Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Khalid Mahmud Durrani vs Messrs Galaxy Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd.1993 CLC 2261 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-16Read full judgment →
- Khaista Khan and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 102 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-25Read full judgment →
- Khair Muhammad and 2 others vs Government of Sindh through Additional Chief Secretary, Local Government Department and 5 others1993 CLC 531 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- Karimi Rahmatullah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-14Read full judgment →
- Karim Bux vs S.H.O., Khawaja Ajmer Nagri Police Station1993 P Cr. L J 221 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-05Read full judgment →
- Karachi Transport Corporation through Its Secretary, MuhammadK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 17 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited and 5 others vs Muhammad Shakir Sheikh1993 CLC 330 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, an employee of Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited, filed a civil suit challenging the promotion procedure of fellow employees and seeking a declaration of entitlement to promotion and permanent injunctions. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the master and servant relationship barred such a suit and that promotion is not a vested right. On appeal, the District Judge set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for consideration of certain prayers. Upon revision, the Sindh High Court held that the relations between the company and its employee are governed by the principle of master and servant, where specific performance of a personal service contract cannot be granted, and the only available remedy for breach is damages. Consequently, the suit for declaration and injunction is barred under sections 21, 42, 54, and 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The High Court allowed the revision and restored the rejection of the plaint.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration and injunction filed by an employee against a master and servant relationship is maintainable under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- Does an employee have a vested right to claim promotion that can be enforced through a civil court?
- What are the available remedies for a breach of a contract of personal service between a master and a servant?
- Can a civil court grant an injunction or specific performance in matters relating to promotions in private or corporate employment governed by master and servant?
- Karachi Development Authority vs Ali Muhammad1993 MLD 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
- Karachi Development Authority through Secretary vs Muhammad1993 MLD 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Kanwar Khalid Younus vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 437 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This bail application concerns an accused detained in a murder case under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant's continued detention was lawful given that the police had failed to submit a challan (charge-sheet) within the statutory remand period prescribed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant's detention was illegal because the remand granted by the Magistrate after the expiry of the initial period without a challan was unauthorized, as powers under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require the submission of a challan to commence an inquiry. Furthermore, on merits, the Court found the prosecution's case suffered from significant delays in witness statements and improvements to the narrative, warranting further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that detention beyond the statutory limit without a challan is illegal and that material improvements in prosecution evidence after significant delays justify bail under the 'further inquiry' provision of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Can an accused be detained in custody beyond the fifteen-day limit prescribed by Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the submission of a challan?
- Does a Magistrate have the power to grant remand under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before a challan has been submitted by the police?
- Does a significant delay in recording witness statements and subsequent improvements to the prosecution's story constitute grounds for bail under the 'further inquiry' clause of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Kamruddin Shalwani vs Ahmed Muneewnanawatty1993 MLD 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
- Kaleem Ahmed and others vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 13 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and 14-year sentence of four appellants under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dacoity. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the validity of the identification parade, and the legality of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The High Court upheld the convictions, finding the eyewitnesses to be natural, independent, and credible, noting that their testimony remained largely unchallenged during cross-examination. The Court affirmed that there is no absolute legal requirement for an identification parade if the accused are identified by witnesses before the trial court, particularly when the incident occurred in daylight. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that the trial court erred in awarding 14 years of rigorous imprisonment, as Section 395 prescribes a maximum of 10 years unless life imprisonment is awarded. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals but modified the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for each appellant, clarifying that contradictions in previous statements cannot be considered if the witness was not confronted with them under Article 140 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984.
Questions settled- Is an identification parade a mandatory legal requirement for the conviction of an accused in a dacoity case?
- Can a witness be contradicted by a previous statement if the witness was not confronted with that statement during cross-examination?
- What is the maximum term of imprisonment for dacoity under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if life imprisonment is not awarded?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused on the same evidence automatically entitle the convicted appellants to acquittal?
- Kala Khan through Legal Heirs vs Anjuman Musalmanane Mashraqui1993 CLC 250 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application filed by the respondent registered society against the appellant tenants on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal good faith requirement. The core legal questions concern whether the tenants committed a wilful default under the relevant rent legislation and whether the landlord society established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The Sindh High Court held that the tenants indeed committed wilful default by failing to tender rent properly and delaying deposits in court for nearly a year without utilizing authorized statutory modes like postal money orders. However, regarding personal requirement, the court held that the landlord failed to prove good faith as no resolution or authorization of the society was produced, no explanation was given for a twelve-year delay in filing the ejectment application, and the sole witness lacked competence. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the finding on personal requirement while maintaining the eviction order based on default.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can be absolved of default by voluntarily depositing rent in court after a prolonged delay without first attempting proper statutory tender?
- Does a registered society seeking ejectment for personal use require a formal resolution or authorization to prove its bona fide requirement?
- Whether the mere ipse dixit of a landlord is sufficient to establish a good faith requirement for rented premises without supporting evidence and valid reasons?
- K.S. Noorullah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1391 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-09Read full judgment →
- Jurio vs Nawab Nabi Buksh1993 CLC 187 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
- Joseph Dean vs MRs, Miratur Ruqayya1993 CLC 896 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- Jonathan New House vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 37 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
- Jonathan New House vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 823 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-19Read full judgment →
- Jehangir Irmangan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1113 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
- Jawaid Ahmed vs Province of Sindh through Additional Chief Secretary, Local Government Department and 2 others1993 CLC 1746 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Jamil Ahmad vs The State1993 MLD 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
- Jamaluddin vs Saghir Ahmed Warsi1993 MLD 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
- Jamaluddin vs Muhammad Anwar1993 MLD 876 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
- Jalees Ahmed Khan vs MRs, Shamim Sarwar and 7 others1993 CLC 2232 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
- Jaindar vs Station House Officer, Police Station Jamshoro and another1993 PLD Karachi 366 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-23Read full judgment →
- J.F.C. Gollaher vs Samad Khan1993 MLD 726 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This arbitration suit arose from disputes between a member and the Sindh Club regarding election rules, management practices, and room tariff revisions. The core legal questions concerned the arbitrator's reliance on personal knowledge, the court's jurisdiction to interpret club rules, and the validity of tariff enhancements. The Court held that while arbitration is a quasi-judicial process, an arbitrator cannot rely on personal knowledge to the exclusion of evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that club rules constitute a contract between members and the management, and courts retain the jurisdiction to interpret such contracts, regardless of any finality clause in arbitration agreements. The Court ruled that tariff revisions must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and based on actual necessity rather than targeting specific members. Consequently, the Court remitted the award for reconsideration regarding election procedures—specifically ballot secrecy and the role of scrutineers—and tariff calculations, while upholding the remainder of the award. The judgment establishes that an arbitrator’s failure to decide all referred disputes or reliance on extraneous personal knowledge constitutes misconduct, necessitating judicial intervention under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Questions settled- Does the court have jurisdiction to interpret the rules and bye-laws of a private club when they constitute a contract between members?
- Can an arbitrator rely on personal knowledge to adjudicate disputes without supporting evidence on the record?
- Does the failure of an arbitrator to decide all cardinal points referred to them vitiate the arbitration award?
- Is a tariff revision by a club committee valid if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, or lacks a basis in necessity?
- Izzat Khan and another vs Ramzan Khan and others1993 MLD 1287 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing applications under Order XII, Rule 6 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question involved whether a judgment on admission can be passed under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a deposition made by a general attorney in previous proceedings, and whether such admissions are conclusive. The Sindh High Court held that admissions of fact are not conclusive proof and can be shown to be wrong, and that an admission wrong in fact or made in ignorance of a legal right has no binding effect unless it operates as an estoppel under section 115 of the Evidence Act 1872. Furthermore, judgments upon admission are a matter of discretion and not of right. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether admissions made in previous proceedings are conclusive proof of the matters admitted?
- Are judgments upon admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a matter of right or judicial discretion?
- Under what circumstances does an admission become binding and conclusive on the party making it?
- Ismail and 3 others vs Mst. Aisha and 7 others1993 MLD 977 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-06Read full judgment →
- Ishtiaq vs Vakeel Ahmed and another1993 P Cr. L J 739 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Ishaque Masihp vs The StateK.L.R.1993 Shariat Cases 30 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
- Ishaque Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2594 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
- Ishaque Masih And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Shariat Cases 86 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-21Read full judgment →
- Irshad Ali and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 441 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
- Irfanullah Khan vs Ahmed Hussain1993 MLD 1431 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-07Read full judgment →
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs National Engineering1993 MLD 1344 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Indus Glass Works Limited vs Government of Sindh through Secretary1993 MLD 856 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-16Read full judgment →
- In re: Succession Certificate of MRS. Parveen Akhtar (deceased) vs1993 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a power of attorney executed abroad by the petitioner, which had been stamped in Pakistan prior to its dispatch. The core legal question was whether such a document, having been stamped in Pakistan before execution abroad, required fresh stamping upon its receipt in Pakistan under the Stamp Act 1899. The Court held that the power of attorney did not require restamping. It reasoned that Section 17 of the Stamp Act 1899 mandates stamping at the time of execution for documents executed within Pakistan, while Section 18 is an enabling provision for documents executed abroad, allowing them to be stamped within three months of receipt. The Court determined that Section 18 does not prohibit the pre-stamping of documents intended for execution abroad. Consequently, a document already bearing the requisite stamp duty under Pakistan law remains valid and admissible without further stamping upon its return. The Court allowed the application, accepting the bonds and directing the issuance of the succession certificate to the petitioner's attorney.
Questions settled- Does a power of attorney stamped in Pakistan prior to its execution abroad require fresh stamping upon its receipt in Pakistan?
- Is Section 18 of the Stamp Act 1899 an enabling provision or a mandatory prohibition against pre-stamping documents executed abroad?
- What is the rule of interpretation for fiscal statutes regarding ambiguity and the burden on the subject?
- In re: Petition for Succession Certificate in Respect of Certain Assets1993 PLD Karachi 619 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for the extension of a Succession Certificate regarding newly discovered assets belonging to the estates of two deceased individuals. The core legal question addressed was whether the Court could extend a previously granted Succession Certificate to include additional assets when some of the original next-of-kin had passed away after the grant but before the distribution of the estate, and whether strict adherence to procedural requirements regarding the substitution of legal representatives could be relaxed. The Court held that while procedural rules and the principle of prudence suggest that separate proceedings should be initiated for deceased next-of-kin, the Court possesses the discretion to relax these technicalities to prevent cumbersome, repetitive litigation and to alleviate the hardship of elderly and infirm survivors. The Court granted the extension of the certificate to cover all assets, provided that the petitioners subsequently regularize the beneficial interests in pending related matters. The key principle laid down is that the Court may exercise its discretion to advance the ends of justice and avoid a fetish of technicalities when no adverse claims exist.
Questions settled- Can a Succession Certificate be extended to cover newly discovered assets when some of the original next-of-kin have died after the initial grant?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to relax the requirement of furnishing a bond with sureties under Rule 400 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)?
- Is it permissible for the Court to grant an extension of a Succession Certificate to avoid the necessity of filing multiple, cumbersome applications for the same estate?
- In re: Nadir Shah Borab II Sidhwa vs Not1993 CLC 1850 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
- Imran Ayub vs Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development1993 MLD 622 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-16Read full judgment →
- Imperial Chemical Industries PLC, England vs The Registrar of Trade1993 MLD 1349 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
- Imdad and others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 98 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-20Read full judgment →
- Imamuddin vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-25Read full judgment →
- Imam All G. Kazi, Sindh Industrial Trading Estates (Gteed) Ltd. vs Provincial Ombudsman and 3 others1993 MLD 1852 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
- Ikramullah and 2 others vs Muhammad Tufai L1993 CLC 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
- Ihsan Ellahi vs Abdul Sattar1993 CLC 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Hussain Trading Co. vs M/s. Jalal Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd.1993 CLC 2391 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Humair Associates- vs Dilshad Hussain Siddiqi and 9 others1993 MLD 1751 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
- House Building Finance Corporation vs Mrs. Sarwar Jehan1993 PLD Karachi 21 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- House Building Finance Corporation vs (Mrs.) Sarwar JehanK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 30 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
- Hoechst Pakistan Limited and another vs Messrs Mian & Brothers and 41993 MLD 620 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- Hidayatullah and 10 others vs Shamimuddin and 14 others1993 MLD 993 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application filed by the defendant No.1 under section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of proceedings in a suit arising out of share-sale agreements containing an arbitration clause. The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking declarations, injunctions, and damages against multiple defendants, alleging breach of contract and failure of consideration regarding the sale of shares in Bahawalpur Textile Mills Limited, and challenging the election of certain directors. The core legal question was whether an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by only one of several contracting defendants should be granted to stay the suit, given the presence of other defendants and distinct causes of action, and the potential for conflicting decisions. The court held that where an application under section 34 is made by a sole defendant and staying the suit would split the proceedings and create an obvious possibility of conflicting decisions between the arbitrator and the court regarding the same underlying issues, the court's discretion under section 34 ought not to be exercised in favor of the applicant. The key principle laid down is that stay of a suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act will be refused when only one of multiple defendants applies for it and bifurcation of proceedings would lead to conflicting decisions and render the process futile.
Questions settled- Can a suit be stayed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act upon the application of only one of several defendants?
- Should an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act be refused when there is a clear possibility of conflicting decisions between the court and the arbitrator?
- Does the inclusion of multiple defendants and distinct causes of action affect the enforcement of an arbitration clause under section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
- Hidayat Ullah vs Government of Sindh1993 PLD Karachi 807 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
- Hazir (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1993 MLD 1308 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff, a catering contractor, filed a suit challenging the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation's (PIAC) decision to award a new catering contract to a competitor without adhering to established tender procedures, alleging mala fides and discriminatory treatment. The core legal questions concerned whether the PIAC, as a statutory body, is bound by its internal procurement manuals and whether the plaintiff possessed a valid cause of action to challenge the contract award process. The Court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, finding that the PIAC's deviation from its own procurement procedures and the lack of transparency warranted an interim injunction restraining the formalization of the contract with the competitor. The Court laid down the principle that statutory bodies, regardless of whether their internal procurement manuals possess strict statutory force, are obligated to act with fairness, transparency, and in accordance with natural justice. Arbitrary exercise of power in contract awards is subject to judicial review, as qualified contractors have a right to be considered fairly, and public bodies must avoid discriminatory practices to ensure compliance with the protection of law.
Questions settled- Is a statutory body bound to follow its internal procurement manuals even if they lack strict statutory force?
- Does a qualified contractor have a right to be considered fairly for a contract awarded by a statutory body?
- Can a court grant an interim injunction against a statutory body if the tender process appears arbitrary or discriminatory?
- Does a suit challenging a contract award process disclose a cause of action when the plaintiff alleges violation of established procurement procedures?
- Hayat Khan vs Muhammad Farooq and 9 others1993 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Criminal Revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar, which granted an accused person permanent exemption from personal appearance during a criminal trial. The applicant, the complainant in the case, argued that the exemption was improper, particularly as no medical evidence was provided to support the accused's claims of illness. The core legal question was whether a trial court possesses the authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant an accused a blanket exemption from personal attendance for the entire duration of a trial. The High Court held that while the trial court has the power to dispense with an accused's presence under Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, such exemption is intended for short-term absences due to incapacity, not for the entire course of the trial. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, establishing the principle that permanent exemption from personal appearance for the duration of a trial is not permissible under the law, and the accused must seek exemption on a case-by-case basis for specific hearings.
Questions settled- Can a trial court grant an accused person a permanent exemption from personal appearance for the entire duration of a criminal trial?
- Does Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow for the dispensing of an accused's personal attendance for the whole course of a trial?
- Is it legally permissible to grant an exemption from personal appearance to an accused without medical evidence supporting their incapacity?
- Hatimbhai vs Karimbhai1993 MLD 988 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a common order passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing applications under Order 34, Rule 14(1) and section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for recovery of money based on promissory notes and an equitable mortgage. The core legal question was whether Order 34, Rule 14, C.P.C. bars the execution of a money decree against mortgaged property when the underlying claim involved a mortgage, even if the decree itself was passed strictly on promissory notes under Order 37. The court held that since the suit involved distinct and separate claims and the decree was passed exclusively as a simple money decree on the basis of the promissory notes rather than in enforcement of the mortgage, the bar under Order 34, Rule 14 was not attracted. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of the application under section 12(2), finding no misrepresentation or lack of jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that Order 34, Rule 14 applies strictly where a mortgagee obtains a decree in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage, and does not restrict execution where a simple money decree is granted on independent negotiable instruments.
Questions settled- Does Order 34, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar the execution of a simple money decree against mortgaged property when the suit was originally framed on both promissory notes and a mortgage?
- Whether a decree granted under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of promissory notes constitutes a decree arising under a mortgage for the purposes of Order 34, Rule 14?
- Can provisions of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be invoked to challenge an order where there is no evidence of misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction?
- Hassan Mehdi and 3 others vs The State and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 175 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
- Hamid Fazal vs Vice-Chancellor, Karachi University, Karachi and 21993 MLD 1702 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- Hamid Ali Khan vs Jamil Ahmed Khan1993 MLD 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
- Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan vs Mohammad YousufK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 103 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
- Haji Tooti Bashar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1448 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant before the S.D.M. Orangi under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered vide F.I.R. No. 91/1992 at Police Station Manghopir. The core legal question was whether a trial Court can legally take cognizance of an offence under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a police challan/report rather than a written complaint by the public servant concerned. The Sindh High Court held that under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their superior, and a police report submitted under section 173 cannot be treated as a complaint. Consequently, taking cognizance on a police challan violates the law, and the pending proceedings were quashed as an abuse of the court's process.
Questions settled- Can a trial court take cognizance of an offence under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code upon a police challan instead of a written complaint?
- Whether a police report submitted under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be treated as a complaint under the law?
- Does taking cognizance contrary to the bar contained in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure render the proceedings an abuse of the process of the court?
- Haji Noor Muhammad Jamote and another vs Osman and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 26 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenged the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the appellate court, which had decreed the respondents' suit for declaration, injunction, and cancellation of a sale deed on grounds of fraud and lack of consideration. The core legal question was whether the respondents had successfully discharged the burden of proving fraud in the execution of the sale deed, and whether the courts below had misread the evidence. The High Court held that the respondents failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of fraud or mental incapacity of the deceased vendor, noting that the respondents' own witnesses admitted the vendor was actively managing his affairs and collecting rent until his death. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving fraud lies squarely on the party alleging it. Furthermore, the Court clarified that a minor is not legally incapacitated from being a transferee of property. Consequently, the revision application was accepted, the concurrent findings were set aside due to misreading of evidence, and the respondents' suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a Revisional Court have the authority to interfere with concurrent findings of fact if they are based on a misreading of evidence?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when fraud is alleged in the execution of a registered sale deed?
- Is a minor legally capable of being a transferee of property under the Contract Act 1872?
- Does the registration of a document under the Registration Act 1908 raise a presumption of its genuineness?
- Haji Muhammad Sulleman and another vs Ghulam Muhammad and 21993 CLC 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Suleman and 2 others vs The Directorgeneral and Controller of Weights and Measures and 2 others1993 CLC 2041 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-13Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Jawed vs Government of Sindh Local Government1993 MLD 617 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Ibrahim Jalalani vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain and another1993 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad and another vs Noor Hussain Alwani and others1993 P Cr. L J 767 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concerns the interpretation of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the initiation of proceedings for an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicants were prosecuted for allegedly filing a false complaint to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could take cognizance of an offence under Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, based on a report filed by an S.H.O. rather than a complaint by the public servant to whom the false information was originally directed. The Court held that the provisions of Section 195(1)(a), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, are mandatory, requiring a complaint in writing by the public servant concerned or their superior. Since the complaint was filed by an S.H.O. instead of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. The Court quashed the pending proceedings, affirming that failure to comply with mandatory statutory conditions for cognizance renders subsequent proceedings illegal.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a police report rather than a complaint by the public servant concerned?
- Are the provisions of Section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandatory for the initiation of prosecutions for offences under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the failure to fulfill a mandatory condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court render the subsequent proceedings illegal?
- Haji Mohammad Ibrahim Jalalandi vs Syed Iftikhar Hussain And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 353 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Muhammad Soomro vs Karachi Metropolitan1993 MLD 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-27Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Ahmad Lakhesar vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 468 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Abdul Wahid vs Hoechst Pakistan Limited and another1993 CLC 1291 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal by the defendant challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge granting conditional leave to defend a recovery suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, subject to furnishing security. The respondents filed the suit based on unpaid invoices and dishonoured cheques issued by the appellant. The core legal question concerns whether leave to defend a summary suit should be granted conditionally or unconditionally when a plausible defence is raised. The Sindh High Court held that once the court is satisfied that the defendant has raised a plausible or good defence requiring trial, leave to defend cannot be withheld, and imposing conditions such as furnishing security is unwarranted if the defence is not patently sham. The court established that the stage of proof arises only after leave to defend is granted, and the imposition of the condition requiring security was removed, allowing the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether leave to defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 should be granted conditionally or unconditionally?
- Can a court impose the condition of furnishing security when a defendant raises a plausible defence in a summary suit?
- At what stage must the truth and good faith of facts alleged by a defendant seeking leave to defend be tested?
- Haji Abdul Karim vs Builders Incorporated and others1993 MLD 269 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-21Read full judgment →
- Hafiz Mustafa Khan and 9 others vs Haji Bundoo Khan and 2 others1993 PLD Karachi 805 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arose from a dispute regarding the management and ownership of a mosque and its properties. The respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration that a trust registered by the applicants in 1983 was illegal and unauthorized, as the mosque had been constructed in 1967 and its plot allotted directly to the mosque in 1971. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The applicants challenged the appellate court's judgment under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing that the trust itself was a necessary party and had not been impleaded. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that once a building is dedicated as a mosque and prayers are offered, it becomes a Waqf by user under Muhammadan Law, vesting ownership in Almighty Allah. Consequently, no individual can claim ownership to create a trust under the Trusts Act 1882, which requires an owner to dedicate property. The court ruled the trust ab initio void and held that failure to implead the trust was not fatal as the trustees were parties.
Questions settled- Can a valid private trust be created over a mosque property that has already become Waqf by user under Muhammadan Law?
- Does the failure to implead a trust as a formal party defeat a suit if all the trustees have been actively joined as defendants?
- Can a trust be legally constituted under the Trusts Act 1882 without the creator having lawful ownership of the subject property?
- Habib vs Abdul Ghani1993 MLD 396 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd. vs M/s. Farooq Compost Fertilizer Corporation Ltd.1993 MLD 1571 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a recovery suit filed by the appellant-bank against the respondent for outstanding dues under a Finance Agreement. The Banking Tribunal decreed the suit but disallowed the bank's claims for mark-up beyond the transaction period and for liquidated damages. The core legal questions concerned whether the bank could claim mark-up beyond the stipulated contract period and whether liquidated damages were recoverable without proof of actual loss or outside the statutory framework. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that "finance" under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, does not inherently carry returns beyond the stipulated period unless expressly covenanted. The Court emphasized that Islamic principles, as supported by the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991, mandate the elimination of Riba and the promotion of trade. Furthermore, the Court ruled that liquidated damages under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, require proof of actual loss, and that the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, provides a specific, discretionary mechanism for imposing penalties only after a decree remains unsatisfied, precluding other claims for liquidated damages.
Questions settled- Can a bank claim mark-up beyond the stipulated transaction period in a finance agreement?
- Is proof of actual loss required to claim liquidated damages under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872?
- Does the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, allow for liquidated damages outside the specific mechanism provided for post-decree default?
- How should courts interpret statute-law in light of the Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991?
- Habib Bank Limited, Karachi vs Firdous Textile Mills Ltd. and another1993 MLD 1318 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-02Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Kasem Suleman & Abdul Suleman & Co. and 31993 MLD 630 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-05Read full judgment →
- Habib and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 444 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
- Habib And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 121 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-07Read full judgment →
- Gulzar vs S.D.M, Rohri and another1993 P Cr. L J 100 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Gul Saeed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1754 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-11Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad and others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad1993 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- Grinnell Corporation vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks1993 CLC 2201 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This miscellaneous appeal was filed against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, who refused the registration of the appellant's trade mark 'GRINNELL' in Class 1 for chemicals and adhesives used in the fire extinguisher industry. The respondent had refused registration on the ground that 'GRINNELL' phonetically conflicted with the registered trade mark 'GRIND WELL', which was registered for ceramic glazing, reasoning that the consonants 'D' and 'W' in 'GRIND WELL' would be slurred. The High Court of Sindh evaluated the phonetic characteristics of both marks and the nature of the industries in which they are used. The Court held that there was neither phonetic similarity nor industry-wise similarity between 'GRIND WELL' and 'GRINNELL', as the letters 'D' and 'W' have emphatic sounds and are not prone to being slurred. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned refusal order, and directed the respondent to proceed with the registration and advertisement of the appellant's trade mark.
Questions settled- Whether the trade mark 'GRINNELL' is phonetically similar to the registered trade mark 'GRIND WELL' so as to cause confusion?
- Can a trade mark registration be refused on the ground of phonetic similarity when the respective goods belong to different industries and serve different purposes?
- Do the consonant sounds 'D' and 'W' in the English language possess emphatic sounds such that they are unlikely to be slurred in pronunciation?
- Government of Sindh through Secretary, Education Department, Karachi1993 MLD 1298 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
- Glax Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited. vs Inspecting AssistantPTCL 1993 CL. 1 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulamullah vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1307 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Orangi Town, Karachi West. The applicant was facing charges under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly violating an order promulgated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a Court could take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a police report (challan) rather than a formal complaint. The High Court held that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates that for an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, cognizance can only be taken upon a written complaint. Since the definition of 'complaint' under Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 expressly excludes police reports, the proceedings initiated via a police challan were without jurisdiction and constituted an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the Court quashed the pending proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Court take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a police report?
- Does the definition of 'complaint' under Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include a police report?
- Is a proceeding initiated on a police report for an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 liable to be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ghulam Yaseen vs The StateK.L.R 1993 Shariat Cases 32 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Yaseen vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1442 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 146 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for the quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khairpur, based on a police report characterizing him as a habitual offender and bad character. The core legal question revolves around whether vague and general allegations, an order under section 112 passed without application of mind, remand without an order under section 117(3), and reliance solely on police personnel as witnesses warrant the quashment of proceedings under section 110. The court held that the continuation of proceedings under section 110 constituted an abuse of the process of the court due to the lack of specific instances, mechanical issuance of the order under section 112, and improper reliance on the sole testimony of police officers regarding general reputation. The key principles laid down are that proceedings under section 110 cannot be sustained on vague and general allegations without specific particulars, that orders under section 112 must reflect independent application of mind rather than stereo-typed forms, and that evidence of general reputation must be established through independent, respectable neighbours rather than police personnel alone.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained on vague and general allegations lacking specific particulars?
- Does the passing of an order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through a stereo-typed form without application of mind vitiate the proceedings?
- Can an order under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be based solely on the evidence of police personnel regarding general reputation?
- Is the remand of a person to custody lawful in the absence of an order under section 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ghulam Sarwar vs Municipal Corporation, Sukkur1993 PLD Karachi 415 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Abdul Latif and another1993 P Cr. L J 481 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-29Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhiuddin vs Syed Abdul Hakim and 8 others1993 MLD 2562 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad vs Government of Sindh and others1993 P Cr. L J 616 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Mohammad Memon vs Shabir Ahmed And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 83 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hyder Baluch vs Ghulam Nabi1993 MLD 386 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Dastagir and others vs Mst. Mariam and others1993 MLD 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged an order by a Single Judge who rejected a plaint in a partition suit based on the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel. The core legal question was whether a court, when considering an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, may look beyond the plaint's averments to external documents or arguments raised by the defendants. The Court held that the impugned order was erroneous. It established that for the purposes of Order VII, Rule 11, the court must exclusively examine the averments made in the plaint, accepting them as true, without considering the defendant's external evidence or arguments. The Court emphasized that defendants must file a written statement to raise defenses such as res judicata or estoppel. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the rejection order, restored the suit, and directed the defendants to file their written statements, allowing them to raise their legal defenses for subsequent determination by the trial court through appropriate issues.
Questions settled- Can a court consider external documents or evidence when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a defendant permitted to raise preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of a suit before filing a written statement?
- Must a court accept all allegations in a plaint as true when determining an application for its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the correct procedure for a court to follow when a defendant raises preliminary legal defenses like res judicata or estoppel?
- Ghous Bux vs Altaf Hussain and others1993 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Civil Revision Application challenged an appellate court’s decision to remand a suit concerning a disputed mutation entry. The applicant sought a declaration that a mutation entry was fraudulent and void, which the trial court initially decreed. However, the appellate court remanded the matter, citing the need for additional issues regarding jurisdiction and land sale. The High Court examined whether the remand was justified. It held that the trial court failed to address the jurisdictional bar under Section 172(2)(vi) of the Land Revenue Act, which precludes civil courts from adjudicating matters relating to the correction of record-of-rights entries. The Court observed that the plaint was defectively drafted, necessitating amendment to seek a declaration of title rather than mere cancellation of entries, thereby avoiding rejection under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. While acknowledging that appellate courts should generally decide cases on merits when evidence is available, the Court affirmed the remand order, emphasizing the necessity of framing proper issues to ensure the trial court correctly addresses jurisdictional limitations and substantive title disputes.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the correction of entries in the record-of-rights?
- Is a plaint seeking only the cancellation of a mutation entry liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Under what circumstances may an appellate court remand a case for the framing of additional issues?
- What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding jurisdictional errors?
- General, Mumtaz Ali Kalhoro And Another vs The State Bank Of Pakistan through Its Governor, And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 224 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- General Investment Limited vs Karachi Municipal Corporation and 31993 MLD 1550 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses preliminary issues in a suit challenging the legality of a bank guarantee's encashment and seeking declarations and damages. The plaintiff had failed to procure commercial conversion for a plot within a stipulated time, leading to the encashment of a bank guarantee by defendant No.4 through defendant No.3 on 3-1-1981. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 14-2-1990. The court considered whether the suit was barred by limitation and by the principle of res judicata. It held that the cause of action for declarations accrued on 3-1-1981, making Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applicable, which prescribes a six-year period. For compensation/damages, Article 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908, prescribing a three-year period for breach of contract, was found applicable, not Article 83 for indemnification. Consequently, the suit, filed beyond the three or six-year periods, was dismissed as time-barred. The court also found that the suit was not barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the previous Special Court had not decided the issues raised in the present suit.
Questions settled- When does the right to sue for declarations accrue under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Which article of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to a suit for compensation/damages arising from a breach of contract, as opposed to a contract of indemnity?
- Can a suit be considered time-barred if filed beyond the periods prescribed by Article 115 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
- Does Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bar a subsequent suit if the issues raised were not decided by a court of limited jurisdiction in a previous suit, even if some parties overlap?