Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Muhammad Naqi vs The State and 7 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadir vs The State1991 P C r. L J 4 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Musa Ansari and others vs Gul Sahib Jan Khattak and others1991 CLC 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21
  revision applicationad interim injunctioncase decidedstatus quoservice disputetemporary injunctionbalance of convenienceirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This Revision Application challenged an order passed by a Senior Civil Judge granting an ad interim injunction to maintain the status quo in a service dispute regarding seniority and promotion. The core legal question was whether a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable against an ad interim injunction order. The High Court held that an ad interim order, which effectively maintains the status quo for an indefinite period, constitutes a 'case decided' within the meaning of Section 115, C.P.C., thereby rendering it subject to revisional jurisdiction. The Court further held that the trial court acted arbitrarily by failing to apply the settled principles for granting temporary injunctions, specifically regarding the existence of a prima facie case, the nature of irreparable loss—which was merely monetary in this instance—and the balance of convenience. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the trial court ignored the mandatory requirements of Order 39, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, concerning the issuance of notice before granting injunctions against statutory authorities. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ad interim injunction order that maintains the status quo indefinitely constitute a 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a revision application maintainable against an ad interim injunction order issued by a subordinate court?
  • What are the essential factors a court must consider before granting a temporary injunction?
  • Does the failure to comply with notice requirements under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render an injunction order against a statutory authority arbitrary?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzoor and anothers vs Mst. Zeenat Begum1991 MLD 2150 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khawaja Hassan vs Karachi Development Authority1991 CLC 436 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalil And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 770 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Sidiq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1620 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Muhammad Salim1991 MLD 1390 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and others vs The State1991 MLD 496 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and others vs Muhammad Hussain and others1991 CLC 237 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque In re Petition for the Grant of Letters of Administration in Respect of Immovable and Movable Properties vs Not1991 CLC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1836 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Nasim vs Mrs. Seema Shamim and others1991 CLC 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Hafiz Abdul Malik and 2 others1991 CLC 1975 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-14
  rejection of plaintfraud and misrepresentationres judicataexecution of ejectment orderSindh Rented Premises Ordinancetenant and landlordsuppression of material facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arises from an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the defendant to reject a suit brought by a tenant challenging ejectment orders on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression of material facts regarding ownership. The core legal questions involved whether a separate civil suit is barred by section 12(2) and section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, and the principles of res judicata when orders have been finalized up to the Supreme Court. The court held that since the plaintiff withdrew prior petitions from the Supreme Court seeking to file a separate suit and because the validity of the judgment obtained by fraud constitutes an independent cause of action not directly heard and finally decided on merits in the previous appellate proceedings, the suit is neither barred by res judicata, section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, nor section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The application for rejection of the plaint was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a separate civil suit is barred under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an order is passed by the Supreme Court?
  • Does section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 bar a civil suit challenging an ejectment order obtained through fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Whether withdrawal of a review petition in the Supreme Court with the intention to file a civil suit operates as res judicata under section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an executing court go behind a decree or entertain objections regarding its validity on the ground of fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Civil Aviation Authority and 2 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 384 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikhlaq vs Sheikh Muhammad Saeed1991 CLC 2064 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Mehmooda1991 CLC 1795 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28
  Appellate CourtCode of Civil ProcedureJudgment writingMaterial irregularityRemandPartnership dissolutionSpeaking order
  Summary & questions settled

  This Revision Application challenges the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court in a suit concerning the dissolution of a partnership and rendering of accounts. The core legal question was whether the Appellate Court's judgment, which dismissed the appeal without addressing the points for determination or providing reasons for its decision, satisfied the mandatory requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court held that while substantial compliance with the procedural requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 is permissible—particularly when affirming a trial court's decision—the Appellate Court must still identify the points for determination, provide a decision on those points, and state reasons. A judgment that merely summarizes the parties' contentions without addressing the issues or the central controversy constitutes a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate decree and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the merits in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate judgment that fails to identify points for determination or provide reasons for its decision satisfy the requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is substantial compliance with Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sufficient for an appellate judgment in affirmation of a trial court's decree?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal by merely recording the contentions of the parties without addressing the issues or the central controversy?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima Haya and 3 others1991 CLC 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and 3 others vs Province of Sindh and another1991 MLD 90 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-16
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompulsory acquisitionlimitation periodreference to courtadditional compensationpotential value
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court regarding the determination of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a housing project in Sukkur. The core legal questions involved the competency of a reference regarding limitation under section 18 of the Act, the proper assessment of market and potential value of the acquired land, and the applicability of additional compensation under a provincial amendment to pending actions. The court held that a civil court or designated court cannot go behind a reference made by the Collector to examine questions of limitation, which fall within the exclusive domain of the Collector. Furthermore, the court ruled that potential value and comparable transactions must be considered for fair compensation, and that beneficial statutory amendments like additional compensation apply to pending proceedings as an appeal is a continuation of the suit. The appeal was accordingly allowed, enhancing the compensation rate and awarding damages and additional compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a designated civil court go behind a reference made by the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to determine whether the initial application was barred by limitation?
  • Whether the market value of compulsorily acquired land should be assessed by taking into consideration its potential value and future uses?
  • Does an amendment providing for additional compensation apply to pending actions and appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on material statements made during a civil trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The Collector of Customs (Preventive) and 21991 MLD 1459 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-19
  customs dutyshort-levied dutylimitation periodshow-cause noticesuo motu revisionpalpable errormisconstructioncustoms valuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerned whether the Customs Authorities could invoke the revisionary powers under Section 195 of the Customs Act 1969 to recover short-levied duty beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 32(3) of the same Act. The petitioners imported palm fatty acid consignments, paid duty, and obtained release of the goods. Show-cause notices initially alleging false statements under Section 32(2) were effectively abandoned, and subsequent notices were issued under Section 195 alleging short-levy based on price determination guidelines. The petitioners challenged these notices as time-barred under Section 32(3).

  The High Court held that Section 32 is the specific substantive provision governing the recovery of duty not levied, short-levied, or erroneously refunded. Section 195, which provides a general two-year limitation for revisionary jurisdiction, cannot be used to circumvent the specific six-month limitation period under Section 32(3) where allegations of false statements are dropped. The court declared the show-cause notices issued beyond six months to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Customs Authorities issue a show-cause notice under Section 195 of the Customs Act 1969 to recover short-levied duty after the expiration of the limitation period provided under Section 32(3)?
  • Is Section 195 of the Customs Act 1969 subject to the specific limitation provisions contained in Section 32 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • What is the applicable limitation period under Section 32(3) of the Customs Act 1969 for issuing a show-cause notice for recovery of duty short-levied due to inadvertence, error, or misconstruction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Fatavi and another vs Fakhrunnisa Begum and 51991 CLC 1930 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 4 others vs Karachi Building Control1991 CLC 1117 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan vs Manzoor Ahmad And Another1991 P Cr. L J 2177 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictioncivil nature of disputeabuse of processcriminal intimidationcheatingco-extensive powersspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a 1st Class Magistrate, initiated via an FIR alleging cheating and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature and a civil suit regarding the same property transaction is already pending. The Court held that the proceedings must be quashed, finding the FIR was lodged to coerce the applicant into withdrawing his civil suit and surrendering his rights. The allegations lacked the necessary ingredients for the charged offences, and the dispute was clearly a civil matter arising from a property transaction and a revoked power of attorney. The Court established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is co-extensive with the trial court's power under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, criminal proceedings cannot be utilized as an instrument of harassment or coercion to settle civil disputes, and where an FIR on its face fails to disclose an offence, the High Court will intervene to prevent abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is co-extensive with the trial court's powers under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed if the underlying dispute is purely of a civil nature?
  • Does the mere pendency of a civil suit bar the initiation of criminal proceedings for the same transaction?
  • Is an FIR liable to be quashed if it is used as a tool for coercion and harassment rather than for the prosecution of a genuine criminal offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon Usman vs Rizwan Cooperative Housing Society1991 CLC 1917 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-04
  rejection of plaintcooperative societiesouster of jurisdictionmembership disputetouching the business of the societystatutory noticeregistrar nominee award
  Summary & questions settled

  This decision by the Sindh High Court arises from an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by defendant No. 2 seeking rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the membership status of defendants Nos. 2 to 10 in a cooperative housing society and seeking a declaration that orders and awards passed by the Nominee and Registrar of Cooperative Societies were illegal and without jurisdiction. The primary legal issue was whether a dispute regarding whether a person is or is not a member of a cooperative society constitutes a dispute 'touching the business of the society' within the scope of Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925, thereby barring the civil court's jurisdiction. The High Court held that a dispute regarding membership status directly touches the business of the society. Because the issue of membership was explicitly referred to and decided by the Registrar under statutory procedures, Section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts to question such awards. Additionally, non-compliance with statutory notice under Section 70 further barred the suit. Consequently, the High Court rejected the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dispute concerning the membership status of a person in a cooperative society constitutes a dispute touching the business of the society under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  • Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging an award or decision passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on a dispute referred under Section 54 in light of Section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  • Does failure to issue statutory notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 render a suit against a society liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and others1991 MLD 397 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-19
  Constitutional petitionCustoms ActRailways Policeentrustment of powersquashment of FIRunlawful seizurewithout jurisdictiondelegation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the registration of an FIR under Section 156(8)(89) of the Customs Act 1969 and the seizure of refined silver under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Pakistan Railways Police. The central legal issue was whether officers of the Pakistan Railways Police had jurisdiction to exercise the powers of customs officers to seize alleged smuggled goods and register a case under the Customs Act 1969. The High Court examined Section 6 of the Customs Act 1969 and Notification No. S.R.O. 913(I)/86, which explicitly excluded officers of the Pakistan Railways Police from the entrustment of customs functions. Holding that the Customs Act 1969 is a complete code creating its own procedure and functionaries, the Court declared that officers not lawfully entrusted under Section 6 lacked authority to act. The Court quashed the FIR and ordered the immediate return of the seized silver.

  Questions settled

  • Whether officers of the Pakistan Railways Police are authorized to exercise the powers of customs officers under the Customs Act 1969 when explicitly excluded by notification under Section 6?
  • Can an FIR and investigation under the Customs Act 1969 be quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution if initiated by officers lacking statutory jurisdiction?
  • Whether goods seized by an unauthorized police agency under Section 550 Cr.P.C. for alleged customs offences must be returned to the owner.
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haneef vs Abdul Hakeem and 2 others1991 CLC 758 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-02
  Cooperative Societies Actarbitration awardproperty disputeencroachmentappellate jurisdictionconstitutional petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns a property dispute between two brothers regarding 12 square yards of land within a housing society. Following an arbitration award under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, which favored the petitioner, the respondent appealed to the Deputy Registrar, who set aside the award. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that no appeal lies against an arbitration award under the Act. The High Court held that the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 does not provide for an appeal against an award rendered by a panel of arbitrators under Section 54. The Court clarified that the only available remedy is under Section 54-A, which allows the Registrar to modify, correct, or remit the award, or set it aside and refer the dispute back to arbitration. The Registrar lacks the authority to decide the dispute finally upon setting aside an award. Consequently, the Court declared the Deputy Registrar’s order without lawful authority and remanded the matter to be treated as an application under Section 54-A, directing a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal maintainable against an award given by a panel of arbitrators under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  • What is the scope of the Registrar's power under Section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 when setting aside an arbitration award?
  • Can the Registrar decide a dispute finally after setting aside an arbitration award under Section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Taqi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 963 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11
  quashment of proceedingscivil liabilitybreach of contractcheatingcriminal breach of trustabuse of processpremature applicationguarantor liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant filed an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the applicant, acting as a guarantor, failed to return a loan and complete a construction contract. The trial court had rejected the applicant's acquittal application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as premature because charges had not been framed and a co-accused was absconding. The High Court held that a Magistrate possesses the power under Section 249-A to acquit an accused at any stage of the case, even before framing charges, if the allegations are groundless. The Court ruled that a mere breach of contract or failure to repay a loan does not constitute a criminal offense unless accompanied by mens rea. Distinguishing civil liability from criminal liability, the Court concluded that using criminal machinery to pressure recovery of civil dues is an abuse of process and quashed the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be rejected as premature solely because charges have not yet been framed?
  • Does a mere breach of contract or failure to repay a loan amount to criminal offenses under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the dispute is purely of a civil nature?
  • Is the presence of an absconding co-accused a bar to deciding an acquittal application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the appearing accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Durez vs Muhammad Din1991 MLD 1808 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Liaqat Ali1991 MLD 1070 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-27
  first appealrecovery of moneydisputed signaturehandwriting expertappraisal of evidenceburden of proofcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed a first appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the dismissal of his civil suit seeking recovery of money from his former son-in-law (the respondent). The core legal question revolved around whether the appellant successfully established that he advanced money to the respondent for purchasing a plot and constructing a house thereon, specifically concerning the proof of a disputed receipt and signatures. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred in concluding that the plaintiff was legally bound to seek a handwriting expert's opinion to prove a disputed signature, and found that the court itself can evaluate and compare signatures using admitted documents on record. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, granting a decree for the substantiated portion of the claim based on the proved receipt and corroborative evidence, while dismissing the unproven construction costs. The key principle laid down is that a party is not legally obligated to refer a disputed signature to a handwriting expert, and the court is fully competent to form its own opinion by comparing disputed signatures with admitted signatures on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party legally required to move the court to refer a disputed signature to a handwriting expert?
  • Can a court of law form its own opinion on a disputed signature by comparing it with admitted signatures on the record?
  • Whether an adverse presumption can be drawn against a party for failing to apply for a handwriting expert's opinion?
  • Does the failure to examine authors of private receipts for material and labor invalidate a claim for recovery of construction expenses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Chuttal vs The State1991 MLD 392 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Chottey Khan vs Muhammad Munir Khan and 2 others1991 PLD Karachi 331 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State1991 MLD 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs Rahim Dino and another1991 MLD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone East, Karachi1991 PTD 658 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim Jamali and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 983 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2333 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1991 PLD Karachi 266 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1991 MLD 1676 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Abdul Majeed1991 CLC 481 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13
  Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979ejectmentdefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide requirementcomparison of signaturesestoppel of tenantexpert opinionadverse inference
  Summary & questions settled

  This statutory appeal was filed under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 by the appellant-tenant against the Rent Controller's eviction order passed on grounds of default in rent, bona fide personal requirement, and the landlord's attainment of sixty years of age. The appellant challenged the default, alleging rent payment via a disputed receipt, and argued that the Rent Controller erred by comparing disputed signatures without an expert. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the court is fully competent to compare disputed signatures with admitted ones even without expert testimony. The Court held that irregular rent payments or landlord's forbearance do not alter the tenant's legal obligation to tender rent monthly. Additionally, unpleaded claims of expenditure cannot be considered, and under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord's title during the tenancy. Personal bona fide requirement was adequately established.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court or Rent Controller compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures without the aid of an expert under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Does a landlord's acceptance of rent at irregular intervals establish a legal practice absolving the tenant from paying rent monthly?
  • Can a tenant lead evidence on a claim for adjustment of construction expenses if such a plea was not raised in the written statement?
  • Is a tenant estopped under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 from challenging the title of the landlord who inducted him into possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Mughal vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 397 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and others vs Jethanand and others1991 CLC 400 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 461 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam and 3 others vs Directorgeneral/Commissioner1991 CLC 885 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif and anothers vs Chairman, Railway Board and another1991 CLC 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and 2 others1991 PLD Karachi 281 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and anothers vs Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. and another1991 MLD 2037 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Mughal vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 780 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30
  special court jurisdictionsuppression of terrorist activitiesunlicensed weaponarms ordinancestatutory interpretationremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, for the possession of an unlicensed mouser pistol under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the possession of a standard pistol falls within the scope of 'light or heavy automatic or semi-automatic weapons' as defined in Schedule 'C' of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1990, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Special Court. The Court held that a pistol is distinct in mechanism, caliber, and performance from sophisticated assault weapons like Kalashnikovs or G-111 rifles and does not fall within the ambit of the Schedule. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to try the offense. The key principle laid down is that the jurisdiction of Special Courts under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act is strictly limited to the specific categories of weapons enumerated in the Schedule, and ordinary firearms such as pistols do not constitute terrorist-related weaponry for the purpose of such special jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the possession of a standard pistol fall within the scope of Schedule 'C' of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1990?
  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1990 have jurisdiction to try cases involving ordinary pistols?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for an appellate court when a trial court is found to have lacked jurisdiction to try an offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Chaudhry Gulzar Ahmad1991 CLC 1850 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-10
  ejectmentrent controlbona fide requirementdefault in rentlandlord-tenant disputeburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant-tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's personal requirement for business expansion. The core legal question is whether the landlord sufficiently established the bona fide nature of his personal requirement and the alleged default in rent. The Court held that the landlord's mere assertion of a need for business expansion, without providing concrete details regarding the nature of the business, current accommodation, or the necessity for additional space, is insufficient to prove bona fide requirement. Furthermore, regarding the alleged default, the Court found that the tenant's actions—including the tender of rent via money order and subsequent deposit in court—demonstrated bona fides, and the delay in payment was excusable. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment order. The key principle laid down is that a landlord must provide specific, verifiable evidence to satisfy the court that a claim of personal requirement is bona fide and not merely a pretext for eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord's mere assertion of personal requirement for business expansion sufficient to justify an ejectment order?
  • Does a tenant's deposit of rent in court, following a landlord's refusal of a money order, demonstrate bona fides sufficient to excuse a minor delay in payment?
  • Must a landlord provide specific evidence of business expansion and existing accommodation to prove a bona fide personal requirement for rented premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Abdul Qayyum1991 CLC 442 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-05
  leave to defendsummary suitpromissory noteunconditional leavestay of suitOrder II Rule 2Section 10 CPCforgery
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose out of an application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a summary suit based on an alleged promissory note and receipt for Rs. 15,00,000. The defendant father challenged the authenticity of the documents, alleging forgery, discrepancy in signatures, lack of revenue stamp endorsement, failure to produce originals under Order VII Rule 14, and suppression of a previously instituted suit between the parties arising from the same transaction. The defendant also sought a stay of the summary suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court granted unconditional leave to defend, holding that where the plausibility of the plaintiff's claim is doubtful and appears frivolous or vexatious, unconditional leave must be granted. The Court further refused to stay the subsequent suit under Section 10, reasoning that testing the suit against the bar of Order II Rule 2 is a superior norm that must precede any stay.

  Questions settled

  • Is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to defend under Order XXXVII CPC when the plaintiff's claim appears prima facie doubtful, frivolous, or vexatious?
  • Can a court decline to stay a subsequently instituted suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the suit's maintainability is fundamentally questionable under Order II Rule 2 of the Code?
  • Whether the omission to sue on a promissory note in an earlier suit based on a collateral agreement executed on the same date creates a potential bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC in a subsequent suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi1991 PLC 325 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis vs Mst. Akhtar Jehan Begum1991 MLD 1386 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27
  murderdeath sentenceinterested witnessesindependent corroborationmedical evidencecontradictory testimonyenmitycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as handed down by the trial court. The core legal question revolved around whether the conviction could be sustained based on the testimony of interested, inimical, and related eye-witnesses without independent corroboration, and in light of contradictions with medical evidence regarding a purported dying declaration. The Sindh High Court held that the ocular testimony was unreliable, being contradicted by the medical evidence, and that the failure of the prosecution to examine independent witnesses from the vicinity—despite admitting that numerous persons arrived at the scene—rendered the case against the appellants doubtful. The court established the principle that where eye-witnesses are closely related and inimically disposed toward the accused, and where deep-rooted enmity and multiple litigations exist between the parties, independent corroboration and the examination of unbiased local witnesses are mandatory to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of interested and inimical witnesses when independent witnesses available at the scene are not examined?
  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony regarding an alleged dying declaration and the medical opinion that the victim was unconscious render the prosecution case doubtful?
  • Can recoveries of weapons that are not blood-stained serve as valid corroboration of interested ocular evidence in a capital case?
  • Whether previous litigations and deep-rooted enmity between parties necessitate independent corroboration before relying on prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd.s vs Pakistan Insurance1991 CLC 988 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and anothers vs Ali Azhar Nasir1991 MLD 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Ahmad Khan vs Messrs Taufiq Engineering Works1991 CLC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementretired government servanttenancy bifurcationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant landlord filed an ejectment application under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking the eviction of the respondents from three inter-connected shops on the ground of personal and his children's requirement following his retirement from Government service. The Rent Controller held the landlord entitled to only one shop and gave the respondents the option to choose which shop to vacate. Both parties filed appeals. The core legal question was whether a landlord invoking section 14 can claim more than one premises at the same time and whether the tenancy of inter-connected shops can be bifurcated. The Sindh High Court dismissed both appeals, holding that the landlord's requirement under section 14 must be restricted to one premises to prevent abuse, and the Rent Controller was justified in granting ejectment for one shop while leaving the option of which shop to vacate to the tenant to protect their business. The key principle laid down is that summary ejectment under section 14 is limited to a single premises, and where multiple interconnected shops are let under a single tenancy, the court may restrict eviction to one shop with the option of selection given to the tenant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord within the purview of section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is entitled to file an ejectment application in respect of more than one premises at the same time?
  • Whether the bona fides of a landlord are required to be proved in the same manner under section 14 as in a case under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the Rent Controller can bifurcate inter-connected shops held under a single tenancy and grant ejectment in respect of only one shop?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Shaikh Nasiruddin1991 MLD 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17
  rent defaultstatutory tenantfixed deposit adjustmenttenancy agreement expiryeviction orderadmissibility of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, which directed the eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment for January, February, and March 1980. The core legal questions were whether a fixed deposit held by the landlord could be adjusted against rent arrears to negate the default, and whether the terms of a tenancy agreement continue to operate after the agreement's expiry. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant committed a clear default. The Court affirmed the settled principle that terms of a tenancy agreement remain operative after the expiry of the specified period unless varied by mutual consent. Furthermore, the Court held that a fixed deposit held by a landlord is not adjustable against rent arrears, as it is intended to cover potential damages or dues upon the tenant vacating the premises. Finally, the Court ruled that evidence contradicting the pleadings in the written statement is inadmissible, and delayed payments made via money order after the default occurred do not absolve the tenant of liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiry of a tenancy agreement terminate the operative terms and conditions incorporated therein?
  • Can a fixed deposit held by a landlord be adjusted against rent arrears to avoid a finding of default?
  • Is a tenant's evidence that contradicts their written statement admissible in rent proceedings?
  • Does the payment of rent via money order after the institution of an eviction case absolve a tenant of prior default?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Achar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 522 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-05
  murderappellant convictionocular testimonychance witnessinterested witnessrecoverybenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under sections 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside a suo motu revision for sentence enhancement. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, accompanied by others, visited the complainant's house to retrieve his wife and, upon refusal, fired a shot at the complainant and subsequently killed the deceased minor. The core legal questions revolved around the credibility of interested and chance witnesses, the reliability of retracted recoveries, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitnesses—being either interested or chance witnesses—improvised material details, contradicted each other, and failed to tell the truth, while the alleged recovery of the weapon was discredited by the mashir himself. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, and recalled the enhancement notice, laying down that testimonies of partisan witnesses with shifting stances and tainted recoveries cannot sustain a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of interested or chance witnesses whose statements contain material contradictions?
  • Does the lack of enmity against an accused person guarantee that an eyewitness is speaking the absolute truth?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when the mashir witness testifies that the articles were shown and sealed at the police station?
  • How should the court evaluate the credibility of prosecution witnesses who shift their versions of the incident between the First Information Report and the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abobakar vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Home1991 MLD 2596 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Razzak vs Zafarullah Khan1991 MLD 500 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mubeena Begum and 5 others vs Deputy Land Commissioner, Khairpur1991 CLC 918 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida Begum vs Muhammad Saeed through L.Rs, and 2 others1991 MLD 1312 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30
  rejection of plaintnatural justiceres judicatacivil court jurisdictionmala fidesnullityfresh cause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an appellate court order that set aside the trial court's rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The dispute arose from the removal of a cabin, where the respondent sought a declaration that the Mayor's order allowing the cabin was valid and that a subsequent order by the Appellate Tribunal was void due to lack of notice and mala fides. The applicant argued that the suit was barred by Section 117 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 and Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the appellate court failed to consider evidence. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint, the court must exclusively consider the averments in the plaint and documents filed therewith, disregarding the defendant's pleadings or external evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that statutory bars on jurisdiction do not protect orders passed in violation of natural justice, which are nullities, and that res judicata does not apply where a suit arises from a fresh cause of action.

  Questions settled

  • What material is a court permitted to consider when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a statutory bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts apply to orders passed in violation of the principles of natural justice?
  • Can the doctrine of res judicata be invoked when a subsequent suit is based on a fresh cause of action that did not exist during the previous litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umme Laila vs Moiz Hussain1991 CLC 385 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tilyan vs Moula Bux and another1991 CLC 1729 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Swaleha Khatoon vs The Trustees of Hussaini Mission Trust1991 MLD 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamim Akhtar vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahana Jawed vs Haroon1991 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sarwary Begum vs Muhammad Tufail and others1991 MLD 2131 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sara Bai vs Kassam and others1991 CLC 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
• Su Leman And Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-27
  revision applicationconviction alterationnon-examination of investigating officermaterial contradictionscriminal trialprejudice to accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, which maintained the sentence of the applicants while altering their conviction from Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer by the prosecution causes serious prejudice to the accused by depriving them of the right to cross-examine and confront the witness with material contradictions in the evidence. The court noted precedents establishing that failure to examine the Investigating Officer is a serious defect. The judgment highlights the legal implications of omitting material witnesses and the effect of such omission on criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer seriously prejudice the rights of the accused?
  • Can an appellate court maintain a sentence while altering a conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the production and examination of the Investigating Officer a necessary requirement in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Begum vs Muhammad Ali1991 MLD 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Begum vs Mohammad AliK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 449 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahar Begum vs Salahuddin1991 MLD 1594 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-18
  rejection of plaintagreement to sellpermanent injunctiondeclaratory reliefSpecific Relief ActTransfer of Property Actpeaceful possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the rejection of a plaint by the trial court in a suit seeking a declaration of title and a permanent injunction regarding immovable property. The trial court had rejected the plaint on the premise that a claim for declaration based solely on an agreement to sell was legally unsustainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court examined whether the rejection was proper. The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part; it must be accepted or rejected as a whole. Consequently, even if the declaratory relief faced technical hurdles, the claim for permanent injunction based on peaceful possession remained maintainable. The Court further clarified that while a bare agreement to sell does not create an interest in property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, specific clauses within such agreements may indeed create such interests or charges. Thus, the trial court erred in summarily rejecting the entire plaint, and the matter was remanded for trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected in part if one of the reliefs claimed is legally barred?
  • Does a contract of sale of immovable property always fail to create an interest in or charge on the property?
  • Is a suit for permanent injunction maintainable based on peaceful possession even if title is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sabihia And Another vs Moosa And Another1991 PCr.LJ 2165 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rehana vs Arshad Khan and 2 others1991 MLD 1395 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Sultana vs Mrs. Muhammad Hasan Khan and 9 others1991 CLC 632 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23
  rent evictiondefault in payment of rentbona fide personal requirementlandlord-tenant disputeburden of proofwaiver of rentmoney order payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller, Karachi, dismissing an eviction application filed by the appellant-landlady against her tenants on grounds of default and personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether the tenants committed default in rent payment and whether the landlady established a bona fide personal requirement. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the tenants in default. It rejected the tenants' argument that a practice of paying accumulated rent existed, holding that isolated instances of late payment acceptance do not constitute a waiver of statutory obligations or establish a practice of payment at the tenant's convenience. The Court affirmed that the burden of proving payment lies on the tenant. Regarding personal requirement, the Court upheld the Rent Controller's finding against the landlady, noting that her prior conduct of re-letting a shop previously vacated for personal use undermined the bona fides of her claim. The Court emphasized that a tenant cannot rely on a landlord's past leniency to excuse persistent default, and the landlord's own conduct regarding prior vacancies is relevant to assessing bona fide need.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of delayed rent on isolated occasions establish a practice of paying accumulated rent?
  • Can a tenant avoid eviction for default by pleading a practice of accumulated payment when the landlord has only occasionally accepted late payments?
  • Does a landlord's act of re-letting premises previously vacated for personal use negate the bona fides of a subsequent claim for personal requirement?
  • Is a tenant relieved of the obligation to pay rent monthly if the landlord refuses to accept payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Khatoon vs Roshan H. Nanji1991 MLD 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Khatoon through Legal Heirs vs Abdul Razzak1991 CLC 1236 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementlandlord and tenantdefault in payment of rentrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellant landlady against the respondent tenant in respect of a commercial shop situated in Karachi, on the ground of personal bona fide requirement for her son to start a general merchant-cum-medical store. The Rent Controller dismissed the application after assessing the evidence, noting a previous finding by the High Court under section 14 regarding the same plea. The core legal question was whether the appellant established a bona fide personal requirement for the disputed shop, particularly when another adjacent shop had already been made available to her through a concurrent ejectment order. The Sindh High Court held that the personal requirement of the appellant for the second shop was not made out, as the availability of the first shop sufficiently met the intended business needs of her son. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord claim multiple adjacent shops for the personal business requirement of a son when another shop has already been vacated and made available?
  • Whether the dismissal of a prior ejectment application under section 14 operates to bar a subsequent plea of personal requirement in proceedings under section 15?
  • Does the availability of an alternative shop sufficient for a proposed business negate the landlord's good faith requirement for additional premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashid Jehan vs Muhammad Ashfaq1991 MLD 2619 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-27
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in rent deposittechnical defaultSindh Rented Premises Ordinancerent appealmiscellaneous rent case
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence due to an alleged failure to comply with a tentative rent order. The core legal question concerns whether depositing rent in a miscellaneous rent case instead of the main rent case constitutes a default warranting the penal action of striking off defence under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Sindh High Court held that where rent continues to be deposited in court through a miscellaneous case due to a misinterpretation or lack of communication of the order, the default is merely technical and irregular rather than contumacious, and thus does not attract penal consequences. The court laid down the principle that penal provisions such as section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 must be strictly construed, and a technical default accompanied by substantial compliance and a reasonable explanation does not justify striking off a tenant's defence.

  Questions settled

  • Does depositing rent in a miscellaneous rent case instead of the main rent case amount to a penal default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether a technical default in complying with a tentative rent order justifies striking off a tenant's defence?
  • Are penal provisions regarding the striking off of a tenant's defence to be construed strictly?
  • Does an authority competent to pass an order under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 have the power to recall, vary, or alter the same?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qaiser Jehan vs Karachi Transport Corporation and another1991 MLD 415 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasira Sultana vs Sultan M. Ahmed and another1991 CLC 527 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nadira Yusuf vs Shaikh Muhammad Arshad1991 MLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mah Pari vs Malang Dad and 4 others1991 CLC 808 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsum Begum and another vs Muhammad Siddique1991 CLC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13
  First Rent Appealchange in ownershiplandlord and tenantnotice of transferdefault in payment of rentejectment applicationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a First Rent Appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the Rent Controller, Karachi, which dismissed their ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the sole ground that an intimation regarding the change in ownership of the premises due to the death of the previous owner was not duly served upon the tenant pursuant to section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether non-receipt of the registered notice of change in ownership by the tenant negates the relationship of landlord and tenant or constitutes non-compliance with section 18. The Sindh High Court held that the mere dispatch of the intimation by registered post constitutes sufficient compliance under section 18, and the filing of an ejectment application also serves as due compliance. Consequently, non-receipt of the notice by the tenant does not mean that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded to the Rent Controller for a decision on merits after affording the tenant an opportunity to file a written statement and lead evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere dispatch of an intimation of change in ownership by registered post constitutes sufficient compliance with section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the non-receipt of a notice of change in ownership by the tenant invalidate the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Can the filing of an ejectment application be treated as due compliance of section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsum Begum and Another vs Mohammad SiddiqueK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 413 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom (Fatma) vs Wazir Ali and 13 others1991 MLD 1810 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hina Tayab vs IInd Senior Civil Judge/Family Judge, Karachi1991 MLD 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda Begum vs Mst. Hasan Bano1991 MLD 776 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hafsa Bibi vs Zamir Ahmed Oidwai1991 CLC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farzana vs Syed Muhammad Afzal and another-1991 P Cr. L J 758 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27
  habeas corpuscustody of minorHizanattender ageSection 491 Cr.P.C.guardianship proceedingssummary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a mother seeking the custody of her 20-month-old minor son, who was allegedly confined by the respondent father. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 491, Cr.P.C. to restore custody of a minor to the mother when parallel proceedings regarding guardianship were already pending before a Guardian Judge. The Court held that the pendency of proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the proceedings under Section 491 are summary in nature and distinct from substantive guardianship proceedings, and that the two provisions are not mutually exclusive. Consequently, the Court determined that the detention of the minor by the father was unlawful against the mother's wishes and ordered the immediate restoration of the minor's custody to the mother, prioritizing the welfare and tender age of the child.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 bar the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are proceedings under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 mutually exclusive?
  • Can a High Court order the restoration of a minor's custody to the mother in a summary habeas corpus petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bismillah Begum through Legal Heirss vs Mahji1991 MLD 1303 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Begi vs Muhammad Khan1991 CLC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azizul Fatima vs Syed Liaquatullah Hussaini1991 MLD 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ashraf Alia vs Dr. Asif Majeed1991 CLC 53 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31
  personal requirementbona fide needgood faithejectment proceedingslandlord and tenantalternate accommodationrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal arises from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlady against the respondent-tenant in 1976 on the grounds of personal requirement for her son to establish a mechanical business and material impairment of the premises. During litigation, the landlady also pursued an adjoining rent case against another tenant, securing possession of two shops which were subsequently utilized for a school and its office rather than the son's business. The core legal questions involved whether the landlady established a bona fide personal requirement in good faith, and the effect of acquiring alternate premises during the pendency of proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that a landlord seeking eviction for personal use must demonstrate genuine necessity and good faith, and failing to utilize alternate acquired premises or misrepresenting material facts negates such requirement. The court established that a mere desire or greedy wish does not constitute bona fide personal need, and 'good faith' requires honesty and sincerity under relevant statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquisition of alternate premises by a landlord during the pendency of ejectment proceedings extinguish the right to seek eviction of another tenant for personal requirement?
  • What constitutes 'good faith' in the context of a landlord's claim for personal requirement under rent restriction laws?
  • Does a mere desire or wish on the part of a landlord amount to a bona fide personal requirement for evicting a tenant?
  • What is the effect of misstatements and concealment of material facts by a landlord or beneficiary regarding the genuineness of a personal requirement claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amtul Begum vs Sarwar Qadri and 3 others1991 CLC 1157 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ambrin Begum vs Dr. Devkishan alias Kishan1991 MLD 318 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Noorani vs Collector of Customs (Preventive) and 21991 CLC 1889 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha vs Mst. Fatima and others1991 CLC 1499 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-02
  civil revisionappellate judgmentmandatory provisionsremand of caseproperty ownershiplease cancellationnon-compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts in favor of the first respondent, who filed a suit for declaration, cancellation, and injunction concerning certain property. The petitioner contested the suit, claiming a lease obtained from the second authority, which the plaintiff alleged was procured through misrepresentation. Both the trial court and the first appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the plaintiff to be the rightful owner and the petitioner's lease illegal. Upon review, the High Court observed that the first appellate court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by not properly framing points for determination, discussing evidence, or recording reasoned findings. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned appellate judgment, and remanded the matter to the District Court for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the first appellate court is bound to frame points for determination and record reasons under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a civil revision be maintained when both lower courts fail to properly apply their minds to the material facts and evidence of the case?
  • What is the legal consequence of an appellate judgment that fails to discuss the evidence and record independent findings of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. A.B. Aisha vs Sultan Ahmed Tahir1991 CLC 954 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →