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.

• M.K.Mohammad and Other vs Mohammad AboobakerK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 371 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
• M.K. Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Aboobakar1991 MLD 801 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13
  ejectmentpugripersonal bona fide requirementrent defaultgoodwillstatutory righttenancy agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  The appeal challenged an ejectment order granted on grounds of default and personal bona fide requirement. The appellant contended that the landlord was estopped from seeking eviction because the landlord had accepted "pugri" (goodwill) and agreed not to eject the tenant. The core legal question was whether an agreement to pay "pugri" creates a binding contract that overrides the landlord's statutory right to seek eviction for personal use. The Court held that an agreement to charge "pugri" is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, as it conflicts with statutory provisions. The Court ruled that a landlord is not debarred from seeking eviction for personal bona fide need simply because "pugri" was accepted. Furthermore, statutory rights to eviction cannot be waived by private contract. The Court also determined that "pugri" payments cannot be unilaterally adjusted against rent arrears absent a specific agreement. Consequently, the eviction order was upheld, though the Court directed the refund of the "pugri" amount upon the tenant's vacation of the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of 'pugri' (goodwill) by a landlord legally bar them from seeking the tenant's eviction on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement?
  • Can a tenant and landlord contract out of the statutory right of the landlord to seek eviction for personal bona fide need?
  • Is an agreement to pay 'pugri' enforceable if it conflicts with the statutory provisions governing rent restriction?
  • Can a 'pugri' payment be unilaterally adjusted against rent arrears in the absence of an agreement to that effect?
  Read full judgment →
• M.K. Mohammad & Another vs Mohammad AboobakarK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 656 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
• M.F.M.Y. Industries Ltd. vs Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1991 PTD 513 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
• M.A. Baqi Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 442 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• M. Salim Khan vs The State and 3 others--1991 P Cr. L J 285 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-15
  superdariinterim custodyquestion of titlecriminal procedurepossession of propertycivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Miscellaneous Application challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, which reversed an earlier order of the Additional District Magistrate regarding the interim custody (superdari) of a tractor. The applicant, having sold the tractor to respondents Nos. 3 and 4, alleged they failed to pay the full consideration and subsequently sold the vehicle to respondent No. 2. The core legal question was whether a Criminal Court, while exercising powers under Section 516-A or 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is competent to determine the title of property in dispute between parties. The Court held that Criminal Courts are not competent to investigate or adjudicate upon questions of title, as such jurisdiction lies exclusively with a competent Civil Court. The Court emphasized that in proceedings regarding interim custody, the focus must remain on the entitlement to possession rather than ownership. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, affirming that the dispute over title must be resolved by a Civil Court, and the Criminal Court's role is limited to determining interim possession based on the circumstances of recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Criminal Court competent to determine the question of title to property in proceedings under Section 516-A or 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should the custody of property be entrusted to a person from whom it was recovered if there is no allegation of crime against that person?
  • Can a High Court interfere with an order passed under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the trial or revisional court takes an erroneous view?
  Read full judgment →
• M. A. Baqi Khan vs The State and another1991 PLD Karachi 355 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• Lutuf Ali And Another vs The State1991PCr.LJ 544 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Lt.Con. (Retd.) Abdul Aziz and 2 otherss vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 31991 CLC 1801 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Laus DEO Enterprises through its Partner, Karachi vs Mrs. Suraya Jameel1991 PLD Karachi 309 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-24
  rent appealenhanced renttenancy agreementpenaltycantonments rent restrictiondefault in rentexpired agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal arises from an eviction order passed against the appellant tenant for default in depositing rent at an enhanced rate pursuant to a tenancy agreement. The core legal question is whether a tenancy agreement providing for an increase of rent after a specific period is illegal and unenforceable before the Rent Controller under the relevant rent restriction law. The Sindh High Court held that Section 10 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, only prohibits the charging of a fine, premium, or like sum in addition to rent, and does not prohibit contractual increases in rent where fair rent has not been fixed. The Court further held that an option given to a tenant to either vacate or pay an increased rent is not in the nature of a penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act, and that terms of an expired agreement continue to operate to the extent they are not repugnant to rent laws. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenancy agreement providing for an increase of rent after the lapse of a particular period is illegal and unenforceable before the Rent Controller?
  • Does Section 10 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 prohibit an agreed increase in rent where fair rent has not been fixed?
  • Whether a contractual stipulation requiring the payment of an increased rent upon default in vacating the premises constitutes a penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act?
  • Do the terms of an expired tenancy agreement continue to operate between the landlord and tenant to the extent they are not repugnant to the rent law?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs The State OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 91 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-06Read full judgment →
• Lakeview Properties (Pvt.) Limited- vs Faizehuseni Trust, Karachi and 31991 MLD 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Lakeview Properties (Pvt) Ltd vs Faiz-E-Huseni Trust Karachi and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 419 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Kwality Food Products vs Mst. Sehba Nishat Haq1991 MLD 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-24Read full judgment →
• Kifayat Ali Khan vs Messrs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1991 PLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Khushnood Hussain vs Nisar Ahmed Malik1991 MLD 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-13Read full judgment →
• Khan Bahadur vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1835 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
• Khan Bahadur vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 599 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-03Read full judgment →
• Khan Alias Haji Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 323 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-07
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaypreviously convicted offendermoral turpitudehardened desperate or dangerous criminalmurder chargeconstitutional criminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the applicant, Khan alias Haji Khan, seeking post-arrest bail on the ground of statutory delay in a murder case under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves the interpretation of the words 'previously convicted offender' as used in the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether such previous conviction disentitles an accused to bail on the ground of statutory delay. The Sindh High Court held that a 'previously convicted offender' under the fourth proviso refers to a person previously convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or an offence detrimental to national interests or society, reflecting a depraved character and a propensity to commit serious crimes. However, the Court also held that in exceptional circumstances of shocking and inordinate delay amounting to an abuse of the process of law, bail may still be extended even to previous convicts. Applying these principles, since the applicant had a prior conviction for serious offences and the trial was at its concluding stage, the bail application was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within four months.

  Questions settled

  • What is the proper interpretation of the words 'previously convicted offender' under the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a previous conviction for any minor offence bar an accused from claiming the benefit of the third proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding statutory delay?
  • Can bail be granted to a hardened criminal or previously convicted offender on the ground of statutory delay in exceptional circumstances?
  • What constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude in the context of disqualification from statutory bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-16Read full judgment →
• Karachi Transport Corporation and anothers vs Latifur Rehman and 61991 MLD 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and anothers vs Riaz Qadir Brohi1991 MLD 2042 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
• Karachi Flour Mills Union and 2 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Department of Food Government of Sindh and 5 others1991 CLC 744 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kamran Butt vs Lt.Col. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad1991 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-20
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantejectmentcantonment rent restrictionburden of proofdefault in rentrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from orders passed by the Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, in a rent case filed under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act for the eviction of the appellant from a flat on the ground of default in rent. The appellant denied the tenancy, claiming he occupied the premises as security for loans advanced to the respondent and for amounts spent on fixtures and fittings. The Rent Controller found the relationship of landlord and tenant to exist and subsequently struck off the appellant's defence and ordered ejectment upon failure to deposit arrears of rent. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully established the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Sindh High Court held that the burden of proving the relationship of landlord and tenant rests squarely on the landlord, and the respondent's evidence was fraught with material contradictions and unreliable. The court laid down the principle that in the absence of convincing evidence to establish the foundational relationship of landlord and tenant, rent proceedings are coram non judice and unsustainable, thereby setting aside the impugned eviction orders and dismissing the rent case.

  Questions settled

  • Upon whom lies the burden of proof to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant in an ejectment application?
  • Can an order of ejectment be sustained under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act when the foundational relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions in the pleadings and evidence of a landlord regarding the creation of a tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamil vs Mst. Latifan and others1991 CLC 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Kamal Ahmad Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan and another1991 PLC 834 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• K.P.T. Workers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs The Trustees of the Port of Karachi (Board) through Chairman and another1991 CLC 1948 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
• K.M.C. Sanitary & General Employees Union vs Khalid Nafees and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 56) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• K. Rehman Milk Food Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Sales1991 PTD 863 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
• Jumromal vs Muhammad Paryal and another1991 CLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
• Jugeslavenska Linijska Plovidba and anothers vs Government of Punjab through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Lahore1991 CLC 835 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Johnson & Phillips (Pak) Ltd. vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate1991 PLC 396 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-13Read full judgment →
• Jiwano vs The State1991PCr.LJ 17 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-08Read full judgment →
• Javed Raza- vs Razi Ahmad and another1991 MLD 2602 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-31
  ex parte decreesubstituted serviceservice of summonsprocedural compliancesetting aside decreeavoidance of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sought to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree on grounds of fraud and lack of proper service. The core legal question was whether the order for substituted service by publication was validly passed under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the Additional Registrar erred in ordering substituted service without material evidence that the defendants were deliberately avoiding service or 'keeping out of the way,' as required by the statute. The Court emphasized that substituted service is an extraordinary measure requiring strict compliance with procedural mandates. Furthermore, the Court established that mere knowledge of the institution of a suit does not equate to valid service of summons unless the defendant waives such notice. Consequently, because the decree was procured without due service, the Court set aside the ex parte decree and directed the defendants to file their written statement, affirming that procedural requirements for service cannot be bypassed without proper judicial satisfaction.

  Questions settled

  • Under what conditions can a court order substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does mere knowledge of the institution of a suit constitute valid service of summons on a defendant?
  • Is a court bound to set aside an ex parte decree if it is established that the decree was procured without due service of notices?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Raza vs Razi Ahmed and Another(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 280) · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
• Javed And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2049 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Abdul Ghaffar1991 MLD 1631 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-04Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Baig vs Muhammad Ashfaque1991 MLD 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
• Jamal and anothers vs Government of Sindh and 8 others1991 MLD 290 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ismail And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 536 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• Islamuddin vs The State1991 MLD 2470 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan and anothers vs Alya Tahir and 2 others1991 CLC 818 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-06Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmed vs Raees Ahmed1991 CLC 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13
  malicious prosecutiondamagesburden of proofreasonable and probable causeremand of suitcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  The present civil revision application is directed against the appellate court judgment and decree whereby a suit for damages for malicious prosecution filed by the respondent against the applicant was decreed in the sum of Rs. 25,000. The respondent had alleged that the applicant maliciously lodged a criminal complaint against him under sections 341 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code, leading to a criminal trial and eventual acquittal. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the claim. The core legal questions involved the necessity of proving malice, lack of reasonable and probable cause, and the quantum of damages in a suit for malicious prosecution. The High Court held that in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff bears the heavy onus of proving that the prosecution was malicious, without reasonable or probable cause, terminated in the plaintiff's favour, and that specific damages and litigation expenses must be established by cogent evidence. The High Court set aside the judgments of both lower courts and remanded the suit to the trial judge for fresh decision with permission to lead additional evidence.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients a plaintiff must prove in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
  • Where damages are claimed for malicious prosecution and litigation expenses, is the plaintiff required to prove the exact amount spent through cogent evidence?
  • Whether an appellate court can decree a suit for damages for malicious prosecution without examining the evidence regarding the quantum of damages and specific heads of claim?
  • Can a civil revision application be disposed of by remanding the matter to the trial court for recording additional evidence when the lower courts failed to properly evaluate the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain vs Chairman, Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1991 PLC 313 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-08Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Alam and Other vs Messrs Plasticrafters (Pvt) Limited and 4K.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 325 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Iqbal Alam and anothers vs Messrs Plasticrafters (Pvt.) Limited and 41991 CLC 589 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-21
  winding upjust and equitableCompanies Ordinance 1984family partnershipdeadlock in managementelection of directorsChairman termpiercing the corporate veil
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two cross-petitions filed under the Companies Ordinance 1984 regarding a private limited family business, Plasticrafters (Pvt.) Limited. The petitioners sought winding up under Sections 305 and 309, while the respondents sought to declare a notice for an extraordinary general meeting invalid and uphold a board meeting where the number of directors was reduced from four to three. The core legal questions involved whether the board could alter the fixed number of directors without general meeting approval under Section 178, whether an outgoing chairman continues in office post-term without explicit statutory authority, and whether the company should be wound up on 'just and equitable' grounds due to deadlock and loss of confidence.

  The High Court held that the number of directors originally fixed could not be altered except with prior approval of a general meeting under Section 178, making the respondents' reduction invalid. It further ruled that the Chairman's term expired after three years, requiring election at each meeting under Article 82 of the Articles of Association. Finding that the private limited company was essentially a family partnership where mutual confidence had broken down and complete deadlock existed, the Court found it just and equitable to order winding up under Section 305, suspending the order for two months to allow the parties to buyout shares or bifurcate the company.

  Questions settled

  • Can the board of directors reduce or change the fixed number of elected directors without prior approval of a general meeting under Section 178 of the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Does a Chairman of the Board of Directors automatically continue to hold office after the expiry of his appointed term in the absence of a re-appointment?
  • Can a private limited company that was converted from a family partnership be wound up on 'just and equitable' grounds when there is deadlock and total breakdown of mutual confidence among shareholder-directors?
  Read full judgment →
• International Industries Ltd. vs Collector of Customs (Appraisement)1991 MLD 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
• Interform Design Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Bahria Foundation1991 CLC 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-25
  arbitration awardconsultancy agreementarbitrator misconductcharitable endowmentarbitrator feeserror of lawcontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns objections filed by both parties against an arbitration award regarding a consultancy agreement dispute between Interform Design Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. and Bahria Foundation. The core legal questions addressed whether the arbitration reference was void because the defendant was not a party to the original agreement, whether the appointment of a different arbitrator than the one named in the contract was valid, whether the defendant, as a charitable endowment, could only be sued through its Treasurer, whether the arbitrator’s fee arrangement constituted misconduct, and whether the award suffered from an error of law regarding evidence assessment. The court dismissed all objections, holding that the defendant had adopted the agreement through conduct, the parties had consented to the arbitrator's appointment, the Charitable Endowments Act did not apply to these proceedings, and the fee arrangement was not misconduct. The court established that an arbitrator is the sole judge of facts, and the court cannot act as an appellate body to re-evaluate evidence or interfere with findings simply because it might have reached a different conclusion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party be bound by an arbitration agreement if they were not an original signatory but adopted it through subsequent conduct?
  • Does the appointment of a sole arbitrator by court consent override a contractual clause naming a specific person as arbitrator?
  • Are proceedings against a charitable endowment restricted to being filed only through its Treasurer under the Charitable Endowments Act 1890?
  • Does an arbitrator's demand for additional fees, shared by both parties, constitute legal misconduct?
  • Can a court interfere with an arbitration award on the ground that it would have reached a different conclusion on the evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Hub Steel Mills1991 CLC 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Ironite Industrie (Pvt.)1991 CLC 438 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt) Ltd and Another vs SyedK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 163 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs Taj Muhammad and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah vs Muhammad Panah and others1991 MLD 386 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• In re: Zainab Bai vs Not1991 CLC 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-17Read full judgment →
• In re: the Insurance Act, 1938 and the Companies Act, 1913 and the1991 CLC 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• In re: Messrs Lodhran Cotton Ginners (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Not1991 CLC 415 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Hussain and others vs The State1991 MLD 1980 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
• Imam-Ul-Din Alias Bashir vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 513 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Imam-Ud-Din alias Bashir vs The State1991 MLD 1699 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs Mst. Saeeda Khatoon and others1991 CLC 1496 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Kutty vs Mrs. Surraya Rashid1991 CLC 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs Messrs Fateh Jeans Ltd.1991 MLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-10
  rejection of plaintagreement to sellcivil court jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionremoval of encroachmentsdeclaratory suitpermanent injunctioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose out of a suit for a declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent, claiming lawful possession of the suit land as a prospective purchaser under an agreement to sell, against the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, but the appellate court reversed this decision, prompting the revision. The core legal questions involved whether a suit for declaration and injunction is maintainable by a person holding possession under an agreement to sell without a formal sale deed, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction is barred by the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act 1975 or the Sindh Local Government Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that a plaintiff in lawful possession under an agreement to sell can seek a declaration and injunction, and that statutory bars on civil court jurisdiction do not apply to mala fide acts or disputes regarding whether property is public property. The court laid down that the bar of jurisdiction under encroachment laws is not all-purpose and civil courts retain jurisdiction to examine if public functionaries acted intra vires.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable by a person who holds possession of land under an agreement to sell without having obtained a formal sale deed?
  • Does Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 require that a plaintiff seeking a declaration regarding property must be the absolute owner thereof?
  • To what extent is the jurisdiction of a civil court barred by Sections 11 and 13 of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act 1975 when public property status or mala fide official action is challenged?
  • Can the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be sustained when the allegations in the plaint require factual inquiry and evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Development Authority Labour Union vs The Registrar, Trade Unions and others1991 PLC 77 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• Hussain vs The State-1991 P Cr. L J 26 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-24Read full judgment →
• Hussain and 15 others vs Abdul Khaliq and another1991 CLC 967 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Hindu Panchayat of Sukkur vs Matloob Ahmed and others1991 MLD 480 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
• Hikmat Khan vs Assistant Commissioner and 2 others1991 CLC 838 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Haydari Construction Co. Ltd. vs Bank of Credit and Commerce1991 CLC 149 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-21
  rejection of plaintcause of actiontemporary injunctionbreach of injunctionbank guaranteepay ordercontempt of courtliquidated damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses multiple civil miscellaneous applications arising out of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the encashment of a tender bond bank guarantee. The core legal questions involved whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on disputed factual assertions in the written statement, whether an interim injunction takes effect from its passing or service, and whether the delivery of a pay order constitutes complete payment so as to negate a charge of breach of injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, only the averments in the plaint are to be examined, and disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved via statements in the written statement. Furthermore, an injunction order takes effect from the time and date of its service, and the delivery of a bank pay order amounts to payment equivalent to cash, meaning no breach of injunction occurs if the pay order was delivered prior to the service of the restraint order. All applications filed by the plaintiff were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on factual pleas raised in the written statement?
  • From what point in time does an interim injunction order take effect against a party?
  • Does the delivery of a bank pay order amount to payment equivalent to cash so as to constitute completed payment?
  • Whether the breach of an injunction order under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be established without full proof of violation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hatiz Abdul Sattar vs Mahmood Ali1991 CLC 234 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-28Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali Esaji Bhaiji Trust through Managing Trustee vs Administrator, Central Zakat Administration, Islamabad1991 PTD 43 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
• Hashim Bin Sayeed vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Ex-Office Chairman,1991 PTD 497 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Hasamul Haque Agha vs Mrs. Saeeda Beg Um1991 CLC 1121 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Haryana Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd., Karachi vs United BankK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 652 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Haryana Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. and 15 others vs United Bank1991 MLD 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Hamid vs Mst. Latifan and others1991 MLD 1442 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-25Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf), Pakistan, Karachi vs The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,1991 PTD 674 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Zainul Abedeen vs Mst. Shar1fan Begum1991 CLC 1515 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31
  first rent appealpersonal requirementgood faithbona fide needeviction applicationcommercial premiseslandlord discretionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal was filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller directing the tenant's eviction from commercial premises under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 on the ground of personal requirement for the landlady's husband. The tenant contended that the landlady failed to establish good faith as her husband had not obtained any distribution agency or produced correspondence with companies, rendering the claim a mere wish rather than a genuine need. The High Court rejected this argument and affirmed the eviction order. The Court held that a landlord is not required to establish minor preliminary details or existing formal agencies to prove bona fide personal requirement for a proposed distribution business, as acquiring such agencies logically depends on first securing suitable business premises. Once honest and consistent evidence of capability and intent is presented by the landlord, the burden shifts to the tenant to substantiate counter-allegations. Furthermore, the choice and extent of premises required rest within the discretion of the landlord.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord required to obtain prior agencies or contracts from companies to prove good faith for a proposed business in an eviction application?
  • What constitutes 'good faith' of a landlord seeking eviction for personal use under the rent laws?
  • Does the landlord have the discretion to decide the extent of space or premises required for their personal business use?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Zainul Abedeen vs (Mst) Sharifan BegumK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 408 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Sharif Khan and 9 others vs Asif Mahmood and another1991 CLC 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Rais Ahmed vs AslamK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 322 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Rais Ahmed vs Aslam1991 CLC 602 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27
  civil revisionOrder XVII Rule 3dismissal for non-appearanceshort orderremand of suitpartial admissionsubordinate court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was directed against the judgment of the 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi (South), which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the petitioner's suit under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff had failed to appear or produce evidence after being granted a final opportunity. On the date of hearing, the trial court initially passed a short order in the order sheet dismissing the suit for non-appearance, but subsequently rendered a separate detailed judgment dismissing the suit on merits without considering the defendant's partial admission in the written statement.

  The High Court held that a subordinate trial court is not competent to pass a short order and subsequently write a detailed judgment later in the day. The High Court further held that a decision under Order XVII Rule 3 requires a proper adjudication on the merits based on available material on record. Consequently, both lower court decisions were set aside, and the suit was remanded for a decision afresh, subject to costs.

  Questions settled

  • Is a subordinate civil court competent to announce a short order dismissing a suit and write a detailed judgment subsequently?
  • Does a decision under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require the court to decide the suit on merits based on the available material on record?
  • Can a concurrent finding of fact by lower courts be set aside in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where lower courts acted illegally or with material irregularity?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Salim vs The State and 3 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Jawed. vs Government of Sindh Local Government1991 MLD 2584 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs Messrs Shafi Tenneries and 7 others1991 CLC 904 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Gulab Baig vs Mst. Syeda Tayaba Ishtiaq1991 MLD 1377 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Sattar Chapri- vs Secretary, Karachi Grains & Seeds1991 MLD 2697 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-09
  temporary injunctionspecific performancesale of goodsirreparable lossbalance of conveniencemovable propertyadequate remedy in damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous application arose out of a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from disposing of 7,200 bags of cotton seeds oil cakes, or alternatively for a decree for their value and damages. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the goods through delivery orders after making full payment. The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the full sale consideration had not been paid, that the plaintiff still owed a balance, and that the goods were readily available in the open market. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or that he would suffer irreparable loss, noting that the goods were standard commodities easily available in the market for which monetary damages constituted an adequate remedy. The court established the principle that interlocutory injunctions for specific movable property will not be granted where satisfactory equivalents are readily available in the market and money damages provide adequate relief. Consequently, the application for injunction was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interlocutory injunction can be granted for the delivery of goods when a satisfactory equivalent is readily available in the open market?
  • Does a plaintiff claiming alternative damages in a suit for specific performance lose the right to seek an interlocutory injunction?
  • Can a contract for the sale of goods be specifically enforced when monetary compensation affords an adequate relief?
  • Whether an admission made by one defendant in a counter-affidavit binds a co-defendant or constitutes conclusive proof without trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghaffar vs Haji Rauf1991 CLC 734 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06
  specific performanceinterim injunctionconstruction contractlis pendenssale agreementimmovable propertyTransfer of Property Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning a plot in Karachi, seeking an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from transferring the property. The core legal question was whether a contract involving both the sale of land and complex construction obligations is specifically enforceable, and whether an interim injunction is warranted when the main relief appears barred by statute. The Court dismissed the application, holding that while contracts for the sale of immovable property are generally enforceable, this agreement was coupled with construction obligations requiring personal supervision and detail. Consequently, it fell under the bar of Section 21(b) of the Specific Relief Act. As the construction and sale aspects were interlinked, the entire agreement was deemed prima facie unenforceable. The Court established that if the main relief of specific performance is prima facie barred, interim relief should be declined. Furthermore, the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provides sufficient protection against transfers made during the pendency of a suit, rendering an injunction unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contract involving both the sale of land and construction obligations be specifically enforced?
  • Does the non-production of an ancillary document referred to in an agreement automatically render the agreement unenforceable under Section 21(c) of the Specific Relief Act?
  • Is an interim injunction necessary to protect a plaintiff's interest when the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applies?
  • Can a court decline interim relief if the main relief of specific performance is prima facie barred by statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Syed Ali Ather vs Vicechancellor & Exofficio Chairman of Syndicate, University of Karachi and 2 others1991 CLC 334 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan and others vs Muhammad Khalique1991 CLC 417 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-28
  civil revisionremand orderspecific performancecomparison of signatureshandwriting expertOrder XLI Rule 23 CPCQanun-e-Shahadat Orderretrial
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed against an order of the Additional District Judge remanding a suit for specific performance back to the trial court. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the agreement for sale was forged, based in part on a judicial comparison of signatures. The appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to obtain a handwriting expert's opinion. The High Court considered whether an appellate court can order a remand solely to allow a party to produce expert evidence when full evidence is already available on record. The High Court held that under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, visual comparison of signatures by the court is legally permissible, and a remand cannot be lightly granted merely to enable a party to patch up weak areas in its case. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the remand order, and remanded the appeal to the appellate court for disposal on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court remand a case to the trial court to allow a party to produce additional evidence when complete evidence is already on record?
  • Is a court legally permitted to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 without obtaining a handwriting expert's opinion?
  • Whether an unsuccessful litigant can be granted a remand under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fill gaps or patch up weak parts of their case?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Soomar Nabi and another1991 MLD 460 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-17Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Soomar and others-1991PCr.LJ 279 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
• Habib Insurance Comi Any Limited vs Pakistan1991 MLD 2396 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-07Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Publix Industries Ltd.1991 CLC 1907 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-07
  bona fide personal requirementrent evictionburden of prooflandlord and tenantcross-examinationuncontroverted evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a rent application filed by the appellant, Habib Bank Ltd., seeking the eviction of the respondent tenant from premises in Karachi. The appellant initially sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal requirement for the bank's use, but abandoned the default ground during the appeal. The core legal question was whether the appellant established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises, given the respondent's contention that the eviction was a pretext for rent enhancement and that the bank had not provided sufficient details of its need. The Court held that the appellant successfully established its bona fide requirement. It reasoned that the bank's witness provided specific evidence regarding the expansion of its business and the necessity for additional space for regional offices and interest-free counters, which remained unchallenged during cross-examination. The Court affirmed that a landlord is not required to plead every minute detail of their requirement in the initial application and that failure to cross-examine on material facts implies acceptance of those facts.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord required to plead every minute detail of their personal requirement in an eviction application?
  • What is the legal effect of a party's failure to cross-examine a witness on specific facts deposed in their examination-in-chief?
  • Does a demand for enhanced rent automatically invalidate a landlord's claim of bona fide personal requirement for the premises?
  • Can a landlord's personal requirement be established through the need for space to implement government-directed banking policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Inamur Rehman and 2 otherss1991 CLC 1713 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limtied vs Timentide and another1991 MLD 1464 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Chaudhry Cloth House1991 CLC 164 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-27Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Employees' Union vs Registrar, Industrywise Trade Unions1991 PLC 786 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and 8 otherss vs Buxal and 2 others1991 CLC 229 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-28
  civil revisionland grantnatural justiceestoppelpre-emptionevacuee propertymisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the appellate court reversing the trial court's decision in favor of the applicants' predecessor-in-interest, Abdul Khalique. Abdul Khalique had filed a civil suit challenging the cancellation of his land grant by the revenue authorities and seeking a perpetual injunction. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court allowed the respondents' appeal and dismissed the suit, holding that the land was not available for grant as it was evacuee property previously transferred to a claimant, and noting that Abdul Khalique had previously filed a pre-emption suit admitting the respondents' title, thereby destroying his own claim of ownership. Furthermore, the record showed that Abdul Khalique was duly heard by the Additional Commissioner before the grant was cancelled, satisfying the requirements of natural justice. The High Court evaluated the record, found no misreading of evidence or jurisdictional error by the first appellate court, and dismissed the revision application, holding that no case for interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was made out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party can claim ownership of land after having previously submitted to the jurisdiction of a court in a pre-emption suit admitting the title of the opposite party?
  • Does the cancellation of a land grant violate the principles of natural justice when the affected party was given an opportunity of being heard before the appellate revenue authority?
  • What is the scope of interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding findings of fact and alleged misreading of evidence by the first appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul And 4 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1853 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Gul Ajab Khan vs The Tribunal/A.C. and S.D.M. and 2 others-1991 P Cr. LJ 1931 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →