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.

• Imam Bux and 2 others vs The State1987 MLD 1526 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
• Ijlal Hussain and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 5 Others1987 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ijlal Hussain And 4 Other- vs Federation of Pakistan And 5 Other1987 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and 4 Others1987 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The Settlement Commissioner, Karachi And 4 Other1987 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Abdul Rehman Muhammad vs The State1987 MLD 1554 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-23Read full judgment →
• I BR a Him vs Muhammad Siddique1987 CLC 565 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Hyundai Motor Co. vs Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks1987 MLD 2847 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Huffaz Seamless Pipes Industries Ltd. vs Abdul Rehman and 2 others1987 MLD 2848 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
• Hoyu Kabushiki Kaisha vs Rehmat Elahi and another1987 CLC 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
• Hotel Metropole Limited vs Commissioner for WORKMEN's1987 PLC 615 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• Hote Khan and 2 others vs Mst.Khanzadi and 2 others1987 MLD 694 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• Hony. Captain Bagh Ali vs Mirza Mahmood Baig and others1987 CLC 1746 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
• Holiday Inn Peoples Democratic Workers' Union vs Registrar of Trade1987 PLC 780 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• Hoechst Pakistan Limited and another vs Messrs Decola Pakistan Ltd.1987 MLD 2384 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Hirjina & Co. (Pak.) Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan1987 MLD 700 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-28Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah and another vs Khurshid Khan1987 CLC 832 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• Hercules Incorporated vs Sind Vinyl Industries, Karachi and another1987 MLD 1281 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
• Hazrat Gul vs S.D.M./Tribunal, Nawab Shah-1987 PCr.LJ 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
• Hazoor Bux and 4 others vs The State1987 MLD 1590 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• Hassan Khan Durrani vs Mehboob Khan1987 CLC 2185 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-23
  execution of decreelimitation periodresiduary articlecompromise decreecivil revisionobjections to execution
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from concurrent lower court orders dismissing the applicant's objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the execution of a compromise decree, and holding that the execution application was governed by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 rather than the Limitation Act 1908. The core legal question is whether an application for the execution of a civil court decree is governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 or exclusively by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 following the omission of Article 182 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972. The Sindh High Court held that section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 only provides an outer limit or maximum period for a fresh execution application and does not prescribe the limitation period for an initial execution application, which is instead governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the execution application was dismissed as time-barred under Article 181. The key principle laid down is that after the deletion of Article 182 from the Limitation Act 1908, initial execution applications for civil court decrees fall under the residuary Article 181, while section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 merely prescribes the outer time bar for fresh applications.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application for the execution of a civil court decree governed by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 after the omission of Article 182?
  • Does section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide a period of limitation for a first or initial application for the execution of a decree?
  • What is the effect of the omission of Article 182 from the Limitation Act 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 on execution applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Hashwani Hotels Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1987 CLC 341 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-29Read full judgment →
• Hashim vs MRS. Hamida Begum and Another1987 PLD Karachi 151 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-18Read full judgment →
• Haseen Ahmed KHAN/Appellant vs Irshad Khan through His Legal Heirs1987 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haseen Ahmed Khan vs Irshad Khan through His Legal Heirs and Another Opponents_S1987 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haroon vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2081 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
• Hansraj vs Mrs. Zahida Ali1987 MLD 179 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29Read full judgment →
• Hanif Shah vs The State1987 MLD 1451 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-12Read full judgment →
• Hamzo Khan vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1988(2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
• Hamdard National Foundation (Pakistan) vs E.I.Du Pont De Nemours &1987 CLC 1935 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hajiani Zulekha Bhai and 5 others vs Haji Abdul Rauf1987 CLC 1763 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →
• Hajiani Kalsumbai and 9 others vs Yar Mast Khan 4 and others1987 MLD 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
• Haji vs Loung1987 CLC 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Toti Bashar vs The State and 3 others1987 P Cr. L J 1626 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Taj Deen vs Sayyed Hamid Shah and 2 others1987 CLC 433 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Rahim vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Dadu and others1987 CLC 1775 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Usman through his Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Paryal1987 CLC 552 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Sodho And 6 Others vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 351 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Rafiq vs Shahenshah Jehan Begum1987 PLD Karachi 180 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Khan And Other vs Deputy Land Commissioner And Other1987 PLD KARACHI 387 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs Hamz00 Khan Opponent/1987 PLD Karachi 520 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs Ha141200 Khan1987 PLD Karachi 520 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Fayyaz Khan vs Abdul Wahab Khan1987 MLD 1298 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Husan Bano And Another1987 P Cr. L J 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ahsan vs Government of Sind through Secretary, Board1987 CLC 608 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ahmad and another vs Karachi Municipal Corporation1987 MLD 2959 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Moosa vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 305 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Mehboob Ali Khan vs Mst. Illachi and 3 others1987 MLD 637 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Khuda-E-Nazar vs The State1987 MLD 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Ilyas Haji Issa and 9 others vs Haji Ahmad and 7 others1987 CLC 2509 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Gul Muhammad Haji Ismail and others vs Munawar Ali Khan and others1987 MLD 2828 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Gul Hassan vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 275 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Allahditto and 5 others vs The State and another1987 MLD 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmed vs Abdul Karim and 4 Others1987 PLD Karachi 219 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmed vs Abdul Karim and 4 Other1987 PLD Karachi 219 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad Haji Abdur Rehman vs Ahsher Ali1987 CLC 378 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad Haji Abdul Rehman vs Late Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Through Legal Heirs1987 PLD Karachi 603 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Ah 4Ad Haji Abdul Refiman vs Late Syed Nazir Hussain Shah. through Legal HeirSRespondent1987 PLD Karachi 603 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Adam Khan vs Yar Muhammad1987 CLC 475 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah through L.Rs. and 9 others vs S. Iqbal Naseem1987 CLC 166 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah through his Legal Heirs and another vs Jaffar through his1987 CLC 644 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Majeed vs Muhammad Yousuf And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• Hail Muhammad Khan and others vs Deputy Land Commissioner and others1987 PLD Karachi 387 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Ahsan vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2434 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Abdul Malik vs Muhammad Ilyas1987 CLC 419 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
• Hafeezullah vs Allah Din1987 CLC 1722 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-23Read full judgment →
• Hadi Bux vs The State1987 MLD 1565 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 35 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-27Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rahman vs Abdul Rahman and 3 others1987 CLC 195 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13
  partition suitSunni Law of Inheritancenominationbenami transactionres judicatajoint tenancyrecurring cause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for the partition of a house, claiming his share as an heir of his deceased father, Abdul Razzaq, under Sunni Law. The primary defendant, a nominee of the deceased in the records of the housing society, contested the suit, asserting sole ownership based on the nomination and claiming the property was purchased and constructed with his own funds. The core legal questions were whether a nomination in society records confers exclusive ownership rights to the exclusion of other legal heirs, and whether a previous suit for partition dismissed in default bars a subsequent suit under the doctrine of res judicata. The Court held that a nomination merely authorizes the nominee to manage the property as a trustee for the benefit of all legal heirs and does not override the law of inheritance. Furthermore, the Court established that a suit for partition is not barred by res judicata following a dismissal in default, as the right to partition is a recurring cause of action inherent in joint tenancy.

  Questions settled

  • Does a nomination in housing society records confer exclusive ownership of property to the nominee, or does the nominee hold it as a trustee for the legal heirs?
  • Is a suit for partition barred by the doctrine of res judicata if a previous suit for the same property was dismissed in default?
  • Can a nominee claim absolute ownership of property based solely on a nomination, thereby excluding other legal heirs from their inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Muhammad vs Zamir Hassan Khan1987 CLC 510 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-24Read full judgment →
• Habib Bux Alias Munna And Another vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1985 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Tufail1987 MLD 2850 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-17Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Hussain and Others1987 PLD Karachi 612 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Hussain And Other1987 PLD Karachi 612 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Mubarak Alan Syed and another1987 CLC 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs M.Tufail and Brothers1987 MLD 2953 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-17Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Cargo Despatch Co. Ltd. and 4 others1987 CLC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-07
  banking recovery suitlimitation periodservice by publicationcontinuing guaranteenovationleave to defendoverdraft facilitymortgage by deposit of title deeds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit filed by a banking company for the recovery of outstanding overdraft facilities, promissory notes, and mortgage securities against a limited company and its directors. The core legal questions addressed were whether the suit was time-barred, whether service of summons by publication under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, constituted valid service, and whether a director’s resignation or a reduction in liability constituted a novation of the original guarantee. The Court held that the suit was within the limitation period due to subsequent acknowledgments of liability. It further held that service by publication is invalid unless it is proven that the defendant was avoiding ordinary service. Regarding the merits, the Court determined that a director’s resignation does not absolve them from a continuing guarantee, and a reduction in liability does not amount to a novation of the agreement. The key principle laid down is that service by publication under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, is not a substitute for ordinary service unless the defendant is actively avoiding the court's process.

  Questions settled

  • Does service of summons by publication under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, constitute valid service if the defendant was not avoiding ordinary service?
  • Does a director's resignation from a company absolve them of liability under a continuing guarantee executed in their personal capacity?
  • Does a letter from a debtor requesting a reduction in liability against the appropriation of fixed deposits constitute a novation of the original loan agreement?
  • Can a suit for recovery of money be considered within the limitation period if the defendant has acknowledged liability through a letter or partial payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Ali Mohtaram Naqvi1987 PLD Karachi 102 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01
  stay of suitsummary procedureleave to defendbanking suitpreviously instituted suitres sub-judicenegotiable instruments
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arose from a recovery suit filed by the plaintiff bank under the summary procedure of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The defendant, having previously instituted a comprehensive suit against the bank for declaration, redemption, and damages, moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to stay the bank's subsequent suit. The plaintiff argued that Section 10 did not apply to summary suits, or alternatively, that such an application could not be considered until the defendant was granted leave to defend. The High Court of Sindh held that the mandatory bar under Section 10 applies to all classes of suits without distinction, including summary suits under Order XXXVII. The Court ruled that deferring the Section 10 application until after the leave-to-defend stage would defeat the statutory purpose of preventing conflicting adjudications, as refusing leave results in an immediate decree. Consequently, the Court stayed the subsequent suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mandatory stay of suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to summary suits filed under Order XXXVII?
  • Can an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be decided before the court determines the defendant's application for leave to defend under Order XXXVII?
  • Does the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 exclude the application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Abdul Sultan1987 CLC 2212 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd, vs Brig. Sarosh Jal Irani and others1987 MLD 2083 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Mussarat Ali Khan1987 PLD Karachi 86 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17
  summary suitleave to defendex parte decreelimitationbanking loanpromissory noteservice of summons
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 10,86,601 across five distinct loan and overdraft facilities. The defendant, having been served via publication, failed to appear, resulting in an ex parte decree. The defendant subsequently moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which was allowed, and the decree was set aside. The defendant then applied for leave to defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3. The plaintiffs raised a preliminary objection that the application was time-barred, arguing that the limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 runs from the date of service or knowledge. The High Court of Sindh held that the order setting aside the ex parte decree, having not been appealed, was final. It ruled that the 10-day limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 runs from the date of service of summons, not from the date of knowledge of the decree. The Court further held that the defendant raised triable issues regarding limitation under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 and the charging of interest. Consequently, the Court granted unconditional leave to defend.

  Questions settled

  • Does an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a summary suit under Order XXXVII?
  • Does the limitation period of 10 days for filing an application for leave to defend under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 run from the date of the defendant's knowledge of the decree or from the date of service of summons?
  • Can an application filed under a wrong provision of law, such as Order IX Rule 13 instead of Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, be treated under the correct provision by the court?
  • Whether the extension of limitation under Section 4 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 applies to loans outstanding on the commencing day of the Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Messrs Speedy Gases Company and another1987 MLD 123 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-07Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Inamur Rahman and another1987 PLD Karachi 593 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Development Institute of Pakistan and 5 others1987 CLC 667 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited and others vs Hotel Metropole Limited and others1987 MLD 2341 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed vs The State1987 MLD 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Gulzar vs Mst.Paro alias Bilqis and others1987 MLD 2983 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
• Gulo vs The State1987 MLD 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammadand 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 737 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17
  bailspecial courtjurisdiction of High Courtdelay in trialsuccessive bail applicationshardened criminalsuppression of terrorist activitiesrobberyArms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of four criminal bail applications filed before the Sindh High Court by three accused persons facing trial under Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code, and the Arms Ordinance 1965, before a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal questions concerned the High Court's jurisdiction to grant bail in such cases, the applicability of delay as a ground for bail under Section 497(1), third proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the bar on successive bail applications, and whether the accused were "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminals" under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held that it possesses jurisdiction to entertain and grant bail in cases before Special Courts, that bail can be granted on the ground of delay, and that a second bail application on delay grounds is not barred before a higher court. It further ruled that mere lists of crime numbers without evidence of roles or convictions are insufficient to classify accused as hardened criminals. Consequently, the High Court granted bail to the applicants on the ground of over two years' delay in trial.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain bail applications for accused persons facing trial before a Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Can bail be granted on the ground of delay under Section 497(1), third proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for scheduled offences triable by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Is a second bail application on the ground of delay, previously taken but not pressed before a lower court, barred before the High Court?
  • What constitutes sufficient evidence to classify an accused as a "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby disentitling them to bail on delay grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Khan vs Gharibullah Khan1987 CLC 736 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• Guhram vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1617 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• Government of Sind vs Syed Zahir Hussain1987 MLD 2863 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-26Read full judgment →
• Government of Sind And Other vs Messrs Hoechst (Pakistan) Ltd. And Others1987 PLC 860 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1987 PLC 447 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ghullam Mohiuddin vs Siiamsunnisa1987 MLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulamali Kaderbhoy and 13 others vs Sheikh Nasiruddin and 6 others1987 MLD 902 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabir Shah and 4 others vs Allah Dino Shah and 11 others1987 CLC 549 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Shabbir Fareedi and 2 others vs The Settlement Commissioner, Sind Central Settlement Cell, Karachi and 4 others1987 MLD 2968 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool And 3 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 82 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1999 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-05Read full judgment →