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.

• Mehdi Ali vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2053 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
• Mayo and 2 others vs The State1986 MLD 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Ghulam Rasool vs Khayal Gul Khan1986 MLD 329 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-06Read full judgment →
• Matto and another- vs The State1986 MLD 1043 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-18Read full judgment →
• Matloob Ahmed vs Nooruddin And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 45 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mat. Rashida Alias Bengallan vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2316 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
• Maroof Ahmad vs Dr.Capt. Sualeha Ali1986 MLD 2508 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur and 41986 MLD 1581 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1700 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain vs Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sind and 21986 MLD 144 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-12Read full judgment →
• Manzoor And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 460 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-09Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Bhatti And 5 Other vs Haji Noval Khan And 5 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 371 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad and Others vs Karim Bux and OTHERs1986 PLD Karachi 637 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-12
  default in payment of rentpersonal bona fide usesubsequent eventsburden of proofmoney orderejectmentlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the appellants from the demised premises on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide use. The core legal questions involve whether the appellants committed a default in rent payment and whether the respondents established their bona fide personal requirement for the premises, particularly in light of subsequent events where another tenement in the same building was vacated during the proceedings. The court held that the appellants regularly remitted the rent through money orders within the statutory period, thereby committing no default, and that the landlords failed to prove their good faith requirement given that other premises in the building became available to them. The key principle laid down is that the burden lies heavily on the landlord to establish bona fide personal requirement in good faith, and appellate courts can take note of subsequent events such as the vacation of alternative premises during the pendency of proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the production of money order counterfoils constitutes valid proof of payment of rent under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can an appellate court take note of subsequent events, such as the vacation of another premises by the landlord during the pendency of ejectment proceedings?
  • What constitutes 'requirement in good faith' by a landlord for personal use under rent restriction laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Manther and another vs Member (Relief & Settlement), Board of Revenue, Sind and another1986 MLD 694 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
• Malook And Another vs The State-/Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Sultan Ahmad vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1446 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-10Read full judgment →
• Malik Sardar Khan vs The State1986 MLD 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Jiand Khan vs Province of Sind1986 MLD 2128 · Sindh High Court · 1947-12-21Read full judgment →
• Makhno vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 15 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
• Makhdoom Fazal Haque and 6 others vs Makhdoom Nizamuddin1986 MLD 128 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodaziz vs Shujaat Muhammad Khan by his Leagal Heirs1986 MLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
• Mahmood vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 714 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Iqbal vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2522 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-31Read full judgment →
• M.A. Olla (Muhammad Abul Olla) vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another1986 MLD 276 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M. Shahid Nawaz vs Fazal Ellahi Shaikh and Another1986 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-02Read full judgment →
• M. S. Baroba vs Manzoor Ahmed1986 PLD Karachi 407 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-05
  rent evictiongood faithbona fide requirementpersonal useSind Rented Premises Ordinancelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal and connected first rent appeals arose from a common order passed by the Third Senior Civil Judge and Controller, Karachi South, allowing eviction applications under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Due to a conflict of judicial opinion regarding whether the question of bona fide or good faith can be investigated under section 14, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller can examine the genuineness or good faith of the landlord's personal need when dealing with an eviction application filed by specific privileged classes of landlords, such as widows, orphans, or retiring employees, under section 14 of the Ordinance. The court held that the question of good faith or bona fides is not to be inquired into under section 14, provided the statutory conditions explicitly mentioned in the section are fulfilled by the landlord. The key principle laid down is that the object of section 14 is to relieve specified classes of landlords from the rigours of an elaborate inquiry regarding good faith, allowing them to recover possession swiftly upon satisfying the distinct conditions stipulated in the provision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the question of good faith or bona fides can be gone into by the Rent Controller in an application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • What are the mandatory conditions a landlord must satisfy to obtain an order of eviction under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Kamran Nasib Hashmi vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
• M. Afzal Munif vs The Board of Trustees, Abandoned Properties1986 MLD 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
• M Uhammad Hanif vs Lie State1986 PLD Karachi 437 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07
  bailstatutory delaydesperate criminalZina Ordinanceinterpretation of statutesfourth provisopost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This is the fourth bail application filed in the High Court by the applicant, Muhammad Hanif, who is being tried along with others under sections 11, 13, and 14 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for allegedly kidnapping and raping his sister's daughters and forcing them into prostitution. The core legal question concerns the interpretation and application of the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, specifically whether bail can be refused on the ground of statutory delay by forming an opinion that the accused is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal based on the material of the case and pending cases, and whether a previous conviction is a prerequisite for such classification. The court held that the fourth proviso is intended to prevent the indiscriminate grant of bail for statutory delay to heinous offenders, and that the court can form a tentative opinion that an accused is a desperate or dangerous criminal based on the material available in the case or extraneous circumstances, without requiring a previous conviction. The court dismissed the bail application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the fourth proviso to subsection (1) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, requires a previous conviction to classify an accused as a hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal?
  • Can a court form an opinion under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, based on the material of the pending case alone?
  • Whether bail can be urged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court in a bail application?
  • What is the legislative intent behind the introduction of the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• M . a . Muid Khan vs Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority, Karachi1986 MLD 321 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
• Luqman vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-07
  quashment of proceedingshabitual offenderabuse of processmechanical orderSection 110 Cr.P.C.preventive jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant was alleged to be a habitual offender based on a report by the S.H.O., Panoakil. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate acted lawfully in initiating these proceedings and issuing an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court found that the Magistrate had passed the order in a mechanical, stereotyped manner without applying his judicial mind to the specific allegations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had been acquitted in the two cases cited as evidence of his habitual criminality, and the witnesses proposed were either police officials or individuals with recorded enmity. Consequently, the Court held that continuing these proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings were quashed, establishing that a Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts before issuing orders under Section 112, rather than relying on mechanical or stereotyped reports.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a stereotyped order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without application of mind constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be quashed when the underlying allegations are based on cases where the accused has already been acquitted?
  Read full judgment →
• Licensing Authority under Customs Agents Licensing Rules. 1971 Cum-1986 MLD 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• Lata Devi vs Kunta Bai and another1986 MLD 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Lal Jan vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 782(1) · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
• Lal Bux And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Lal Baz vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2805 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-12Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and 9 Others vs The Chief Land Commissioner, Sind1986 PLD Karachi 623 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmed Mukhtaf vs Syed Abdul Qudus and another1986 MLD 1293 · Sindh High Court · 1966-05-19Read full judgment →
• Khursheed Baig vs The State1986 MLD 1729 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 197 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-02Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs President, P.W.R. and another1986 MLD 340 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-03Read full judgment →
• Khubchand and others vs Acharya Tejendra Prasadji and others1986 MLD 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
• Khokhar Engineering Company and 2 others vs Habib Bank Limited1986 MLD 2941 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28
  Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979interlocutory orderleave to defendspecial lawlegislative intentstatutory barappellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge in a suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, which granted the defendant leave to defend subject to furnishing security. The core legal question was whether an appeal against such an interlocutory order is maintainable under Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Ordinance, 1980, despite the restrictive provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent. It reasoned that the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, is a special law that expressly bars appeals against interlocutory orders that do not dispose of the entire case. Consequently, the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked to circumvent this specific statutory bar. The Court affirmed the principle that where a statute provides a specific procedure for appeals, it must be followed exclusively. Furthermore, the Court held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to defeat the clear legislative intent of ensuring the speedy recovery of banking loans through summary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal lie against an interlocutory order passed by a Single Judge under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Ordinance, 1980 be used to circumvent the appellate restrictions contained in the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 considered a special law that prevails over the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge an interlocutory order when the governing statute expressly bars such appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Hausar Shaheen vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 875 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Ammar Hussain vs Muhammad Shabbiruddin Khan1986 PLD Karachi 74 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantagreement of salepart performancetransfer of propertyeviction applicationspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an order dismissing an eviction application on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties due to an execution of a sale agreement in favour of the respondent. The core legal question was whether an agreement of sale of immovable property terminates the pre-existing relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the tenant's continued possession is protected under the doctrine of part-performance. The High Court held that a mere contract of sale does not create any interest in or charge on the property, and under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a tenant already in possession must show that he continues in possession expressly in part performance of the contract, which must be supported by terms such as cessation of rent or clear intent. The Court established that entering into a sale agreement does not automatically sever the landlord-tenant relationship unless expressly or impliedly provided, and thus allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell immovable property automatically terminate the pre-existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
  • Can a tenant already in possession of premises claim the protection of part-performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act without showing that his continued possession is referable to the agreement of sale?
  • Does a contract for the sale of immovable property create any interest in or charge upon such property under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Bakhsh Arshad vs Station House Officer, Brigade1986 P Cr. L J 814 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
• Khan Gul vs The State1986 MLD 1209 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Khan Gul alias Khanoo vs Assistant Commissioner_S.D.M., Bin Kassim, Karachi1986 MLD 1210 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• Khalilullah Baig vs Pakistan Navy and another1986 MLD 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Khalid Tawab and another vs Shaikh Maqbool Ahmed and 2 others1986 MLD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
• Kazi Sayed Tanveer Azam vs Muhammad Ali Shah1986 MLD 82 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• Karam Ali And Another vs Muhammad Ramzan And Another1986 P C r. L J 1983 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
• Karachi] Mir Hassan and another vs The State1986 MLD 1799 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-16Read full judgment →
• Karachi] Before Muhammad ZahooruZ Hach J Messrs Mothercare Ltd. vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks (I), Government of Pakistan, Karachi and another1986 MLD 1680 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-18Read full judgment →
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation vs Mat. Shamsul And 2 Others1986 PLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-22Read full judgment →
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation vs Ma Hboob Ali1986 MLD 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-23Read full judgment →
• Kambir vs Abbas And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-01Read full judgment →
• Kamal Ahmed Siddiqui vs State Bank of Pakistan and others1986 MLD 1847 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
• Kaloo vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1717 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-26Read full judgment →
• Kalarance Alias Muhammad Nadeem vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1651(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Kajlo And 3 Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 50 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Kaiser Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah and another1986 MLD 935 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
• Kadir Bux vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2184 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20
  post-arrest bailstatutory delayhardened desperate or dangerous criminalbank dacoityhudood lawsbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed on behalf of an accused facing trial under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for bank dacoity. The core legal question is whether an accused who has been detained for a continuous period exceeding one year can claim bail as a matter of right under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and whether such bail can be denied under the fourth proviso on the ground that the accused is a hardened, desperate, or dangerous criminal despite having no previous convictions. The court held that while the third proviso makes bail mandatory upon the lapse of the statutory period, the fourth proviso empowers courts to deny bail to unconvicted persons if their conduct during the commission of the crime exhibits extraordinary courage, cruelty, or desperation, rendering them dangerous criminals. The key principle laid down is that the expression "hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal" in the fourth proviso to section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is not restricted to previous convicts and can be applied based on the manner and methodology of the crime.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be refused under the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to an accused who has no previous convictions but whose conduct during the crime shows them to be a desperate and dangerous criminal?
  • Does the word 'criminal' in the fourth proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 necessarily require a previous conviction or adjudication of guilt?
  • Is the grant of bail mandatory under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the trial has exceeded one year without delay attributable to the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• K.S. Jalil Ahmad Khan vs Istiaque Ali and another1986 MLD 1524 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-27Read full judgment →
• K.M.C. Sanitary and General Employees' Union vs Rashid Ahmed For Appellant.''1986 PLC 32 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-13Read full judgment →
• Jurio And 23 Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 2565 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
• Juma vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 2055 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
• Johnson and Phillips (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1986 PLC 5 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-07Read full judgment →
• Jilani Baig vs Mirza Khairati Baig1986 MLD 319 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-18Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb vs The State1986 MLD 2220 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 1647 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Haider Kazmi vs Attaullah Khan and 3 others1986 MLD 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-24Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Anjum vs The State1986 MLD 1799 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
• Javed Ali Sangji vs The State1986 MLD 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-19Read full judgment →
• Janoo Alias Jan Muhammad vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Janib And 2 Others vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 583 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnessrecovery evidencecriminal appealfalsus in uno falsus in omnibusindependent corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence awarded by the trial court for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants' guilt through ocular evidence, motive, and recovery of incriminating weapons, particularly when the witnesses were interested and the investigation was flawed. The High Court accepted the appeal and acquitted the appellants, rejecting the trial court's reliance on the prosecution's evidence. The Court held that when eye-witnesses are interested and inimical, their testimony requires independent corroboration, which cannot be provided by the witnesses' own statements regarding motive or by medical evidence that fails to match the alleged manner of assault. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that if a witness is found to have falsely implicated one accused, their credibility regarding others is irretrievably shaken, and the evidence of an investigating officer cannot salvage recoveries made in violation of statutory safeguards regarding independent witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Can the evidence of an investigating officer be relied upon to prove recoveries when the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are violated?
  • Does the principle of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' require the rejection of a witness's testimony regarding all accused if they are found to have falsely implicated one co-accused?
  • Can a complainant's own testimony regarding motive serve as independent corroboration for their ocular evidence in a criminal trial?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to corroborate ocular evidence where the nature of injuries contradicts the alleged manner of the assault?
  Read full judgment →
• Jangsher vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 473 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad and armss vs Deputy Commissioner, Karachi1986 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-26
  land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationpotential valuepost-notification salesstatutory allowancereference under section 18
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of six civil references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging various awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer regarding lands acquired in Dehs Pipri, Bakran, Joreji, Koteriro, and Sanhiro for the establishment of the Pakistan Steel Mill and its township. The core legal question concerns the determination of the correct market value of the compulsorily acquired lands, taking into account their potentiality, location, post-notification evidence, and statutory amendments. The court held that the market value assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and modified the awards by determining the compensation per square yard based on contemporaneous government transactions, location advantages, and the appreciation resulting from the mega-project. The key principles laid down include that post-notification sales are admissible in evidence, a liberal approach must be adopted in favor of compulsorily displaced landowners, and the potential use of contiguous lands influenced by a major industrial project is a valid consideration in assessing market value.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the court can consider post-notification sales and transactions for determining the market value of compulsorily acquired land?
  • What is the extent of the burden of proof placed on a claimant challenging a land acquisition award in a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  • How does the potential use of contiguous land influenced by the establishment of a major industrial project affect the assessment of market value for subsequently acquired lands?
  • Can the court remand a case back to the Collector or Land Acquisition Officer for a fresh decision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmed vs Nizamuddin and another1986 MLD 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-11Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmad vs Settlement Commissioner and 4 others1986 MLD 957 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• Jamal Bibi vs Habib1986 MLD 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Isso And 2 Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 613 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• Israr Hussain vs The State and 5 others-1986 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04
  quashment of proceedingsdelay in trialabuse of process of courtcriminal procedureconstitutional remediesanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of a pending criminal case on the sole ground of inordinate delay. The core legal question addressed is whether an inordinate and unjustified delay of over thirteen years in the disposal of a criminal case, with no progress made by the trial court, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashment. The court held that a delay of over a decade without framing a formal charge, obtaining prosecution sanction, or examining any witnesses causes severe prejudice and mental agony to the accused, amounting to a gross abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner and co-accused before the Special Judge Anti-Corruption were quashed. The key principle laid down is that criminal cases must be disposed of with utmost speed, and unjustified protraction of proceedings over many years justifies the exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A to prevent a mockery of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay of over thirteen years in the disposal of a criminal case constitute an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings on the ground of delay?
  • Whether the lack of any progress, including failure to frame a charge or examine witnesses for over a decade, justifies quashing a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs Sub. Gul Inayat Shah1986 MLD 1310 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-21Read full judgment →
• Islamuddin vs Abdul Rehman and Another1986 PLD Karachi 70 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-02
  rent appealejectment proceedingsexecution of decreeintervenortenancy rightsSindh Rented Premises Ordinanceex parte order
  Summary & questions settled

  This rent appeal challenges an order by the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's (intervenor's) claim to tenancy rights during execution proceedings of an ejectment order. The landlord had obtained an ex parte ejectment order against the original tenant, Nizamuddin. Subsequently, the appellant, the tenant's brother, intervened, claiming he, not Nizamuddin, was the actual tenant in possession. The core legal question was whether an intervenor claiming independent tenancy rights could obstruct execution proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove tenancy, as he produced no rent receipts and failed to call his brother as a witness, while the landlord produced a valid tenancy agreement. The Court further held that the scope of execution proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is limited; the Rent Controller cannot entertain objections from third parties claiming independent tenancy rights, as such disputes are foreign to rent execution proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such third-party claims during execution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a third party intervene in rent execution proceedings to claim independent tenancy rights?
  • Does the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to execution proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the authority to adjudicate claims of independent tenancy raised by an intervenor during the execution of an ejectment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Sulaiman and 8 others vs Mst. Shagufta1986 MLD 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad Siddiqui vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 449 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-07Read full judgment →
• Inayat Masih vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1058 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
• Inayat Baig vs The State--Opponent1986 P Cr. L J 2526 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-01Read full judgment →
• in the matter of Mst.Sultan Jehan vs Not1986 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-20Read full judgment →
• In re : Mst. Zainab and Others vs Not1986 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• Imamuddin vs Mst. Amina and 9 others1986 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
• Imamuddin vs Abdul Rauf1986 MLD 357 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• Idrees Ahmad vs Muhammad Shafiq Khan1986 MLD 1519 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-15Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1270 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-16Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Abdul Rehman Muhammad vs The State1986 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-05Read full judgment →
• Ibne Masood And Another vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1714 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12Read full judgment →
• I.D. Jehani vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1986. CL. 146 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
• I. D. Jehani vs Central Board of Revenue and Others1986 PLD Karachi 23 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →