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.

• National Bank of Pakistan vs Mrs. Abida Mustajab Hasan and another1985 CLC 1074 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
• National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax1985 PTD 299 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin vs The Selection Board Op Admission for Medical College1985 CLC 2441 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad Shaikh vs Secretary-General, Islamic Secretariat, Saudi1985 CLC 2072 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• Nasir Abbas Malik vs Adam1985 CLC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-24Read full judgment →
• Nasimul Jamil Khatib vs Saifu Ddin1985 CLC 1939 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nasim vs MRs, Aziz Mohsina1985 MLD 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• Naseem Ahmed vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 591 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Naroomal Jetomal vs Special Court (Banking) Sind and 3 others1985 MLD 1189 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
• Naromal vs Haji Abdul Sattar1985 MLD 218 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
• Naqvi & Co. vs Haji Abdul Aziz1985 CLC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• Namatullah Khan vs 1ST Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller and 21985 CLC 1675 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
• Naeemul Hassan alias Hasan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2486 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
• Nadir and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 247 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-19
  post-arrest bailcross-fightcounter-versionaggressionfurther inquirymedical inconsistencymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application arises out of a bail plea filed by three accused persons facing trial for murder and other offences under sections 302, 307, 458, and 171/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the accused are entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving a cross-fight, conflicting medical evidence, and injuries sustained by the accused themselves, making the question of aggression one of further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that two of the applicants were entitled to bail due to glaring inconsistencies between the first information report and the medical report regarding the use of firearms, while the third applicant, assigned the fatal blow, was also granted bail on the principle that the presence of multiple injuries on the accused persons established a cross-fight and a counter-version, rendering the question of who was the aggressor open to further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where a cross-fight is established by injuries on the persons of the accused, and there are rival versions as to who was the aggressor, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether accused persons are entitled to bail when there is a glaring inconsistency between the ocular account in the F.I.R. and the medical report?
  • Does the presence of multiple injuries on the persons of the accused establish a cross-fight requiring further inquiry into who was the aggressor for the purpose of bail?
  • Is the absence of a counter-F.I.R. or counter-case fatal to a plea of self-defense and cross-fight at the bail stage when the accused have sustained injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadir Ali and another vs Muhammad Adam Khan1985 CLC 373 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28
  revision applicationdishonoured chequeforgerycomparison of handwritingmisreading of evidencenatural justicecivil recoveryburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts, which had decreed the respondent's suit for recovery of Rs. 7,000 based on an alleged friendly loan and a dishonored cheque. The core legal questions concerned whether the plaintiff proved the loan transaction despite material contradictions between his pleadings and evidence, and whether the lower courts erred in their method of comparing signatures to establish liability. The High Court held that the lower courts' findings were based on a misreading of evidence and an omission to consider material testimony, specifically the bank manager's evidence regarding the forged nature of the cheque. Furthermore, the court held that the lower courts acted improperly by conducting a signature comparison without expert assistance, without notice to the parties, and in their absence, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgments, emphasizing that courts must not rely on subjective, unguided comparisons of handwriting while ignoring expert or material evidence on record.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rely on its own subjective comparison of signatures without expert assistance or notice to the parties?
  • Does a judgment based on evidence that contradicts the pleadings constitute a misreading of evidence?
  • Is a court required to consider the testimony of a bank manager regarding the authenticity of a cheque signature?
  • Does conducting a signature comparison in the absence of parties and their advocates violate the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Universal Brushes Ltd. vs The Superintendent, Central Excise And 2PTCL 1985 (CL.) 167 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• M/s. Sterling Engineering Corporation vs Collector Of Customs And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 319 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Oil Mills Limited, Hyderabad vs The Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1985 (CL.) 277 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. Novitas International Other vs Income Tax Officer (Film Circle) AndPTCL 1985 (CL.) 421 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• M/s. Moonlite (Pak) Ltd. vs Federation Of Pakistan And 4 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 424 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• M/s. Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Director General/Commissioner, ExcisePTCL 1985 (CL.) 213 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Firduos Spinning And Weaving Mills Limited, And Other vs FederationPTCL 1985 (CL.) 10 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Fauji Foundation vs Central Board Of Revenue Etc.PTCL 1985 (CL) 104 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Crescent Pak. Soap & Oil Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1985 (CL) 73 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Burhan Engineering Co vs Income Tax Officer, Companies LimitedPTCL 1985 (CL.) 394 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Arag Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax (West) Karachi AndPTCL 1985 (CL.) 211 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s, Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd, Karachi. vs Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1985 (CL) 479 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Maqbool & Company Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Karachi.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 36 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali Khan vs Sind Co-Operative Housing Authority and 21985 CLC 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Prestressed by R.C.C. Pipe Works Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales1985 PTD 399 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Hussain Shamsi vs The State and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 535 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Cheema (through his Legal Heirs) vs Khursheed Begum1985 CLC 150 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
• Mureed vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 265 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain Memon vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2803(1) · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-11Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ahmad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2990 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
• Munammad Jumman vs Muhammad Bachal1985 CLC 48 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz and 4 Others vs Province of Sind and Another (1985 PLC (C.S.) 938 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mums Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, Government of Pakistan1985 PLD Karachi 630 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29
  trade mark registrationdescriptive markcoined wordtrade marks acttrademark refusalcomposite markvitamilk
  Summary & questions settled

  These miscellaneous appeals challenged the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to register the trade mark "VITAMILK" in classes 5 and 29 on the ground that it was descriptive under section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The core legal question was whether the trade mark "VITAMILK" is descriptive and lacks distinctiveness, requiring dissection into its prefix and suffix to determine its character and quality. The court held that the Registrar erred in dissecting the mark rather than evaluating it as a whole, finding that "VITAMILK" is a newly-coined word which, while suggestive, does not have a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods so as to render it unregistrable. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the matters remanded to the Registrar. The key principle laid down is that composite trade marks must be viewed as a whole rather than artificially dissected into component parts when assessing descriptiveness under the Trade Marks Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a composite trade mark should be evaluated as a whole or dissected into its component parts when determining descriptiveness under the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  • Does the trade mark "VITAMILK" have a direct reference to the character or quality of goods so as to disqualify it from registration under section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  • Can the Registrar of Trade Marks refuse registration solely on the ground that a trade mark contains a suggestive prefix or suffix?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulchand vs Smt. Indra and Others1985 PLD Karachi 362 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-12
  Family Courts ActHindu marriagemaintenanceprocedural lawconstitutional jurisdictionamendment of pleadingsres judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the concurrent findings of the Family Court and the Appellate Court, which decreed maintenance in favor of a Hindu wife and her minor child. The petitioner, a Hindu husband, contended that the Family Courts Act, 1964, is inapplicable to Hindus, arguing that the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946, should govern. He further challenged the refusal of the trial court to allow an amendment to his written statement and asserted that the wife was divorced and thus ineligible for maintenance. The Court held that the Family Courts Act, 1964, is a procedural statute that applies to all, including non-Muslims, and does not conflict with the substantive rights provided under the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946. The Court further ruled that the trial court's discretion to refuse a belated amendment to the written statement was lawful and that the issue of divorce had already been conclusively decided against the petitioner in prior litigation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that Family Court findings supported by evidence are not subject to constitutional interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Family Courts Act, 1964, apply to the family affairs of Hindus?
  • Is the Family Courts Act, 1964, a procedural statute that does not affect substantive rights under the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946?
  • Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact reached by a Family Court under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2325 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad vs Willayat Ullah Khan1985 MLD 261 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Maqbool Ahmad1985 CLC 2862 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-06
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentstriking off defencerent controllermiscellaneous rent casebona fidestechnical default
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant's application under Section 16(2) of the relevant rent restriction law for striking off the respondent's defence due to alleged non-deposit of rent. The core legal question was whether depositing rent in a separate miscellaneous rent case instead of the specific ejectment proceedings constitutes a contumacious default warranting the striking off of the tenant's defence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where a tenant has regularly deposited rent in court—albeit in a miscellaneous case due to a misunderstanding rather than the specific ejectment case—and has acted in good faith without contumacious conduct, such a technical default cannot form the basis for striking off the defence. The key principle laid down is that technical defaults in the mode of depositing rent, when sufficiently explained and devoid of bad faith or willful defiance, do not penalize a tenant with the striking off of their defense.

  Questions settled

  • Does depositing rent in a miscellaneous rent case instead of the ejectment proceedings constitute a default warranting the striking off of a tenant's defence?
  • Can a technical default in depositing rent be excused when the tenant acts in good faith?
  • Is contumacious conduct or bad faith required to strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus vs Sultan Ahmad1985 MLD 953 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus Ali Baboo vs Haseen Ahmed1985 CLC 2864 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2705 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Shabbir Ahmad1985 CLC 2111 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-10
  rent appealejectmentconversion of premisesburden of proofcross-examinationresidential to commercial
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal challenges an order of the II-Rent Controller, Karachi, which allowed ejectment of the tenant from the disputed residential quarter on the ground of unauthorized conversion of the premises into commercial use. The landlord filed an ejectment application alleging personal need, damage, and conversion. The Rent Controller ruled against the landlord on personal need and damage, but found in favour of the landlord regarding the conversion of premises. The core legal question was whether the landlord's uncontroverted testimony on affidavit regarding conversion, in the absence of cross-examination by the tenant, was sufficient to discharge the burden of proof under the rules of evidence. The High Court held that since the tenant failed to cross-examine the landlord on the assertion of conversion, the evidence is deemed accepted, upholding the eviction order. The key principle laid down is that failure to cross-examine a witness on a deposition in examination-in-chief leads to the legal presumption that the evidence is accepted by the opposing party.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure to cross-examine a landlord on the assertion of conversion of premises amounts to an admission of the fact?
  • Is a single sentence assertion in an ejectment application and affidavit sufficient to prove conversion when left unchallenged in cross-examination?
  • Can a tenant appeal an ejectment order based on a finding of conversion of residential premises into commercial use without the landlord's consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen and another vs Maqbool a Hmad1985 CLC 1955 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin Ajmeri vs Mst. Salma Khatoon1985 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yam1n vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 682 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 21 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Wal1 Muhammad and 4 others1985 CLC 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The Deputy Commissioner and Additional1985 MLD 985 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Khan vs Muhammad Arif Qureshi and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2701 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman and another vs Rehmatullah and 4 others1985 CLC 420 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer and 8 others vs Haji Islamuddin Khan1985 CLC 999 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs Additional District Judge and others1985 MLD 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tariq Jillani vs Mst. Rahat Parveen and another1985 MLD 387 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and others vs District Magistrate, Tharparkar1985 CLC 2885 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17
  res judicatadismissal in limineinfructuous petitionNo-Objection Certificateminority disabilitycinematograph rulespower of reviewfunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by residents of Kunri Town challenging the grant and extension of a No-Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) by the District Magistrate, Tharparkar, for establishing an open-air cinema. The N.O.C. was originally granted to a minor's guardian under the West Pakistan Cinematograph Rules 1962 and was later extended in review after an initial refusal. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the dismissal in limine of a previous petition filed on identical grounds operated as res judicata. The Sindh High Court held that the dismissal of a writ petition on technical grounds as infructuous does not constitute an adjudication on merits and does not attract res judicata. On the merits, the Court held that under Rules 3 and 5 of the 1962 Rules, a minor cannot hold a cinema licence and is thus incompetent to apply for or hold an N.O.C. Furthermore, review is a statutory right, and in the absence of an express provision, the District Magistrate had no authority to review his order refusing extension. The grant and extension of the N.O.C. were declared null, void, and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a constitutional petition in limine as infructuous operate as res judicata against a subsequent petition?
  • Can a minor or their guardian lawfully apply for and be granted a No-Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) for a cinema licence under the Cinematograph Rules?
  • Does an administrative authority or statutory officer possess an inherent power of review in the absence of an express statutory provision conferring such power?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2988 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Mst. Arsh Bibi-- Respondent1985 CLC 1701 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13
  rented landejectment applicationlandlord-tenant relationshipestoppelstatutory interpretationpersonal usetitle extinction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal concerns an ejectment application filed by a landlady against tenants of 'rented land' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether a landlord can evict a tenant from rented land for the purpose of constructing a residential building, or if the statutory ground of 'own use' is limited to business or trade purposes. Additionally, the court addressed whether a tenant is estopped from challenging a landlord's title that has expired. The court held that the phrase 'for his own use' in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Ordinance, when read with the restrictive conditions in sub-clauses (b) and (c) and the restoration provisions of subsection (4), limits the ground of eviction to business or trade purposes. Consequently, a landlord cannot evict a tenant from rented land to build a residence. Furthermore, the court ruled that while Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872 prevents a tenant from denying a landlord's title at the commencement of tenancy, it does not estop a tenant from pleading that the landlord's title has subsequently been extinguished.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'for his own use' in Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, permit eviction of a tenant from rented land for the construction of a residential building?
  • Is a tenant estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872 from challenging the landlord's title if that title has been extinguished subsequent to the commencement of the tenancy?
  • Must Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, be read in conjunction with sub-clauses (b) and (c) to determine the scope of 'own use'?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 709 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs Mst. Mubeen Khatoon and 3 others1985 CLC 2413 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi. vs Sirajuddin and 3 others1985 CLC 1788 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Khan vs The State and 5 others1985 P Cr. L J 1539 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Provincial Election Authority Sind at Karachi1985 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-15
  constitutional petitionelection disputeinvalid ballot papervoter intentionalternate remedytown committee election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the election of the Chairman of the Mir Wah Town Committee, where the petitioner secured six votes and respondent No. 3 secured five votes. The Presiding Officer declared one of the petitioner's votes invalid because the cross mark was placed in the serial number column rather than the designated marking space, and subsequently declared respondent No. 3 elected through a draw of lots. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition when an alternative remedy by way of an election petition was subsequently enacted, and whether a vote can be rejected on technical grounds when the voter's intention is manifest. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was maintainable since no adequate alternative remedy existed at the time of filing, and that a vote cannot be rejected on technicalities if the voter's intent is clear. The court laid down the principle that superior courts will prefer to hold a vote valid rather than invalid on a technical ground, and that the High Court may entertain a writ petition in election matters involving pure questions of law or statutory interpretation despite the availability of an election tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against an election result when no adequate alternative remedy existed at the time of its filing?
  • Can a vote be rejected on technical grounds if the intention of the voter is manifest from the ballot paper?
  • Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition in an election matter involving the interpretation of statutory rules without forcing the petitioner to file an election petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Khawar Rafi Qureshi and 4 others1985 CLC 2125 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddaq vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2794 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saad Shibli vs Commissioner/Appellate Election Authority,1985 CLC 2190 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Rent Controller (VIII), Karachi and another1985 CLC 553 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Fazloo and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim vs Mst. Akhtari Begum1985 CLC 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Parial vs Government of Sind through D.C., Sukkur and 41985 CLC 2824 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 953 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and 4 Others vs Altaf Rasul and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 353 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-05
  fatal accidentscompensationnon-earning minorpecuniary lossreasonable expectationnegligent drivingdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit instituted under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 for the recovery of compensation following the fatal accident of an eight-year-old child caused by the rash and negligent driving of a taxi. The core legal question before the court was whether compensation can be awarded under the Fatal Accidents Act for the death of a non-earning minor child where there is no actual proof of current earnings, and how to distinguish between a speculative possibility and a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage. The Sindh High Court held that it is not a condition precedent for the maintenance of an action under the Act that the deceased must have been actually earning money at the time of death; a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage is sufficient, particularly given the societal and religious norms in Pakistan where children are expected to support their parents. The court laid down that assessment of damages involves a degree of guess-work based on evidence rather than mere speculation, and accordingly awarded a decree of compensation to the parents.

  Questions settled

  • Is actual earning by the deceased a condition precedent for maintaining an action under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • Can compensation be claimed under the Fatal Accidents Act for mental worry, physical pain, and suffering of the family?
  • What constitutes a reasonable probability of pecuniary advantage versus a mere speculative possibility in cases involving the death of a minor child?
  • How do societal and religious norms regarding the maintenance of parents by children influence the assessment of damages in fatal accident claims?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naved alias Biloo vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2414 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustaqeem Khan vs Pakistan Employees Cooperative1985 PLD Karachi 326 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21
  cooperative housing societyallotment cancellationnon-member allotmentconstitutional petitionbye-laws interpretationbona fide actionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns several constitutional petitions challenging the cancellation of residential plot allotments by the Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioners, who were employees of the Society, had been allotted plots in the 1970s. In 1983, the Society cancelled these allotments, alleging they were illegal because the allottees were not members of the Society, as required by its bye-laws. The core legal question was whether the Society possessed the authority to cancel these allotments on the ground that the allottees were non-members. The Court held that while bye-laws restricted Society membership to government employees, there was no express prohibition against the Society allotting plots to non-members. The Court found that the allotments were made in good faith to protect land from encroachment and that the Society had a history of such allotments. The Court established the principle that membership eligibility is distinct from the right to be allotted a plot, and in the absence of a specific prohibition, such allotments are not inherently illegal. Consequently, the cancellation orders were declared to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a cooperative housing society have the legal authority to allot plots to non-members in the absence of an express prohibition in its bye-laws?
  • Is there a legal distinction between eligibility for membership in a housing society and eligibility for the allotment of a plot?
  • Can a housing society cancel an allotment of land on the ground that the allottee was not a member, if such allotment was made in good faith to protect land from encroachment?
  • Does the power to cancel an allotment under society bye-laws extend to grounds not explicitly provided for in the bye-laws or the sub-licence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq Hussain vs Not1985 CLC 2552 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25
  ejectmentpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantbona fide needrent appealSind Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent filed an ejectment case against the appellant seeking possession of a shop on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement. The appellant contested the proceedings, claiming various shifting stances including being a sub-tenant or the purchaser of the business, but ultimately admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller and appellate forums evaluated the evidence regarding the landlord's intent to return from abroad and establish a business in Pakistan, alongside the conduct of the parties since 1980. The court held that the landlord had sufficiently established his bona fide requirement for the premises, supported by consistency in his pleadings and the statutory safeguards under the relevant rent legislation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the appellant was directed to hand over vacant possession within two months, thereby maintaining the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord returning from abroad seeking to establish a business in Pakistan sufficiently establishes bona fide personal requirement for ejectment?
  • Does the mere statement of a landlord regarding personal requirement suffice when viewed alongside consistent conduct and legal safeguards?
  • Can a tenant who has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant subsequently challenge the existence of such relationship in ejectment proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moinuddin vs Messrs Ahmad Traders1985 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood Mubashir vs The State1985 MLD 859 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Liaque vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 671 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Latif vs The State1985 MLD 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 958 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamil and another vs Mst. Hameedan Begum1985 MLD 424 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed vs The State1985 MLD 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamshed vs The State1985 MLD 66 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel Anjum and another vs Provincial Election1985 MLD 1567 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Mst. Mukhtar Begum1985 MLD 1186 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and Lo Others vs Sh. Jamilurrehman and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Karachi 537 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and Others vs Central Board of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and Another ,1985 PTD 649 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal alias Saleem vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2991 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Khan Darakhshan vs Muhammad and 11 others1985 CLC 964 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iftikhar Malik vs Mst. Surraiya Sultana1985 MLD 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idrees Khan vs Mst. Feroz a Khanum1985 MLD 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Taj Muhammad and another1985 CLC 3000 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim through His Legal Heirs vs Sind Industrial Trading1985 PLD Karachi 95 · Sindh High Court
  Letters Patent Appealcustodia legisrepresentative suitburden of proof of possessionlate production of documentsdelay in judgmentrejoinderadverse possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by a Single Judge in a long-standing civil suit initially filed in 1950 by the appellant representing the Brohi Jamat of Sher Shah Village for a declaration and injunction regarding vast tracts of land. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the representative suit, the extent of land in custodia legis pursuant to an attachment order, and the proof of actual possession by the plaintiffs. The High Court held that inordinate delay in delivering judgment does not invalidate it unless prejudice is shown, that a plaintiff is not required to file a rejoinder to a written statement unless a set-off or counter-claim is raised, and that the trial court was justified in refusing to admit late documents lacking authenticity. On merits, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession over the entire claimed land, except for a specific attached piece of land measuring approximately 2,646 square yards and the land actually occupied by their huts and houses. The Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the total dismissal and remanding the matter for a decision on merits restricted to the attached land and the land in actual possession of the Jamat.

  Questions settled

  • Does an inordinate delay between the hearing of arguments and the pronouncement of a judgment render the judgment invalid under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a plaintiff required under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to file a rejoinder or counter-statement to a written statement when no set-off or counter-claim has been pleaded?
  • Can a court refuse to admit late-produced documents that are merely simple copies of letters and agreements rather than public records of unquestionable authenticity?
  • What is the extent of a civil court's adjudication upon remand when an appellate court directs a suit to proceed only in respect of property in custodia legis and property actually in the plaintiff's possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain alias Papoo vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat alias Hayaton vs Directorgeneral, Pakistan Coast1985 P Cr. L J 2460 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon through his Legal Heirs. vs Siraj Ahmad Khan1985 CLC 549 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →