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.

• Mumtazul Haq vs Mst. Aisha Begum1989 MLD 2053 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hussain vs The State1989 MLD 2933 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali vs The State1989 MLD 3248 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mulazim Hussain And Others vs The State1989 MLD 4647 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 425 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaki vs Karachi Development Authority and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1349 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs The State1989 MLD 2917 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 131 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Muhammad Farooq And Other1989 MLD 2010 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Abdul Kadir And 4 Other1989 MLD 557 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yakub vs Abdul Kadir And 3 Other1989 MLD 563 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wazir and 3 others vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 298 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Hajra Bi Trust And 2 Others vs Messrs Haji1989 MLD 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman Khawar vs The Board of Directors, the Sind1989 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Director, Excise and Taxation And Other1989 MLD 1858 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Director of F.I.A. And 2 Other1989 MLD 361 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique And Another vs The State1989 MLD 676 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahzad And Another vs Directorgeneral, Pakistan Coast1989 MLD 536 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Shamsun Nisa And Another1989 MLD 152 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1729 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and anothers vs Mst. Amatus Saboor and 4 others1989 PLD Karachi 185 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim Abdullah Nazkani vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 817 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 457 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem And Another vs Hakim Ali1989 MLD 1420 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Anver: Majeed and another1989 P Cr. L J 1223 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-21
  lachesacquittalSection 265-K CrPCconstitutional jurisdictionOffences in Respect of Bankscriminal breach of trustcheatingSpecial Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by the successor bank challenging an order of acquittal passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 408, 409, 420, and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  The core issues were whether the petition was barred by laches, whether a Special Court could pass an order of acquittal under Section 265-K Cr.P.C. prior to framing a charge or taking evidence after initially issuing process under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and whether the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional defects warranting constitutional intervention given that Section 10 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 expressly excludes appeals against acquittals.

  The High Court held that the petition suffered from unexplained laches, as delay in challenging an acquittal must be strictly viewed. On merits, the court held that Section 265-K Cr.P.C. permits acquittal at any stage, including prior to charge-framing, if the charge is groundless or no scheduled offence is disclosed. Finding no jurisdictional defect, the High Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court exercise powers under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit an accused prior to the framing of charges or recording of evidence?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in filing a constitutional petition against an acquittal order under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the petition liable to dismissal for laches?
  • Can the High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 with an acquittal order passed by a Special Court where statutory appeal against acquittal is expressly excluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Soofi Muhammad Bashir1989 MLD 548 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Ahmad vs Messrs Karachi Electric Supply Co.1989 MLD 1613 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1989 MLD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The Secretary, Cooperative Department And Another1989 MLD 1156 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-01
  arbitration agreementlimitation periodres judicataconstructive res judicataabuse of processallotment cancellationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 seeking the appointment of an arbitrator regarding a dispute over the cancellation of a shop allotment. The petitioner had previously challenged the cancellation through administrative and judicial channels, culminating in a Supreme Court judgment that upheld the cancellation. The core legal questions were whether the present petition was barred by limitation and whether the principle of res judicata precluded the petitioner from re-litigating the matter through arbitration. The Court held that the petition was time-barred under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the cause of action arose upon the initial cancellation of the allotment, and the three-year limitation period had expired. Furthermore, the Court held that the matter was barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata, as the Supreme Court had already adjudicated the legality of the allotment cancellation. The Court emphasized that re-litigating settled matters constitutes an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that arbitration cannot be used to circumvent final judicial determinations.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to decisions rendered in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Can a party invoke an arbitration clause after the underlying dispute has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court?
  • Does the filing of a petition to re-litigate a matter already decided by the Supreme Court constitute an abuse of the process of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-30
  post-arrest bailmurderexculpatory affidavitsfurther inquiryocular testimonyconflict of statements
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application involves a post-arrest bail plea filed by three applicants facing trial for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value and effect of ex parte affidavits sworn by eyewitnesses exonerating the accused persons after previously implicating them in the First Information Report. The Sindh High Court held that when eyewitnesses file affidavits disowning or contradicting their earlier prosecution versions, it exposes the ocular testimony to doubt and brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that such affidavits cannot be outrightly ignored at the bail stage if they create a conflict between two sets of statements, thereby warranting further inquiry and the grant of bail when remaining evidence is inadequate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether affidavits sworn by eyewitnesses exonerating the accused can be considered for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Does a contradiction between initial statements and subsequent affidavits of eyewitnesses bring a case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted in a capital charge when the primary ocular testimony is exposed to doubt by subsequent statements of witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naqi vs Haji Bundoo And 5 Other1989 MLD 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nadeem vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murtaza Kazi vs University of Sind, Jamshoro, Sind1989 PLD Karachi 116 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mubeen and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 557 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Matin Hasjhmi vs National Construction Co.K.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 39 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Matin Hashmi vs National Construction Company1989 PLC 278 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Makik vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 245 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamil vs Noor Muhammad And 5 Other1989 MLD 553 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaweed and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 427 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1989 MLD 2834 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ISI-Iaque Khan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1989 PLC 839 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1989 MLD 685 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Jaffar vs The State and 6 others1989 P Cr. L J 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Senior Superintendent of Police and another1989 P Cr. L J 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-27
  First Information Reportcognizable offencemandatory registrationconstitutional petitionpolice dutyillegal detentioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed challenging the refusal of the Station House Officer (respondent No. 2) to register an First Information Report (F.I.R.) regarding the alleged wrongful detention and manipulation of arrest records of the petitioner's relatives by the police. The core legal question addressed is whether it is mandatory for an officer in charge of a police station to register an F.I.R. upon receiving information of a cognizable offence, or if they have the discretion to refuse registration on the ground that no offence is made out. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are mandatory in nature, placing a strict statutory obligation on police officers to record information relating to cognizable offences without exercising personal discretion or refusing registration on merits prior to investigation. The key principle laid down is that police officers cannot act arbitrarily or refuse to register an F.I.R. for a cognizable offence, as the veracity of the complaint must be determined through subsequent investigation rather than pre-registration scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Whether it is mandatory for a police officer to register an F.I.R. upon receiving information of a cognizable offence?
  • Can a police officer refuse to register an F.I.R. on the ground that no offence is made out?
  • What is the statutory obligation of a police officer under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Shabbir Hussain1989 MLD 1604 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 164 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim Zamani vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1492 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon Rehmani vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif and others vs Azizurrahman and others1989 P Cr. L J 549 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Habib And Others vs Messrs National Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gulzar vs Mst. Mariam and another1989 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 759 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1866 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Mst. Saadia Akhtar And Another1989 MLD 2471 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 193 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Shaukat Ali1989 MLD 349 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Saudagar Khan1989 MLD 17 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs Mst.Zubaida1989 MLD 4618 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub And Another vs The State1989 MLD 683 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Awais vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 377 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs The State1989 MLD 2940 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Usman Faroooi1989 MLD 2047 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Gatta And Another vs Karachi Building Control1989 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 821 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Ismail vs Central Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 1991 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asar Hussain vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs M/s Associated Trading Co. Ltd. And Other1989 MLD 4750 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-20
  res judicataarbitration agreementspecific performancerejection of plaintcivil procedurefinality of litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and damages, alleging a breach of a contract dated 5-7-1983 for the supply of textile machinery. Previously, the plaintiff had initiated proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to enforce an arbitration clause in the same contract. In those prior proceedings, the defendants successfully challenged the existence of the arbitration agreement under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940, with the court holding that no valid contract existed. The core legal question was whether the principle of res judicata barred the subsequent suit when the prior adjudication occurred in proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1940 rather than a formal civil suit. The Court held that the suit was barred by res judicata. It established that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not exhaustive; the general principle of res judicata applies to prevent re-litigation of issues already decided by a competent court, even if the prior proceedings were not technically a suit, provided the parties and the subject matter are the same.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to proceedings other than a formal civil suit?
  • Is Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 exhaustive regarding the application of res judicata?
  • Can a suit be barred by res judicata if the prior adjudication occurred in proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 264 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Johar vs Government of Sind and others1989 P Cr. L J 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali And 5 Others vs The State1989 MLD 862 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The State1989 MLD 3247 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmad Muhammad Bin Hashim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 800 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 44 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Khan vs Banqu E Inposuez And Other1989 MLD 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar Khan vs Hukam Dad and another1989 P Cr. L J 1564 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Noor Jehan Begum1989 MLD 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-26Read full judgment →
• Mubin Ahmed vs The State And 5 Other1989 MLD 2841 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Ali vs The State and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 150 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zulekha Bai vs Muhammad Yaqoob1989 MLD 2882 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Paracua vs The State1989 MLD 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Umme Laila vs Messrs Irtiza Hussain And 5 Other1989 MLD 519 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sultana Begum vs Muhammad Usman and others1989 P Cr. L J 1867 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughra Bibi vs Khalil Ahmad1989 MLD 3199 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sher Bano and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 602 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamshad Begum vs Muhammad Saad Bin Moghani and another1989 P Cr. L J 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-05
  habeas corpuschild custodyFamily Court jurisdictionnatural guardianmatrimonial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a habeas corpus petition filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by a mother for the recovery of her infant son from the custody of the father, alleging an intent to remove the child abroad. The core legal question is whether the High Court should entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in matrimonial disputes concerning child custody, or if the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court or Guardian Judge. The court held that habeas corpus proceedings are summary in character and ordinarily inappropriate for resolving child custody disputes arising from matrimonial discord, which are best adjudicated by Family Courts. However, in exceptional cases involving deceit or force, or where a patent defect in guardianship authority exists, the High Court may intervene. The petition was dismissed after recording the respondent's undertaking not to remove the child from the jurisdiction and directing him to furnish security. The key principle laid down is that custody disputes between parents must generally be pursued before the Family Court or Guardian Judge rather than through summary habeas corpus proceedings, barring exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lie for the custody of a minor child arising from matrimonial disputes?
  • Whether habeas corpus proceedings are suitable for determining complex child custody and guardianship controversies?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in exceptional cases where a minor is removed by a parent through improper means?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamimur Rehan vs Muhammad Yousuf Chaman1989 MLD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia vs Muhammad Sadiq Intervener1989 MLD 34 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Sultana vs Public at Large1989 MLD 360 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11
  succession certificatesuccession actaffidavitsstamp dutylegal heirsno objection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition filed under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925, seeking a succession certificate in respect of debts and securities left behind by the deceased, Abdul Mutalib. A public notice was duly published in a daily newspaper, and no objections were filed by the public. Furthermore, all legal heirs submitted affidavits recording their no-objection along with copies of their identity cards. A preliminary legal question arose as to whether affidavits sworn by the next-of-kin outside the province of Sindh on plain papers were legally valid and exempt from stamp duty. The court held, relying on established judicial precedent, that such affidavits do not require execution on non-judicial stamp paper and are valid. Consequently, the court allowed the petition subject to the rules, granting the succession certificate as prayed for.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 can be granted when no objections are filed by the public or legal heirs?
  • Are affidavits sworn by next-of-kin outside the province on plain paper valid and exempt from the requirement of non-judicial stamp paper?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Bibi vs The State1989 MLD 686 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nazi vs Officer on Special Duty And 2 Other1989 MLD 2789 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasreen Bano vs Mirza Ali and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 823 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasira Mazhar vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And Economic Affairs (Finance Division), Islamabad And 3 Other1989 MLD 396 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-10Read full judgment →