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.

• Uzin Export Import Enterprises vs M. Iftikhar & Company Ltd.1987 CLC 2205 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-04Read full judgment →
• Usman Ghani vs G Ulzar Ahmed1987 CLC 1753 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-01
  rent appealdefault in rentsublettingbona fide requirementlump sum paymentlandlord and tenanteviction application
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an eviction application filed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and personal bona fide requirement for his brother. The Court examined whether the tenant's failure to pay rent within the statutory period constituted default, given a long-standing practice of lump-sum payments accepted by the landlord. The Court held that where a landlord establishes a consistent practice of accepting rent in lump sums over extended periods, such conduct precludes a finding of willful default. Regarding subletting, the Court found that the premises were rented for a minor by his father, who operated a clinic therein from the inception of the tenancy, thus negating the claim of subletting. Finally, the Court noted the landlord's concession regarding the bona fide requirement ground. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Rent Controller correctly exercised discretion in rejecting the eviction application based on the established conduct of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a consistent practice of accepting rent in lump sums preclude a landlord from claiming default for late payment?
  • Can a minor's father running a business in premises rented in the minor's name be considered subletting?
  • Does the definition of landlord under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 include a co-owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman alias Bawa vs The State and 2 others1987 MLD 2250 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-21Read full judgment →
• United Liner Agencies of Pakistan Ltd. vs Sind Employees' Social1987 PLC 538 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. and 7 others1987 CLC 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-29Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Mian Abdul Rashid and another1987 CLC 331 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Akbar Agencies Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Messers Akbar Agencies Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Haji Tahir Muhammad1987 MLD 3072 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-13Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Ghulam Sarwar Rasul and another1987 MLD 3077 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Consolidated Sugar Mills1987 CLC 716 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-31Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Shabbir Ahmad Abbasi and another1987 MLD 2586 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Muhammad Luqman Muhammad Hanif Brothers1987 CLC 2541 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-01Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Messrs Fazaka Industries Ltd. and others1987 MLD 49(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs A. Hafeezsons Limited and others1987 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
• Umrao Ali vs The District Magistrate (South), Karachi and 3 others1987 P Cr. L J 2280 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-17Read full judgment →
• Umed Ali- vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-12Read full judgment →
• Umed Ali vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-12Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Muhammad Karim And Another1987 PLC 846 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-31
  industrial relationsgrievance applicationworkmanjurisdictionLabour Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from constitutional petitions filed by the Trustees of the Port of Karachi challenging orders of the Labour Court, which assumed jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, over grievance applications filed by terminated workmen. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain grievance applications of employees governed by statutory rules of service and the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, and whether a terminated employee ceases to be a workman under the Ordinance. The court held that the Labour Court maintained jurisdiction to hear the grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and dismissed the petitions. The key principle laid down is that terminated workmen retain the right to seek redress of their grievances before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to entertain a grievance application from a terminated employee?
  • Whether an employee whose services have been terminated ceases to be a worker or workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Messrs Hyesons Commercial and Industrial Corporation Ltd1987 CLC 601 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-05Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Messrs Hyesons Commercial &1987 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court
  recovery of rentuse and occupation chargesexpired leasestatutory tenantOrder II Rule 2 CPCjurisdictioncounter claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit filed by the Trustees of the Port of Karachi against Messrs Hyesons Commercial for the recovery of charges for the use and occupation of a plot following the expiry of a registered lease deed. The core legal questions pertained to the jurisdiction of the High Court vis-a-vis the Rent Controller, whether the defendants became statutory tenants upon the expiry of the lease, the validity of unilaterally enhanced charges, and whether a portion of the claim was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that it had jurisdiction, that the defendants did not become statutory tenants but were in unauthorized occupation, that the plaintiffs were entitled to demand charges for use and occupation at the enhanced rate, and that claims omitted in prior suits were barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that upon the expiry of a lease without renewal, the lessee occupies the property unauthorizedly, and subsequent suits for recovery of periodic charges are subject to the bar of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if earlier claims were omitted at the time of filing prior suits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of enhanced rent or if the Rent Controller has exclusive jurisdiction under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether a lessee becomes a statutory tenant upon the expiry of a registered lease deed when terms for renewal are not mutually agreed upon?
  • Does the omission to claim charges for a subsequent period during the pendency of an earlier suit attract the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to demand unilaterally enhanced charges for the use and occupation of land after the lease has expired?
  Read full judgment →
• Tokyo Shibaura Electric Company Ltd. vs Abdul Ra Zzak and another1987 MLD 218 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-12Read full judgment →
• The Telephone. Employees' Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. vs Aish Muhammad1987 CLC 207 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Jamil And Others1987 P Cr. L J 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Irfan And Another1987 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Ashraf Rana1987 MLD 1535 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mahmood Ashraf Khan And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2144 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khan Zaman1987 MLD 1525 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Karam Ali And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 516 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Azeem Khan1987 PLD Karachi 583 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aftab Ahmad Shah and 6 others1987 MLD 1437 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• The State Through Advocate General, Sind vs Hazar Khan1987 P Cr. L J 586 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-01Read full judgment →
• The State of Pakistan vs Abdul Razzak and another1987 MLD 1534 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-03Read full judgment →
• The Prince Glass Works Ltd. vs National Beverages Ltd. and Another1987 PLD Karachi 49 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18
  Wafaqi Mohtasibbar of jurisdictionsub judicetemporary injunctionrecovery of pricemaladministration
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sought to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding with its claim before the Wafaqi Mohtasib, arising out of a suit for the recovery of unpaid goods. The core legal questions were whether the Wafaqi Mohtasib lacked jurisdiction due to the matter being sub judice, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction staying proceedings before the Mohtasib. The court held that since the complaint was lodged with the Wafaqi Mohtasib prior to the filing of the suit in the High Court, the matter was not sub judice before a court at the time of the complaint, thereby attracting no bar under section 9 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983. Furthermore, section 29 of the said Order expressly bars courts from granting injunctions or stays in relation to proceedings before the Mohtasib. The application was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down are that jurisdiction of the Mohtasib is only ousted under proviso (a) to section 9 if the matter is sub judice on the date of receipt of the complaint by the Mohtasib, and that courts lack jurisdiction to grant interim orders against Mohtasib proceedings under section 29.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib lack jurisdiction to investigate a matter that is sub judice before a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • Does a civil court have the jurisdiction to grant an injunction or stay in relation to proceedings pending before the Wafaqi Mohtasib?
  • What is the determinative date for establishing whether a matter is sub judice so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib?
  Read full judgment →
• The Orangi Pilot Project vs Madarasa Arabia Jamia Ziaul Aloom Trust1987 MLD 541 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Republic Industrial1987 MLD 2794 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
• The Institute of Bankers in Pakistan and another vs Zainul Abedin1987 MLD 549 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
• The Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Ltd. vs State Life1987 CLC 1408 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09
  nationalization of insuranceshareholders' dividendcorporate legal entitylocus standirecovery of surplusstatutory obligationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit filed by an insurance company against the State Life Corporation for the recovery of a surplus amount allocated to the shareholders' account following the nationalization of life insurance business. The trial court dismissed the suit, reasoning that the amount remained an asset of the nationalized entity and was not a recoverable debt until a dividend was formally declared. Upon appeal, the High Court held that the trial court erred in its characterization of the suit. The Court clarified that the suit was brought by the company itself, not by individual shareholders, and thus the requirement for a declared dividend was not the sole determinant of maintainability. The Court emphasized that a company remains a distinct legal entity from its shareholders. Consequently, the High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter for a determination on whether a binding agreement existed between the parties or if the respondent was under a statutory obligation to pay the amount under the relevant nationalization order and insurance legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a company have locus standi to sue for the recovery of surplus funds allocated to shareholders before a dividend is formally declared?
  • Does the nationalization of life insurance business vest all assets and liabilities, including surplus funds, in the state-run corporation?
  • Is a suit for the recovery of funds maintainable by a company against a state corporation based on an alleged agreement or statutory obligation, despite the absence of a declared dividend?
  Read full judgment →
• Tayab alias. Tayabdin and 2 otherss vs The State-1987 MLD 1489 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• Tausif vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2006 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-29Read full judgment →
• Taskeen Ahmad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 38 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
• Tariq Saleem vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 62 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Hussain vs The State1987 MLD 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Hassan vs Shahzada Gulzar1987 MLD 929 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Abbassi vs Mst. Anwar Banday1987 PLD Karachi 366 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
• Taj Bareen vs Sind Labour Appellant Tribunal And Another1987 PLC 279 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
• Taiyab A. Khambaty vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 755 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-24Read full judgment →
• Tahloo Alias Hussain Bux And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 76 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali. and 2 Others vs Messrs SH. Miran Bux Karam Bux1987 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and Others1987 PLD Karachi 290 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali vs Federation of Pakistan and Other1987 PLD Karachi 290 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-29Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali and 2 Other vs Messrs SH. Miran Bux Karam Bux1987 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
• T. Motandas through His Legal Heirs vs Anis Ahmad1987 PLD Karachi 159 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
• T. Motandas through His Legal Heir vs Anis Ahmad1987 PLD Karachi 159 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
• S:A. Samee Shah vs Mst. Bibi Gul Haneef1987 MLD 2985 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Zam1n Hussain Abidi vs Mst.Mubarak Bano and others1987 MLD 2992 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahir Hussain vs The Secretary, Communication and Works1987 MLD 118 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Hussain Tirmizy vs Muhammad Anwar1987 CLC 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Wilayat Hussain Shah And 9 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 37 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Wazarat Hussain Zaidi vs Sind Labour, Appellate Tribunal And Another1987 PLC 17 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Usman Haider vs Abdul KARIMOpponent1987 CLC 769 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Usman Haider vs Abdul Karim Qureshi and others1987 MLD 2415 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Tahir Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 58 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Suleman Nadvi Educational Society and another vs Administrator, Karachi Municipal Corporation and 6 others1987 MLD 2945 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Siraj Hussain, D.S.P. vs Sher Khan and 7 others1987 MLD 2181 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Shamshad Razi vs The State1987 MLD 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Saadat Ali vs Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research1987 CLC 301 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Ahmad Kazmi vs Syed Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali and Others1987 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Ahmad Kazmi vs Syed Muhammad Zulfiqar Ali And Other1987 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Hassan Jafri vs Muhammad Saeed and another1987 MLD 2811 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Haseenuddin And 2 Others vs The State and 2 others1987 P Cr. L J 2096 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-15
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powers of High Courtcivil disputecheatingmala fide complaintco-extensive powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicants under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before the City Magistrate, Dadu. The core legal question revolved around whether the dispute was of a civil nature, whether the High Court could directly entertain a quashment petition without the applicant first moving the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether proceedings could be quashed for co-accused not explicitly joined in the petition. The court held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A are co-extensive with the trial court's powers under Section 249-A, meaning a party may approach the High Court directly without first moving the trial court. The court further held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature arising from property transactions, lacked criminal intent at inception, and exhibited mala fides. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against both the applicants and the non-joining co-accused whose case was inseparable, establishing that High Court quashment powers are not strictly barred by failure to first invoke Section 249-A.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable directly in the High Court without first approaching the trial court under Section 249-A?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature and lacks initial criminal intent?
  • Whether the High Court can quash proceedings against a co-accused who has not formally joined or been impleaded in the quashment petition?
  • Does an inordinate, unexplained delay in filing a direct criminal complaint strongly indicate mala fides justifying quashment?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Anwar Iqbal vs Bangladesh Shipping Corporation1987 CLC 1745 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Alimullah vs Mst. Seema Begum1987 PLD Karachi 526 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Mubarak Shah and 5 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Minorities and Religious Affairs and 3 others1987 MLD 267 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Mown vs Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. And 3 Others1987 PLC 852 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-28
  industrial disputetermination of servicetrade union office-bearerprior permissionlabour courtacquittalconditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the dismissal of a complaint filed under section 60 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by a permanent workman and union office-bearer whose services were terminated due to the closure of a department. The core legal question was whether terminating a workman or a union officer during a pending industrial dispute without prior permission of the Labour Court violates section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, thus constituting an offence under section 60, even when the termination results from redundancy rather than punishment. The Sindh High Court held that the restrictions under section 47 of the Ordinance apply only to discharges, dismissals, or punishments meted out as a measure of disciplinary action, and do not prohibit terminations resulting from genuine operational exigencies such as surplus staff. The court established that simple discharge or retrenchment not amounting to punishment does not attract the prior-permission mandate of section 47, thereby upholding the acquittal of the respondents under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 prohibits the termination of a workman or a union officer during a pending industrial dispute irrespective of whether the termination is punitive or non-punitive?
  • Does the leasing out of a mill department to a contractor amount to an alteration of conditions of service under section 47(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Whether an employer is required to obtain prior permission from the Labour Court under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before discharging surplus staff due to business losses?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehmood Shah vs The State1987 MLD 1540 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Hussain vs Muhammad Ahmad Sharif1987 MLD 3295 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Irshad Ahmad vs Government of Sind and another1987 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Irfan Ali and Another vs Ali Ahmad1987 PLD Karachi 51 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Irfan Ali and Another vs Ali Ahmad Opponent1987 PLD Karachi 51 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Hussain vs Messrs Hashmi Can Company Ltd.K.L.R. 1987 Labour and Services Cases 99 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Hilal Akhtar Kalim vs Government of Sind through the Home1987 MLD 1519 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Shah vs Malook Shah and anotherOpponents1987 CLC 2281 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12
  civil revisionappellate court judgmentpoints for determinationremand of caseprocedural errorissue-wise adjudication
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the judgment of the first appellate court, which dismissed the applicant's appeal and affirmed the trial court's decree. The core legal question was whether the first appellate court erred by failing to address all issues of law and fact framed by the trial court, instead focusing solely on one issue (Issue No. 9). The applicant argued that this omission violated the procedural requirements for appellate judgments. The High Court held that under the relevant procedural rules, an appellate court is obligated to state the points for determination and provide a decision on them. By failing to address the multiple issues decided by the trial court, the appellate court's judgment was deficient. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case, directing the first appellate court to rehear the appeal and decide the matter issue-wise. The key principle laid down is that an appellate court must comprehensively address the points for determination, which typically requires deciding the issues originally framed and adjudicated by the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court satisfy the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it decides only one issue while ignoring others framed by the trial court?
  • Is an appellate court required to decide the issues originally framed by the trial court as points of determination in the appeal?
  • What is the consequence of an appellate court failing to discuss all issues of law and fact in its judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hashim Raza vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1609 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Rasool vs Bilquees Siddique1987 CLC 2211 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Waris Imam vs Kanwar Masood Ali Khan1987 MLD 877 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Deedar Ali vs The State1987 MLD 1509 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Anis Ahmed Shah vs The State1987 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Akhtar Ali vs Hoor Bai and others1987 MLD 2999 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdullah Shah vs The District Magistrate and others1987 P Cr. L J 2404 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Majid vs Choudhry Manzoor1987 CLC 617 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-06Read full judgment →
• Supercon Limited vs Eastern Construction Limited and 2 others1987 CLC 1566 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16
  ad interim injunctiontrespasserrestoration of possessionSpecific Relief Actequitable reliefencroachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order granting an ad interim injunction in a suit filed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 for the restoration of possession of a strip of land. The core legal question was whether a trespasser is entitled to an interlocutory injunction against the rightful owner or allottee of the property. The respondents, having been ejected from the land by the Karachi Development Authority, sought to restrain the appellant from developing the site. The Court held that the respondents, being trespassers without title, failed to establish a prima facie case for equitable relief. The Court clarified that the concept of settled possession requires induction by the owner, which was absent in this case. Consequently, the Court ruled that a trespasser is not entitled to an interlocutory injunction to restrain an owner or allottee from utilizing their property. The Court set aside the injunction, emphasizing that the mere possibility of a suit becoming infructuous does not justify granting such relief to a trespasser.

  Questions settled

  • Is a trespasser entitled to an ad interim injunction against the owner or allottee of a property?
  • Does the mere fact that a suit might become infructuous justify the grant of an ad interim injunction to a trespasser?
  • What is the legal definition of settled possession in the context of ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Super Highway Bus Owners Association Ltd. and 2 others vs Government of Sind and 13 others1987 MLD 2759 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sunkist Growers Inc. vs Messrs Karachi Aerosol Co. Ltd. and Another1987 PLD Karachi 119 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sunkist Growers Inc. vs Messrs Karachi Aerosol Co. Ltd. and An07her1987 PLD Karachi 119 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-16Read full judgment →
• Sultan Aziz vs Murad Ali1987 MLD 3064 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-10Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali and another vs Mirza MOAllAM Baig1987 MLD 2583(1) · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-02Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs The State1987 MLD 1036 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Sukio vs The State1987 MLD 859 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Sufi alias Sultan Arshad vs Haji Ghulam Muhammad and another1987 CLC 1767 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →