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.
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone Karachi vs National1992P T D 709 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone Karachi vs Messrs May &1992 PTD 760 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 756 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-18Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 768 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi. vs GlaxoPTCL 1997 CL. 47 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Nadeem Zafar1992 PTD 336 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-24Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mehran Associates LimitedKLR 1992 Tax & Custom 36 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax Central 'B' Karachi vs M_s. Evens Medical Ltd., KarachiPTCL 1992 CL. 481 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Chilya Corrugated Board Mills Limiteds vs M. Ismail anothers1992 CLC 2524 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit filed by the plaintiff company seeking a refund of an advance payment, damages for breach of contract, and interest arising from a failed agreement for the supply of wheat straw by the defendants. The core legal questions involved whether the defendants committed a unilateral breach of the contract, whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their obligations, and how damages for breach of contract are to be proven and assessed under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872, alongside principles governing the proof of documents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a unilateral breach by the defendants or prove the market price or actual loss necessary to claim substantial damages, as both parties contributed to the delays. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim for damages but ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to the refund of their unearned advance payments, minus the value of actual supplies received, as the defendants failed to substantiate any counter-claim or loss. The court laid down key principles regarding the assessment of damages in contracts for the sale of goods, the requirement of proving market prices, and the standards for documentary proof.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff suing for breach of contract must independently establish its case and readiness to perform rather than relying solely on the absence of defence evidence?
- Can a plaintiff claim substantial damages for breach of a contract for the sale of goods without proving the prevailing market price or actual loss suffered?
- Whether a party in breach is entitled to retain advance payments when it fails to substantiate any counter-claim or actual loss suffered?
- What is the effect of exhibiting documents without objection regarding the proof of their contents and authorship?
- Chief Administrator Auqaf, Hyderabad vs Ghulam Shabbir Shah alias1992 CLC 1263 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Dadu, which had decided in favour of the respondent, challenging a notification issued by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, assuming control of certain properties allegedly attached to the Dargah of Sakhi Sikandar Bodla. The core legal question was whether the disputed properties constituted a public waqf by user or were the private personal property of the respondent and his ancestors. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant Auqaf Department failed to establish express dedication or that the properties had been used from time immemorial for religious, pious, or charitable purposes under the explanations to the relevant statute, whereas the respondent successfully proved through reliable documentary and oral evidence that the properties were private and residential. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the burden to prove waqf status shifts to the authority upon sufficient rebuttal by the claimant and must be supported by cogent evidence.
Questions settled- Whether properties claimed as private residential havelis can be taken over by the Auqaf Department as waqf property without proof of express dedication or immemorial user?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the Auqaf Department to establish waqf status once the petitioner adduces sufficient evidence rebutting the official notification?
- What constitutes waqf property by user under the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961?
- Chaman Cinema, Karachi vs Abdul Jabbar and 2 others1992 PLC 569 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- Capt. Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh And 5 Other vs Pakistan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Islamabad And 3 Other1992 PLD Karachi 190 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed before the Sindh High Court, seeking to declare the restoration of the seniority of certain cockpit crew members by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation as invalid and without lawful authority. The core legal question revolved around whether the service regulations and administrative orders governing the employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation have statutory force, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable for employment disputes involving statutory corporations in the absence of statutory rules. The court held that the regulations and administrative orders in question, lacking mandatory publication in the official gazette and presentation before the National Assembly, did not acquire statutory status. Consequently, the relationship between the corporation and its employees is governed by the simple theory of master and servant, rendering constitutional remedies unavailable. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that employees of statutory corporations lacking statutory service rules cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199.
Questions settled- Whether the service regulations of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation have the status of statutory rules?
- Can an employee of a statutory corporation invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the absence of statutory rules governing terms and conditions of service?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employment relationship between the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and its employees?
- Whether administrative orders and circulars not published in the official gazette operate as statutory rules?
- Cafe Capital Firm, Karachi. vs The Collector, Central Excise and LandPTCL 1992 CL. 121 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone-B, Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan Automobile1992 PTD 763 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-16Read full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone-a, Karachi vs Messrs Transclear Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1992 PTD 766 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-16Read full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone-a, Karachi vs Messrs Commodities Trading Ltd., Karachi1992 PTD 765 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- C.I.T., Central Zone Karachi vs Messrs J.L. Morison, Sons & Jones1992 PTD 757 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-19Read full judgment →
- Budho vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 979 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
- British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. And Another vs Messrs M.Y. Khan1992 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
- Board of Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs National Industrial(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 186) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Bi-Iagwandas Mangharam vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad Zone, Hyderabad ,1992 PTD 520 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-06Read full judgment →
- Begum Mumtaz Rlaz vs Masood Siddiqui And Another1992 PLD Karachi 26 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
- Before Mukhiar Ahmed Junejo,Saleh Muhammad vs Haroon and another1992 MLD 727 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- Before Abdul Rabin, Kazi, Zakaria Dada vs Maneck Byramji Javat1992 CLC 345 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by a plaintiff tenant seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant landlord from selling, transferring, creating third-party interests in, or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property pending the disposal of a specific performance suit. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss necessary for the grant of an interlocutory injunction, alongside the effect of pending rent proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to show a concluded contract for sale or that the offer had been duly accepted and acted upon, as subsequent lease agreements omitted sale covenants and the plaintiff continued as a tenant. The Court reaffirmed that all three ingredients of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss must co-exist, and noted that under Section 56(a) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, no injunction can be granted to restrain pending judicial proceedings in a competent court. The application was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance?
- Can an injunction be granted to restrain judicial proceedings pending before a competent court of law under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
- What are the essential ingredients that must co-exist in favor of a plaintiff to entitle them to an interim injunction during the pendency of a suit?
- Does a mere unaccepted offer or an omitted covenant in subsequent lease agreements constitute a valid and binding contract for the sale of immovable property?
- Bashir And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 83 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmad vs Abdul Majid and 7 others1992 CLC 1069 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arises from an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking the rejection of a plaint in a suit concerning an agreement of sale. The core legal questions involved the bars of limitation, proper valuation of court-fees for injunctions, and the maintainability of a suit for specific performance when an alternative remedy of damages is provided. The Court held that pleas involving mixed questions of fact and law, such as limitation and the availability of alternative remedies for specific performance, cannot be resolved without recording evidence and therefore do not warrant the rejection of the plaint. Regarding court-fees, the Court found a deficiency in the valuation of injunction reliefs but ruled that such an objection does not result in the rejection of the plaint, directing the plaintiff to submit an amended plaint with proper valuation and additional court-fees. The key principle laid down is that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on ambiguous pleas or complex factual contentions requiring evidentiary backing, and defects in court-fee valuation require an opportunity for amendment rather than immediate dismissal.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation when the determination of limitation depends on disputed agreements and requires recording of evidence?
- Does an objection regarding the under-valuation of court-fees for injunction reliefs warrant the outright rejection of a plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is a suit for specific performance automatically barred under the Specific Relief Act merely because the agreement between the parties provides for an alternative remedy of damages?
- Whether time is of the essence of the contract in respect of agreements of sale touching immovable property without a written notice fixing reasonable time?
- Basharat A. Shaikh and 2 others vs The. State1992 MLD 607 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 975 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-02Read full judgment →
- Bano vs The State Respondcnt1992 PLD Karachi 158 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
- Bangladesh Shipping Corporation vs Syed Muhammad Anwar Iqbal1992 CLC 1500 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
- Baitullah Alias Batik Alias Mastana vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1903 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-19Read full judgment →
- Bagh ALIPctitioner vs P.O. Sindh and others1992 CLC 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges the appellate judgment of the District Court, Khairpur, which dismissed the applicant's appeal against a trial court decree regarding a property dispute. The applicant sought to declare an order dated 24-10-1973 by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner as illegal and void. The core legal question was whether the First Appellate Court erred in its disposal of the appeal by failing to properly discuss evidence, specifically regarding the non-production of the original or certified copy of the impugned order, and by failing to provide reasoned findings on key issues after reversing the trial court's conclusions. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court failed to fulfill its duty to critically examine the evidence and provide a reasoned judgment, rendering its decision unsustainable. The Court reaffirmed that an appellate court must discuss the evidence on each issue and provide clear reasoning for its conclusions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Questions settled- Does an appellate court have a duty to discuss evidence on each issue and provide reasons for its findings?
- Can an appellate court set aside trial court findings on specific issues without providing reasoning or discussing the evidence?
- Can a document that was not properly produced in evidence but is available on the record be considered by the court?
- Babau Rahim Bux vs Walt Mohammad and another1992 CLC 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application challenges an appellate court judgment that set aside a trial court's order rejecting a plaint in a suit for permanent injunction. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failing to disclose a cause of action. The respondent had filed a suit claiming possession of property based on a sale agreement, despite the property being in an unauthorized area. The High Court held that the appellate court's decision to set aside the rejection of the plaint was correct. The Court reaffirmed the principle that for a plaint to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, the bar must be apparent from the averments made within the plaint itself, not from the defendant's written statement or counter-affidavit. The Court concluded that the allegations in the plaint were sufficient to disclose a cause of action, leaving the petitioner to raise their defense during the trial. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the suit's disposal.
Questions settled- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on the averments made in a written statement?
- Is a plaint liable to be rejected if the allegations contained therein, when accepted as true, disclose a cause of action?
- What is the proper scope of judicial scrutiny when determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action?
- B.P. Industries (Private) Limited Employees' Union, Karachi vs Registrar1992 PLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-09Read full judgment →
- Aziz Hussain vs Ghulam Haider and 2 others1992 CLC 1502 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali Zardari vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 540 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
- Asif Ali Zardari vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 58 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings against the applicant, Asif Ali Zardari. The applicant was charged with abetment under Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding alleged offences under Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, involving the improper sanctioning of bank loans. The core legal question was whether the mere exertion of political pressure, without evidence of conspiracy, instigation, or intentional aiding, constitutes the offence of abetment, and whether the High Court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to quash proceedings. The Court held that the charge was groundless, as the definition of abetment requires mens rea, which was not established by the allegations. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings, ruling that continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of process. The judgment affirms that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is broad and not strictly contingent upon prior exhaustion of trial court remedies.
Questions settled- Does the mere exertion of political pressure by a third party on a bank official to grant a loan constitute the offence of abetment under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, contingent upon the accused first exhausting remedies under Section 249-A or Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the definition of abetment under Section 107, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, require the presence of mens rea?
- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the charge is found to be groundless and there is no likelihood of conviction?
- Asif Ali Zardari vs Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorist1992 PLD KARACHI 430 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the refusal of jail authorities to facilitate the petitioner, a Member of the National Assembly (MNA) in judicial custody, to attend Assembly sessions. The core legal question was whether an MNA in custody possesses a constitutional or legal privilege to attend legislative sessions. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no such privilege exists under the Constitution or prevailing law. The Court analyzed Article 66 of the Constitution, determining that legislative privileges are limited to freedom of speech and voting within the House, and do not extend to an absolute right to be released from judicial custody for attendance. Furthermore, the Court noted that prior statutory exemptions regarding preventive detention had been declared repugnant to Islamic Injunctions by the Supreme Court. The ratio decidendi established that while the government may exercise discretion to facilitate an MNA's attendance, it is under no legal compulsion to do so, and members in custody remain subject to the ordinary processes of the criminal justice system.
Questions settled- Does a Member of the National Assembly have a constitutional right to attend Assembly sessions while in judicial custody?
- Does Article 66 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 grant an MNA immunity from detention for the purpose of attending legislative sessions?
- Does Section 135-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide an exemption for MNAs from detention while in custody for criminal cases?
- Is the government legally compelled to facilitate an under-trial prisoner's attendance at National Assembly sessions?
- Asif Ali Zardari vs Special Judge (Offences in Banks) And 10 Other1992 PLD Karachi 437 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged notifications issued by the Federal Government specifying the Juvenile Jail, Landhi, Karachi, as the place of sitting for Special Courts to try the petitioner in specific criminal cases. The core legal questions involved whether the relevant statutory provisions empower the Government to fix the venue for individual specific cases rather than general territorial sittings, and whether the Executive or the trial Court possesses the authority to direct a trial inside a jail. The Sindh High Court held that the enabling provisions contemplate fixing a place of sitting for Special Courts for all cases generally and reject fixing venues for particular cases. Furthermore, the court held that the decision to hold a trial in jail rests with the trial Court under section 352, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the Government lacks legal authority to issue such directions. The petition was allowed and the impugned notifications were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Government is empowered under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 and the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 to fix the venue of trial for individual particular cases or groups of cases?
- Does the Executive government have the legal competence to direct that the trial of an accused person be conducted within the precincts of a jail?
- Is the authority to decide on holding a trial in jail vested in the trial Court under section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
- Whether notifications issued by the Federal Government directing trials inside a jail without statutory backing are contrary to law and without legal effect?
- Asif Ali Zardari And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 171 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
- Ashique Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
- Ashique Hussain Chandio vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 5 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against a conviction and sentence under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The appellant was convicted by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) for possessing an unlicensed Klashnikov and bullets. The core legal questions revolved around the admissibility of the appellant's alleged confessional statement made to the police, compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding independent recovery witnesses (Mashers), and material contradictions in prosecution witnesses' statements. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant's statement was inadmissible under Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat (P.O. 10 of 1984) because he was neither an accused person nor in police custody when it was made. The Court further found non-compliance with Section 103 Cr.P.C. as the Mashers were subordinate police officials and no independent witnesses from the locality were procured, rendering the recovery doubtful. Citing material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence and acknowledging the reasonable possibility of the defense version (that the appellant was arrested en route to an examination and weapons were foisted), the Court granted the benefit of doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Questions settled- Is a statement made to a police officer by a person not yet accused of an offence or in police custody admissible in evidence?
- Does Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat (P.O. 10 of 1984) apply to statements made by a person who is not an accused or in police custody?
- Are the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring independent recovery witnesses, applicable to all police recoveries, not just those under Chapter VII of the Cr.P.C.?
- Can a conviction be sustained if there are material contradictions between the statements of the complainant and the recovery witness?
- When is an accused person entitled to the benefit of doubt in a criminal case?
- Ashique Hussain Chandio vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 251 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-17Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2083 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, charged with murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, was found to be of unsound mind and incapable of defending himself. Consequently, the Sessions Court suspended proceedings under Section 464(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted bail under Section 466, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, subject to a surety of Rs. 100,000. The applicant sought a reduction of this surety amount, arguing it was excessive. The High Court examined the nature of a bond under Section 466, which imposes onerous obligations on the surety, including the duty to properly care for the accused and prevent him from inflicting injury upon himself or others. Given these significant responsibilities and the gravity of the underlying offense, the Court held that the security amount was reasonable and refused to reduce it. Additionally, the Court clarified that a surety residing in a different province is acceptable, provided they are solvent, citing relevant judicial circulars. The application for reduction of the surety amount was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- What are the specific obligations of a surety when an accused is released due to unsound mind under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court refuse to reduce a surety amount for an accused of unsound mind if the bond requires the surety to prevent the accused from harming themselves or others?
- Is a surety residing in a different province acceptable for an accused person appearing before a court?
- Asghar Ali vs P.K. Shahaii and 2 others1992 CLC 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit involved a tenant seeking a declaration, mandatory injunction for reinstatement in a reconstructed building, and monetary compensation following eviction for reconstruction purposes. The core legal questions were whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the compensation claim was maintainable given prior litigation. The Court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, holding that the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 and the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Rent Controller regarding eviction and restoration of possession, thereby impliedly barring civil suits. Additionally, the court ruled the compensation claim barred under Order II, Rule 2(3), Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the plaintiff failed to include it in a previous suit. The judgment established that special statutes create exclusive forums for specific disputes, ousting civil court jurisdiction, and affirmed that a corporate entity’s legal obligations persist despite changes in shareholding or company name, as the entity remains the same legal person.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the restoration of possession of premises where specialized rent control legislation provides an exclusive remedy?
- Can a plaint be rejected by a court suo motu under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does a change in shareholding or company name affect the legal liability of a corporate entity for obligations incurred by its predecessor?
- Is a claim for compensation barred in a subsequent suit if it was omitted from a previous suit without the court's leave under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Asad Ali Bilgrami vs State Bank of Pakistan through Governor, State1992 CLC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
- Arshad Butt vs Manzoor Ahmad1992 CLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The respondent, a retired government servant residing in Islamabad, sought the appellant's eviction on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant challenged the eviction, alleging a lack of genuine personal need, failure to serve the mandatory statutory notice, and that the respondent had sold or intended to sell the property. The High Court observed that while Section 14 does not prescribe a specific limitation period, an unexplained delay of nearly three years after retirement militates against the genuineness of the landlord's personal need. Furthermore, the respondent failed to enter the witness box to assert his personal need on oath, and the testimony of his attorney, who lacked basic knowledge of the respondent's family and affairs, was insufficient. The Court also found that the service of the statutory notice was not proved. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the eviction order.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in filing an eviction application under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 affect the genuineness of the landlord's personal need?
- Can a landlord's personal requirement under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 be proved solely through the testimony of an attorney who is ignorant of the landlord's basic personal facts?
- Is the service of a prior written notice under Section 14(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining an eviction application?
- Arsala vs The State and another-1992 P Cr. L J 2219 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-09Read full judgment →
- Arif Rafiq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 679 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
- Aqeel Armed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 42 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-15Read full judgment →
- Applicant: Income Tax Central Zone ''B'', Karachi. vs Respondent:M/s.PTCL 1992 CL. 233 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Applicants: Bhagwandas Mangharam vs Respondent: Commissioner ofPTCL 1992 CL. 356 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Anjuman Jame Masjid Sheria Regd. vs Muhammad Ahmed Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 152 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Anisa Rehman vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 209 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Anis Ahmad and 7 others vs Habib Bank Limited, Karachi1992 CLC 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-19Read full judgment →
- Amir Jan And 4 Others vs Ali Khan And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2173 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- Amin vs Haji Abdul Sattar through Legal Heirs and 21 others1992 CLC 1428 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
- Amin vs Haji Abdul Sattar and 21 others1992 CLC 956 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
- Amiabai vs Ibrahim And 4 Other1992 PLD Karachi 270 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sought the rejection of a plaint on grounds of limitation and lack of cause of action. The dispute arose from execution proceedings where the plaintiff's application under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming independent title to property, was dismissed by the Executing Court and the appellate court as non-maintainable. The core legal question was whether this dismissal barred a subsequent suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the application for rejection of the plaint must be dismissed. It established that where an Executing Court declares an application under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 as non-maintainable, such a finding does not constitute an adjudication on merits under Rule 103. Consequently, the bar against a separate suit does not apply. The Court emphasized that an aggrieved party cannot be denied all legal remedies; if a proceeding is deemed incompetent, it cannot simultaneously be treated as a binding determination that precludes a subsequent suit.
Questions settled- Does an order dismissing an application under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of non-maintainability bar a subsequent suit under Order XXI, Rule 103, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can an Executing Court simultaneously hold that a proceeding is non-maintainable and also decide the merits of the controversy?
- Is a separate suit maintainable when an Executing Court refuses to adjudicate a third-party claim under Order XXI, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- American Cynamide Company_ vs Case Remanded. Arrow Trading1992 PLD Karachi 395 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
- Aman Ullah Khan vs Mehar Ellahi and 14 others1992 CLC 739 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of a commercial shop under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The respondents, joint owners of the building, sought an increase in rent from the appellant tenant, arguing that the existing rent was extremely low compared to the prevailing rates and that construction and maintenance costs had increased. The Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.1,200 per month. The appellant challenged this determination. The Sindh High Court examined the scope and ingredients of section 8 of the Ordinance, holding that the four factors listed for determining fair rent are distinct and independent, and the determination does not depend upon the concurrent consideration of all four factors. Finding that the evidence supported the rent fixation based on the higher rates of similar premises in the locality and the rise in construction costs, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Rent Controller's order.
Questions settled- Whether the four factors for determining fair rent under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 are distinct and independent of each other?
- Is the determination of fair rent by the Rent Controller dependent upon the simultaneous consideration of all four factors enumerated in section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- What criteria must be considered by the Rent Controller while fixing the fair rent of premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Altaf vs Delments Construction Company1992 CLC 700 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit concerns a dispute over the possession and ownership of a plot of land, wherein an intervenor sought to be impleaded as a defendant under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the intervenor qualified as a necessary or proper party to the suit and whether the phrase "questions involved in the suit" permits the introduction of new causes of action or disputes between an existing party and a third party. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the intervenor was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The ratio established that the expression "questions involved in the suit" is strictly confined to matters arising between the existing parties to the litigation. Consequently, a third party cannot be impleaded if their inclusion introduces new controversies or causes of action extraneous to the original suit. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed that a plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to litigate against parties not of their choosing, particularly when such joinder would embarrass the trial or cause prejudice.
Questions settled- Does the expression 'questions involved in the suit' under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 extend to questions between a party and a third party?
- Can a third party be impleaded in a suit if their presence introduces a new cause of action?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to be the dominus litis in a civil suit?
- Does an agreement for sale confer a right to be impleaded as a party in a suit between a lessor and a lessee?
- Altaf Parekh and Other vs M/s Delmonte Construction Company AndK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 171 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain Shamim vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 18 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain Shamim vs Not1992 PLD Karachi 91 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application under Section 185-F of the Customs Act, 1969 arose from an order of the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, which rejected the applicant's application under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to recall prosecution witnesses for cross-examination. The applicant's advocates had consecutively failed to appear during trial, leaving the applicant unrepresented and resulting in all prosecution witnesses remaining un-cross-examined. The trial court dismissed the request as belated since the matter was fixed for defence evidence. The High Court considered whether the applicant could be denied the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to procedural delay caused by counsel abandonment. Setting aside the trial court's order, the High Court held that the opportunity to cross-examine must be real, fair, and reasonable, rather than an empty formality. The Court ruled that an accused untrained in legal procedure cannot be penalised for counsel's absence, and recalling witnesses is essential for a just decision to prevent prejudice.
Questions settled- Can the trial court exercise its powers under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall prosecution witnesses at the stage of defence evidence?
- Whether an accused person can be deprived of the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses due to the non-appearance or negligence of engaged counsel?
- Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prejudice the accused where unrepresented during trial?
- Allahdino Khan vs The State1992 MLD 564 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-28Read full judgment →
- Allah Bakhsh vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
- Ali Hassan vs S.H.O. Khairpur and others-1992 P-Cr. L J 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-29Read full judgment →
- Ali Asghar vs The State.1992 P Cr. L J 1913 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for possessing forged currency notes, following a trial in which each was sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the recovery of the forged currency notes through reliable independent evidence and whether mere possession of forged notes satisfies all statutory ingredients of the offense, particularly knowledge, belief, or intent to use them as genuine. The Sindh High Court held that the recovery witnesses were unreliable, stock witnesses under police influence, and that the prosecution completely failed to prove that the appellants knew or had reason to believe the notes were forged or intended to use them as genuine. The court laid down the principle that mere possession of forged currency notes does not constitute an offence under section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, unless accompanied by proof of knowledge or reason to believe they are forged and an intention to use them as genuine, with the burden resting squarely on the prosecution.
Questions settled- Whether mere possession of forged currency notes constitutes an offence under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of knowledge or intent?
- Can a conviction under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the testimony of recovery witnesses who are shown to be of dubious character or police touts?
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused knew or had reason to believe that currency notes found in their possession were forged?
- Akhtar Alam and 3 others vs Shabbir and 5 others1992 CLC 95 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
- Akber Ali and others vs Vazir Ashique Alt and others1992 CLC 1551 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-09Read full judgment →
- Ajmal Hussain vs K.M. Hussain Darabu1992 CLC 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision was filed by the applicant/defendant challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 04-02-1991 passed by the Small Causes Court, Karachi, in a suit for recovery of professional fees. The applicant's counsel failed to appear prior to 10:15 a.m. due to pre-occupation before multiple Benches of the High Court, resulting in the ex parte decree, and the trial court subsequently rejected the applicant's application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. The core legal questions were whether counsel's pre-occupation in a superior court constituted sufficient cause for non-appearance and whether the remedies under Order IX Rule 13, Section 96, and Section 115 of the C.P.C. were concurrent. The Sindh High Court allowed the revision, holding that pre-occupation of counsel in another court was neither wilful nor intentional and constituted sufficient cause. The Court ruled that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction, set aside both the ex parte decree and the dismissal order, and remanded the suit for fresh decision on the merits.
Questions settled- Whether the pre-occupation of an advocate before the High Court constitutes sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for non-appearance before a trial court?
- Whether the remedies of an application under Order IX Rule 13, an appeal under Section 96, and a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against an ex parte decree are concurrent and not mutually exclusive?
- Ajmal Aqeel vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 155 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
- Ajmain Khan vs The Board of Intermediate Education And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 492 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
- Aijaz Alias Jajji vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 75 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
- Ahmad vs Haji Khair Muhammad1992 CLC 2504 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an order passed by the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises in question and hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide personal use. The core legal question revolves around whether a tenant paying 'Pugree' is immune from eviction on the ground of personal need, and whether the concept of 'Pugree' is recognized under the relevant rent restriction law. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 does not recognize 'Pugree' and courts cannot rewrite the statute to incorporate unprovided concepts. The key principles laid down are that payment of 'Pugree' to previous owners does not debar a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide personal need, and that the special provisions of the rent statute must be strictly construed according to their own terms without importing extra-statutory customs.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord is debarred from seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide personal need if 'Pugree' was paid to a previous owner?
- Does the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 recognize the concept of 'Pugree' as a valid defense against ejectment?
- Can a court add new provisions or re-write sections of a special statute like the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 based on local business customs?
- Ahmad Sadiq Chughtai vs Baidar Bakht Chughtai and others1992 MLD 695 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs Noor Muhammad and others1992 CLC 1921 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-24Read full judgment →
- Ahmad Ali vs Haji Usman Ghani1992 CLC 1924 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- Agricultural Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Makli (Thatta Sindh)1992 PLC 918 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
- Agha Hmi HASSANLAppeallant vs Shafiqurrehman.1992 CLC 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-27Read full judgment →
- Afzal Haider vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
- Afzal Haider vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 170 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
- Aftabuddin Qureshi vs Mst. Rachel Joseph1992 CLC 970 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-03Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmad Saeed vs QamaruddinK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 512 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- Adnan Zafar vs N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology through its Registrar, Karachi1992 CLC 2156 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-25Read full judgment →
- Abeel Badshah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1919 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Aslam Ahmed And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 138 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdullah vs Muhammad Siddique1992 CLC 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated suits regarding an agreement to sell a residential flat. The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement dated 30-11-1980, while the defendants sought a declaration that the agreement was void, recovery of possession, and damages, alleging the plaintiff breached the contract by obstructing construction work on upper floors. The core legal questions were whether time was of the essence of the contract, whether the plaintiff committed a breach by objecting to construction, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance. The Court held that the mere insertion of a time-bound term does not automatically make time the essence of a contract, especially in transactions involving immovable property where parties themselves failed to adhere to the schedule. The Court found no evidence that the plaintiff's objections were mala fide or intended to cause loss, and the defendants failed to substantiate their claims for damages. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit for specific performance in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed the defendants' suit, establishing that specific performance is appropriate when the plaintiff is ready to accept the property as it exists.
Questions settled- Does the mere insertion of a term in an agreement specifying a time for performance automatically make time the essence of the contract?
- Can a party to an agreement to sell claim damages for alleged losses without providing authentic oral or documentary evidence of those losses?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to specific performance of an agreement to sell if they are willing to accept the property in its existing condition despite initial disputes over additional construction works?
- Abdullah & Co. vs Province of Sindh And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 160 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Ibrahim And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 463 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2054 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed for the quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of an F.I.R. registered under sections 379, 411, and 109 read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings against applicants can be quashed when they were implicated mechanically upon the bare directions of a senior police officer without any supporting evidence or application of mind by the investigating officer, and whether an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be rejected solely on the ground of being premature. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution lacked any material or evidence against the applicants, and that continuing the trial amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and harassment. The Court established that section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked at any stage, including before framing a charge, and that the trial court must acquit an accused if there is no probability of conviction, rather than forcing innocent persons to face trial.
Questions settled- Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused is implicated mechanically on the directions of a senior police officer without supporting evidence?
- Whether an application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be dismissed by a trial court solely on the ground that it is premature before the recording of evidence?
- Is a police report submitted under section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid if the investigating officer fails to apply their mind regarding the sufficiency of evidence against the accused?
- Abdul Sattar And 6 Other vs Ibrahim And Othcrs1992 PLD Karachi 323 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judicial miscellaneous application was filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a compromise decree dated September 20, 1989, in a suit for specific performance. The applicants, comprising certain legal representatives and omitted female heirs of a deceased party, alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and non-joinder of necessary parties. The core legal questions centered on whether a compromise decree can be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of actual prejudice or a viable altered defense, and whether non-joinder of necessary parties mandates the automatic setting aside of a decree or if alternative relief such as modification can be granted. The Sindh High Court held that fraud or misrepresentation per se, without proof of actual detriment or disadvantage, does not warrant setting aside a decree, and that legal representatives cannot alter the irrevocable defenses originally taken. Furthermore, the court held that relief under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is discretionary and need not always entail setting aside the entire decree, as the court may fashion appropriate remedies like modification or rectification. The court partially allowed the application by ordering the omitted heirs to be inducted into the proceedings to secure their rightful shares without disturbing the underlying decree.
Questions settled- Can a decree be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for fraud or misrepresentation without showing any actual loss, detriment, or prejudice?
- Is a legal representative in a civil suit entitled to alter or raise defenses different from those originally taken by the deceased party?
- Does the omission of necessary parties from a suit invariably require the total setting aside of the resulting decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or can the court grant alternative relief such as modification?
- Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed summarily without recording evidence if the salient facts are admitted and disclose no real prejudice?
- Abdul Reheem vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 289 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Karachi Development Authority through Director1992 CLC 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak Rathore vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 39 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant, a clerk in the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for allegedly accepting illegal gratification. The prosecution case relied on a trap raid where tainted money was recovered from the appellant. However, the complainant turned hostile, and the raid supervisors, including a Magistrate and a D.S.P., did not witness the actual transaction or hear the conversation between the parties. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, noting significant evidentiary gaps and contradictions regarding the raid's execution. Furthermore, the court strongly condemned the practice of involving Magistrates in police trap operations, emphasizing that such conduct compromises judicial independence and impartiality. Relying on established precedents, the court held that the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, does not automatically establish guilt without proof that the money was accepted as illegal gratification. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Questions settled- Does the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, automatically establish the offence of bribery upon the mere possession of money?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the complainant turns hostile and the raid supervisors did not witness the actual transaction?
- Is the practice of involving Magistrates in police trap operations legally permissible and consistent with judicial independence?
- What is the standard of proof required from an accused when the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, operates against them?
- Abdul Rahim Khan And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 163 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir Shaikh vs Registrar, N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology and others1992 CLC 2222 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought admission to the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, challenging the validity of newly introduced admission categories in the university prospectus for the year 1991-92 (namely categories 10.2.1(a) and 10.2.1(c)). These categories created a separate classification for permanent residents of Karachi who had passed part of their qualifying examinations from educational institutions outside the Karachi Division, thereby restricting their general merit seats. The core legal question was whether the creation of such admission categories in the university prospectus was discriminatory, unreasonable, and violative of the fundamental right to equality and principles of policy under the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that rules contained in a university prospectus are subordinate legislation subject to judicial review against fundamental rights. The court ruled that the classification was arbitrary, lacked a rational nexus to any valid objective, and violated Article 25 and Article 37(c) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitions were accordingly allowed.
Questions settled- Whether rules framed in a university prospectus can be challenged as unconstitutional or unreasonable?
- Does the creation of a separate admission category based on the place where an educational institution is situated violate the right to equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
- When does a prospective candidate qualify as an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge university admission rules?
- Can a university classify candidates for admission without establishing a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved?
- Abdul Qadir Khokhar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 662 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadeer vs Manager Telephone Industries of Pakistan Limited & 4K.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 128 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →