rejection. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the suit was remanded for adjudication on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on defenses raised in a written statement?
  • Must the court accept all allegations in a plaint as true when considering an application for rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is the lack of valuation or maintainability a valid ground for the summary rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwat Ara and 3 others vs Mst. Sabra Khatoon1993 CLC 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-20
  Civil revisionLimitation ActSplitting of claimsOrder II Rule 2 CPCUnregistered sale deedCollateral purposeProperty disputeDismissal for non-prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision challenged an appellate decision regarding a property dispute involving a plot of land in Karachi. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent’s suit was time-barred under Article 142 of the Limitation Act 1908, and whether it was barred by the principles of Order II Rule 2, and Order IX Rule 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the respondent’s failure to seek possession in a prior suit that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court held that the suit was indeed time-barred, as the cause of action arose in 1959, and was further barred by the prohibition against splitting claims and re-litigating matters dismissed for default. Additionally, the Court affirmed that an unregistered sale deed is admissible for collateral purposes to prove possession. The High Court ultimately set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree in favor of the applicants, establishing that legal pleas can be raised at any stage and that plaintiffs must include all claims arising from a single cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • Can a legal plea regarding limitation be raised at any stage of the proceedings?
  • Does the dismissal of a prior suit for non-prosecution bar a subsequent suit on the same cause of action under Order IX Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff barred from filing a subsequent suit for possession if they omitted to seek that relief in a previous suit arising from the same cause of action?
  • Can an unregistered sale deed be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sara Bai vs Godhra Muslim Association and another1993 PLD Karachi 496 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajida Begum vs Syeda Ummerubab1993 CLC 500 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Fatima vs G. Nizamuddin Jami and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-03
  Share certificatesPledge of sharesBank liabilityGuarantorMisappropriation of sharesOverdraft facilityAppeal against decreeReturn of securities
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a trial court's judgment and decree, which had decreed the appellant's suit for the return of share certificates or their value against respondent No. 1 only, dismissing it against the bank (respondent No. 2) and others. The core legal question was whether respondent No. 2 bank was justified in utilizing the appellant's share certificates as security for a loan to respondent No. 1 and subsequently selling them, and whether the appellant had acted as a guarantor for respondent No. 1's loan. The High Court found that the appellant had delivered the shares for an overdraft facility for her husband, not as security for respondent No. 1's firm, and that no valid guarantee existed. The court held that respondent No. 2 had no right to utilize or dispose of the appellant's shares for respondent No. 1's loan, nor to hand over remaining certificates to respondent No. 1. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed against respondent No. 2 bank as well, establishing that a bank cannot unilaterally appropriate a third party's securities for a different loan without explicit authorization or a valid pledge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bank utilize a third party's share certificates, submitted for a specific purpose, as security for a loan to another party without explicit authorization?
  • Is a bank justified in disposing of a third party's shares to recover a loan from another individual without proof of a valid pledge or guarantee from the owner?
  • What is the duty of a bank regarding the return of share certificates when an intended loan facility is cancelled and no valid pledge is established?
  • Can a trial court's finding that a bank is not responsible for the misappropriation of shares be overturned on appeal if the bank acted without proper authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Bano vs Abdul Aziz1993 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabra Rehmatullah vs Haji Jamaluddin1993 MLD 1815 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabira Begum vs Hakim Muhammad Akhtar and another1993 MLD 955 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Ansar and 2 others vs Mst. Raeesa Khatoon1993 MLD 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheeda Begum through her L.Rs, vs Mst. Saeeda and others1993 CLC 1263 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheeda Begum and another vs Mst. Samina Mushtaq1993 MLD 1825 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rais Akhtar and another vs Muhammad Azizuddin1993 MLD 2555 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Jehan vs Government of Paksitan through Board of Trustees1993 MLD 1104 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Jehan vs Muhammad Siddiq Khan and another1993 P Cr. L J 522 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-29
  habeas corpuscustody of minorHizanatpersonal lawwrongful confinementguardian
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the applicant mother, Mst. Nusrat Jehan, seeking the recovery and custody of her ten-year-old daughter, Norin, who was allegedly forcibly taken and wrongfully confined by the respondent father. The core legal question was whether a High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, can direct the custody of a minor child to the mother based on her right of Hizanat under personal law. The High Court held that under the personal law of the parties, the mother is entitled to the custody of her minor daughter until she attains puberty. The Court ruled that there is no substitute for a mother's custody, and therefore ordered that the temporary custody of the minor remain with the applicant mother, subject to any final determination by the Guardian Judge or Family Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mother seek the recovery and custody of her minor child from the father under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the right of Hizanat under personal law entitle a mother to the custody of her minor daughter until she attains puberty?
  • Is a custody order passed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to final determination by a Guardian Judge or Family Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nayyar Khatoon vs Shujaat Hussain Zaidi and another1993 CLC 1742 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nausheba vs Muhammad Naseem1993 CLC 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasima Begum vs Ali Dost1993 PLD Karachi 137 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-03
  evictiondefault in payment of rentunilateral rent increasefair renttax assessmentlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was directed against the Rent Controller's order dismissing an eviction application filed on the ground of default. The landlord (appellant) contended that because the Excise and Taxation Authorities had increased the tax on the premises, she was entitled to unilaterally increase the monthly rent from Rs. 75 to Rs. 120, and that the tenant's failure to pay at the enhanced rate constituted a wilful default. The tenant (respondent) maintained that he had deposited the agreed rent of Rs. 75 in court after the landlord refused to accept it. The High Court held that under the scheme of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, specifically Sections 8 and 9, the power to determine fair rent and authorize rent increases is vested solely in the Rent Controller. A landlord cannot unilaterally increase rent based on an enhancement of taxes by taxation authorities without initiating proceedings before the Rent Controller. Consequently, the tenant was not in default, and the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord unilaterally increase the rent of a premises based on an enhancement of taxes by the Excise and Taxation Authorities?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to pay a unilaterally increased rent constitute a wilful default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Which authority has the jurisdiction to determine fair rent and authorize an increase in rent due to imposition of new taxes under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nargis Bano vs Rehman Bhai1993 CLC 266 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30
  ejectmentpersonal requirementgood faithlandlord and tenantpleadings and evidencecommercial premisesSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant-landlord's ejectment application against the respondent-tenant. The appellant sought the eviction of the respondent from commercial premises on the ground of personal good faith requirement to start her own business. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that good faith was not established because the respondent claimed the appellant's sons were minors and no cross-examination rebutted that fact. The core legal question was whether the appellant established personal good faith requirement and whether the application suffered from material improvements or lack of particulars. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant specifically pleaded personal requirement in her application, and her affidavit-in-evidence introduced no inconsistent facts, distinguishing it from cases where new pleas are raised at the evidence stage. The Court also held that failure to provide extensive details of the business or funds does not negate good faith, and goodwill payments are not recognized defenses against eviction. The appeal was allowed, directing the respondent to hand over vacant possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's statement in an affidavit-in-evidence regarding personal business requirements constitutes an impermissible improvement if the initial ejectment application was concise?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to provide complete particulars about the nature of the intended business or available funds automatically disprove good faith under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a tenant successfully resist eviction from rented premises on the ground of having paid goodwill or Pugri?
  • Whether an ejectment application can be dismissed solely because the tenant asserted the landlord's sons were minors without the landlord being cross-examined on that specific fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarrat vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 678 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mima and 6 others vs Mukadam Wali and another1993 MLD 610 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Majeedan through her L.Rs and anothers vs Muhammad Nasim and another1993 CLC 1209 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mafia Khatoon vs District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East and others1993 MLD 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila and another vs Muhammad Arshad and another1993 P Cr. L J 993 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Irshad Bibi vs Muhammad Zulfiqar and another1993 CLC 1625 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husan Ara vs Dr. Muhammad Ali1993 C L C736 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hasina Khatoon and 2 others vs United Bank Ltd. and 6 others1993 MLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-11
  Section 12(2) CPCex parte decreelimitation periodfraud and misrepresentationabuse of processdismissal in liminemortgage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the daughters of a guarantor, seeking to set aside an ex parte decree obtained by a bank against their father. The applicants alleged that their father had fraudulently mortgaged property that he had previously gifted to them. The Court observed that the applicants had previously filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was dismissed in 1987, and they failed to appeal that decision. The Court held that the present application was time-barred under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, having been filed more than three years after the cause of action arose. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the bank in the suit proceedings, noting that Section 12(2) requires fraud to be committed in connection with the suit itself. The Court affirmed that an application under Section 12(2) can be dismissed in limine if it is mala fide, an abuse of process, or lacks merit on its face.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed in limine without framing issues or recording evidence?
  • Does the limitation period for an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 fall under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable if the alleged fraud was not committed in connection with the proceedings of the suit?
  • Can a party who failed to appeal the dismissal of an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subsequently challenge the decree via Section 12(2) on the same facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Bai vs Allah Din1993 CLC 1693 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-07
  rent evictionwilful defaulttime-barred rentburden of proofsublettingclosure of evidencecross-examination delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal in a rent matter was filed against the order of the Rent Controller directing the tenant (appellant) to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord (respondent). The key legal questions related to whether eviction could be ordered based on rent default where part of the period claimed was time-barred, whether the landlord discharged the burden of proof regarding non-payment, whether closing the tenant's side after repeated non-appearance for cross-examination was valid, and whether vague allegations of subletting without specific details could sustain an eviction order. The High Court affirmed that while time-barred rent cannot be recovered or enforced, default occurring within the valid limitation period creates a fresh cause of action justifying eviction. The court held that the landlord discharges the initial burden of proving non-payment—a negative fact—by stating under oath that rent was not received. Closing the tenant's side was upheld due to over two years of unexcused delay. However, the finding on subletting was reversed as vague allegations lack evidentiary value. The appeal was dismissed, granting three months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord seek eviction on the ground of default in rent if a portion of the claimed default period is time-barred?
  • How does a landlord discharge the initial burden of proof regarding the non-payment of rent in an eviction proceeding?
  • Is a Rent Controller justified in closing a party's evidence if the party continuously fails to appear for cross-examination over an extended period?
  • Are vague allegations of subletting lacking dates and names sufficient to sustain an eviction order?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghafooran Bi vs Abdul Hafeez and others1993 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima through Legal Heirs vs Mulla Faiz Muhammad through Legal1993 MLD 1850 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida Begum vs The Allied Bank of Pakistan1993 MLD 1219 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Booti vs Ashiq Ali and others1993 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bano Begum vs Karachi Development Authority and others1993 CLC 639 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayesha Abdul Rehman vs Naeazish Malik1993 CLC 1715 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asmat vs Syed Hasan Mehtab Jafri and another1993 CLC 351 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina Begum vs Chairman, Karachi Development Authority and 51993 CLC 1307 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17
  civil revisiondeclarationbinding effect of decreethird party rightsindependent titleexecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge an order of the 3rd Additional District Judge (East), Karachi, passed in a civil revision. The petitioner had obtained a decree for declaration, cancellation of documents, and injunction regarding a plot, which had attained finality. Respondent No. 5, who was not a party to the original suit, filed various unsuccessful proceedings, including an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In the revision proceedings, the revisional court observed that the petitioner's decree was not binding on Respondent No. 5. The High Court of Sindh examined whether a decree binds a non-party to the suit. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, a decree is only binding on the parties to the suit or persons claiming through them. It clarified that the decree would not bind Respondent No. 5 if he claimed an independent right, but would remain binding if his claim was derived through any party to the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil court decree binding on a person who was not a party to the suit and does not claim through any party to the suit?
  • Does a decree bind a third party if their claim to the suit property is derived from one of the parties to the suit?
  • What is the scope of Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 regarding the binding nature of declaratory decrees?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina and 4 others vs Government of Sindh through the Secretary, .1993 PLD Karachi 5 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-07
  cinema taxmunicipal taxationmandatory procedurefiscal statutecivil revisionbudget proposals
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgments and decrees of the lower courts which dismissed the petitioners' suit seeking a declaration that the cinema tax imposed by a notification issued by the Commissioner Hyderabad Division was illegal. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a new cinema tax without following the mandatory statutory procedure of including it in the annual budget proposals and adhering to the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of Taxes) Rules 1960 is valid. The High Court held that the imposition of the tax was illegal and without lawful authority, as a fiscal statute requiring a particular thing to be done in a certain manner must be strictly complied with. The court laid down the principle that taxation powers under the Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960 must be exercised strictly in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedure, failing which the levy is void.

  Questions settled

  • Can a municipal committee impose a tax without including it in the annual budget proposals as required by the rules?
  • Whether the failure to follow the prescribed statutory procedure for taxation renders a notification imposing a tax illegal?
  • How are fiscal statutes conferring taxation powers on municipal bodies to be construed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aliya Masood vs Mrs. Mussarat Musaver and others1993 PLD Karachi 676 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30
  ex parte decreesubstituted servicesuit against deceased personnullity in lawrevision applicationprocedural fraudCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Revision Application challenged an appellate court's dismissal of an appeal against an ex parte decree. The central legal questions concerned the validity of a suit filed against a deceased person and the propriety of substituted service. The High Court held that a suit filed against a deceased defendant is a nullity in law, rendering any subsequent decree and execution proceedings void ab initio. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regarding substituted service. The Court emphasized that substituted service is not a substitute for ordinary service unless specific requirements—affixation on the court notice board and the defendant's last known address—are strictly satisfied. The Court affirmed that it cannot allow its process to be used as an instrument of fraud. Consequently, the ex parte decree, the appellate judgment, and the resulting sale deed were set aside, establishing that proceedings against a deceased person lack legal foundation and that procedural mandates for service must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit filed against a deceased person maintainable in law?
  • Does an ex parte decree obtained against a deceased person constitute a nullity?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for valid substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court set aside a decree obtained through fraudulent concealment of facts using its inherent powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtari Begum vs Muhammad Qasim1993 CLC 2250 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akbari Begum vs Nadeem Ahmed and 2 others1993 CLC 353 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-20
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MuwasbatTalab-e-Ishhadcivil revisionconcurrent findings of factShafi-e-SharikShafi-e-Jar
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Petition challenged concurrent judgments dismissing a suit for pre-emption. The petitioner claimed a right of pre-emption over property sold by the respondent, asserting status as a co-sharer and neighbor. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner established her pre-emption rights and whether she strictly complied with the mandatory procedural requirements of Talab-e-Muwasbat and Talab-e-Ishhad. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner failed to prove her status as a co-sharer or the existence of common amenities. Crucially, the Court affirmed the principle that a pre-emption claim is legally fatal if the pre-emptor fails to make a specific reference to the first demand (Talab-e-Muwasbat) when performing the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad). Furthermore, the Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts cannot be interfered with in revision proceedings absent jurisdictional error or material irregularity. The judgment reinforces the necessity of strict procedural compliance in pre-emption litigation and limits the scope of revisional jurisdiction regarding factual determinations.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a pre-emptor to reference the first demand (Talab-e-Muwasbat) when making the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad)?
  • Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a civil revision petition absent jurisdictional error?
  • Does the failure to prove co-ownership status defeat a claim of pre-emption based on being a Shafi-e-Sharik?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. A.B. Aisha vs Sultan Ahmad Tahir and another1993 CLC 1707 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zakia J. Rehman and 4 otherss vs The State Life Insurance1993 MLD 1268 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Yasmeen Carim vs S.M. Saleem1993 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sartaj HABIWand 2 others vs Mst. Faizun Nisa1993 MLD 460 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Saima Khatoon vs Manzar Hussain1993 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-17
  administration suitoral giftMuslim Lawburden of proofinheritanceco-sharerdelivery of possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for administration was filed by the plaintiff against her brother for the administration and division of properties left by their deceased father, claiming a one-third share under Sunni Hanafi Muslim Law. The core legal question concerned whether the defendant had established an oral gift of the disputed immovable property from the deceased father, and whether the deceased left movable and immovable assets to be inherited. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of movable properties, but established that the plot and ground floor belonged to the deceased, whereas the defendant had successfully proved he constructed the first floor. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant failed to prove the essential ingredients of an oral gift under Muslim Law, as wavering statements and lack of mutation or overt acts negated the claim of an exclusive gift. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to a one-third share in the plot and ground floor, while the defendant retained his self-constructed first floor.

  Questions settled

  • Who bears the burden of proof to establish an oral gift of immovable property claimed by a defendant in an administration suit?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to prove a valid gift under Muslim Law?
  • Can the possession of one co-sharer be deemed to be the possession of all co-sharers in the absence of a proven ouster?
  • Whether the uncorroborated oral testimony of a defendant regarding an oral gift is sufficient when unsupported by contemporaneous official records or mutation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rashida and 3 otherss vs Mrs. Shahzad Khanum Malick and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 771 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-26Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nilofar Mukarram and 2 others vs The National Bank of Pakistan, Stadium Road Branch, Karachi1993 MLD 2235 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nargis Begum vs Wahiduddin Alvi1993 PLD Karachi 574 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Najma Ashraf vs Mst. Noor Jehan1993 MLD 866 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-03Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Maimuna Bai and another vs Nooruddin and another1993 MLD 2231 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Amtul Manan vs Mrs. Eick Muhammad Yousuf and another1993 MLD 2196 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Aisha vs Muhammad Ali1993 MLD 2239 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• MRS, Z. Shirazee vs Abdul Oadir1993 CLC 528 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-19
  rent controllereviction applicationtenancy agreementdefinition of rentstatutory liabilityburden of proofnon-payment of taxes
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller, Karachi, dismissing an eviction application filed by the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant for the alleged non-payment of water, conservancy, and betterment taxes. The core legal question was whether the tenant was contractually or statutorily liable to pay these charges, given that the original tenancy agreement stipulated that the monthly rent was inclusive of water and conservancy charges, while other taxes were the landlord's responsibility. The appellant further relied on an alleged subsequent undertaking by the tenant to pay these charges, which the tenant denied. The High Court upheld the Rent Controller's finding that the appellant failed to prove the execution of the alleged undertaking, noting discrepancies in signatures and lack of attestation. Furthermore, the Court held that the definition of 'rent' under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, does not impose an independent statutory liability on a tenant to pay such charges absent a specific agreement. The principle laid down is that charges like water and electricity only constitute 'rent' if the tenant has explicitly agreed to pay them; the statute does not create an inherent liability for these payments in the absence of such an agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'rent' under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 impose an automatic statutory liability on a tenant to pay water and electricity charges in the absence of an agreement?
  • Can an eviction application based on non-payment of taxes succeed if the underlying tenancy agreement explicitly makes those taxes the responsibility of the landlord?
  • Under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, what constitutes 'rent' when a tenant agrees to pay additional charges to a landlord?
  Read full judgment →
• MRs, Rahat Ali vs Qadeeruddin Siddiqi and 12 others1993 CLC 1288 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
• MRs, Ghazala Shamim vs MRs, Shahnaz Ahmad1993 CLC 262 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• MRS, Chung Ying Hsiung vs Mst. Seema Saeed1993 CLC 505 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12
  rent restrictionpersonal requirementbona fide needlandlord and tenantevictioncommercial premisesincrease of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, arose from two eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant tenant. The respondent landladies, who are sisters owning adjacent commercial plots, sought eviction of the tenant to establish a joint garment business. The tenant resisted, contending that the landladies lacked the necessary funds, skill, and business capability, and that their demand for increased rent demonstrated mala fides. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the appeals, holding that the landladies established a bona fide personal requirement. The Court ruled that physical involvement or prior specialized skill is not a prerequisite for starting a business, as it can be managed through employees. Furthermore, the sufficiency of accommodation is the sole prerogative of the landlord, and a prior demand for higher rent does not per se negate a genuine personal requirement if established independently. The appeals were dismissed, and the tenant was granted six months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's demand for higher rent per se negate a subsequent claim of bona fide personal requirement?
  • Is a landlord required to possess prior skill or capability to run a proposed business to establish a bona fide personal need?
  • Can a landlord's personal requirement for business purposes be satisfied by carrying on business through employees?
  • Is the sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation a prerogative of the landlord or a matter for the tenant to dictate?
  Read full judgment →