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.

• Muhammad Hanif and others vs Mst. Shirin Bai and others1985 CLC 2688 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haji Gani Ltd. vs Pakistan and another1985 CLC 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Mst. Anis ,Jehan Begum and 13 others1985 MLD 173 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Karachi Development Authority1985 MLD 443 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Textile Mills Ltd. vs Special Court (Banking) of Sind and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 683 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Kouro and 2 others1985 CLC 2275 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Dawood vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad BASHIRDecreeHolder vs M. a .F00twea R--Judgment-Debtor1985 CLC 460 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs M.A. Footwear1985 CLC 2698 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Khan vs Messrs Steelfabs Ltd.,.Karachi1985 CLC 38 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 619 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bachal and 3 others vs Settlement Commissioner, .Sind1985 MLD 584 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society1985 PLD Karachi 481 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-25
  allotment of commercial plotcooperative housing societyagreement to leasedoctrine of indoor managementcancellation of allotmentpart performancejurisdiction of civil courtspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated civil judgment resolves multiple suits regarding the ownership and possession of a commercial plot ('Nursery Plot') allotted by the Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society (PECHS) to plaintiff Muhammad Azim, which was later cancelled and re-allotted to United Bank Ltd. The main legal questions addressed were whether the initial allotment order and receipt of full consideration constituted a binding agreement to lease; whether the subsequent cancellation on grounds of alleged fraud, forgery, or request was lawful; whether the doctrine of indoor management protected the purchaser; and whether civil court jurisdiction was barred under Sections 54 and 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 or Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The High Court held that the allotment order was a valid agreement to lease, protecting the plaintiff's possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The doctrine of indoor management applied to protect the plaintiff who dealt in good faith. The cancellation was ruled illegal, rendering the subsequent allotment to the bank void. The Court further held that Section 54 does not bar suits involving non-members and a plaintiff in possession is not required to seek specific performance under Section 42.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allotment order issued by a cooperative housing society upon payment of full consideration constitutes an enforceable agreement to lease?
  • Does the doctrine of indoor management protect an allottee acting in good faith from internal procedural irregularities of a cooperative housing society?
  • Is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction by an allottee in physical possession barred under the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 for omitting to claim specific performance?
  • Does Section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in a dispute involving non-members of the society?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azhar Khan vs Abdul Matin1985 MLD 184 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 940 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub vs Muhammad Younas1985 CLC 937 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Musarat Nisar and 4 others1985 MLD 1524 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Ali H Amid1985 CLC 2090 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq . vs Salem a N1985 CLC 2374 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Javed vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 310 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and 4 others vs Mat Aro and 3 others1985 MLD 286 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1985 CLC 1527 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others1985 PLC 403 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26
  workman definitionmanagerial capacityindustrial disputelabour lawpower of attorneyconstitutional petitionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which determined that the petitioner, a bank employee, was not a "workman" and therefore ineligible for relief under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s role as a Branch Manager, involving the exercise of a power of attorney and independent administrative authority, constituted "clerical" or "manual" work. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not a "workman." The ratio established that the true test for determining a "workman" status is the nature of the duties performed, rather than the designation. Where an employee’s primary responsibilities involve managerial and administrative functions, such as exercising delegated powers of attorney, they fall outside the statutory definition of a "workman." The Court affirmed that while the burden of proof rests on the employer, the respondent-Bank successfully demonstrated that the petitioner’s duties were managerial, thereby upholding the lower courts' findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 apply to proceedings under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is a bank employee holding a power of attorney and performing managerial duties considered a 'workman'?
  • What is the primary test for determining whether an employee qualifies as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the burden of proof lie on the employer to establish that an employee is not a 'workman'?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Custodian, Evacuee Property and 5 others1985 CLC 1422 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali and 7 others vs Sakar Khanoo Bai through Legal Heirs and 3 others1985 MLD 545 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Muhammad Saeed1985 CLC 2122 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akhlaque and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1650 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs Muhammad Hayat1985 MLD 328 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ahmed Khan vs The State and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal vs Assistant Political Officer and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Waheed through Legal Heirs vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Hyderabad and 4 others1985 MLD 581 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Ghani vs Muhammad Ibrahim Jalil1985 MLD 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1962-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Bart vs Secretary, Incholi Co-Operative Housing1985 CLC 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-21Read full judgment →
• Mughal Tobacco Company Ltd., Karachi. vs Collector Of Customs And An OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 100 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mubarak Hussain and other vs Hafiz Mukhtar Ahmad1985 MLD 998 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mst.Shakila Begum and 4 others vs Haji Muhammad Din1985 CLC 709 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mst.Seema Ashfaq vs Vith Additional District Judge and others1985 CLC 878 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• Mst.Amina Bai and 2 others vs Karachi Municipal Corporation and 61985 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-14Read full judgment →
• Mst.Allah Bachai and 4 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Badin and 41985 CLC 1985 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mst.Abeda Begum vs Government of Pakistan and others1985 CLC 2859 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-11
  evacuee trust propertysuo motu revisionnatural justicecondemned unheardlimitation periodconstitutional petitionP.T.D.
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Federal Government in suo motu revisional jurisdiction directing the disposal of an evacuee trust property by open public auction. The property in question had been originally allotted and transferred to the petitioner's deceased husband, and a P.T.D. was ultimately issued in the petitioner's favour. Subsequently, the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board recommended the sale of the premises to the petitioner at the settlement price as an uneconomic unit. Private respondents filed a revision application which was dismissed as time-barred, but the authority simultaneously invoked suo motu powers to set aside the transfer. The core legal questions involved whether an order could be revised suo motu after a time-barred revision application was dismissed, and whether the petitioner was condemned unheard without proper notice. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority as no valid notice was served, violating the fundamental principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard. Furthermore, the court held that suo motu revisional powers cannot be used to indirectly benefit a time-barred revision application filed by a private party after the expiry of the limitation period. The petition was allowed and the impugned order was declared void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an adverse order can be passed against a party without serving notice and providing an opportunity of being heard?
  • Can the Federal Government exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties Act 1975 after a time-barred revision application filed by a private party has been dismissed?
  • Does the dismissal of a revision application on the ground of limitation bar the subsequent indirect exercise of suo motu powers based on the application of a disgruntled party?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zulekha Bib1 vs Hakim Nasiruddin1985 CLC 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubaida vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 120 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zebunnisa vs Hajiani Rabia Bibi and another1985 MLD 476 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Saeed vs Mazhar Ali Siddiqui and another1985 MLD 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Willayat Begum vs Mst. Qulsum Bi1985 CLC 2881 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Urooj Begum and 2 others vs Javed Saleem and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 585 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sultana Begum vs Mst. Kazmi Begum1985 MLD 1199 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Siddiqa Begum and Others vs Karachi Development Aut Hority1985 PLD Karachi 312 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shirinbai and another vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd.1985 CLC 2455 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-15
  rent appealpersonal usegood faitheviction applicationmaterial impairmentburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellants' application for the eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute. The eviction was sought under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the grounds of material impairment of the value and utility of the premises, user for a purpose other than that for which it was let, and personal good faith requirement for business. The core legal question was whether the landlord established good faith for personal use and material impairment of the property. The court held that the appellants failed to prove good faith for personal use, as mere desire to expand an existing business from already occupied rented premises without establishing compelling circumstances or particulars of expansion is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof. The court established that a landlord seeking eviction for personal use must demonstrate good faith through positive circumstances and evidence, particularly when shifting from another premises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof to establish good faith for personal use of rented premises lies upon the landlord?
  • Is the mere desire to expand an existing business sufficient to prove good faith for eviction under rent laws?
  • Does a landlord shifting from a rented premises need to show positive evidence and circumstances for requiring his own building?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shamunissa and 7 others vs Syed Mehmood Rizvi1985 CLC 2105 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shahnaz Begum vs MRS, S.B. Hussain1985 MLD 478 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaher Bano vs Asghar Baig1985 MLD 432 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shah Jehan Begum and 5 others vs Mst. Iqbal Jehan Begum and 61985 CLC 2450 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sara Bai vs Messrs Anis Corporation and Firm1985 MLD 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safdari Begum and 2 others vs Amir Ali Tabrezi1985 CLC 836 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-22
  ejectment applicationbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantlimitation periodcertified copycopying agencyprerogative of landlord
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ejectment order granted on the ground of the landlord's bona fide personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether the landlord's requirement remained bona fide despite letting out another portion of the house during the pendency of the proceedings, and whether the appeal was time-barred due to delays in obtaining certified copies. The Court held that while a landlord has the prerogative to choose their residence, they must satisfactorily explain why they prefer the disputed premises if they acquire or let out other accommodation during litigation. The landlord successfully justified the preference based on specific amenities like a separate entrance and a quiet environment. Regarding limitation, the Court ruled that the appeal was within time because the copying agency failed to notify the appellant of the date the certified copy was ready, and a party cannot be penalized for the negligence of court officers. The principle established is that a landlord must justify the necessity of disputed premises if other accommodation is handled during litigation, and court-related delays in document delivery do not prejudice a party's limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's act of letting out other premises during the pendency of an ejectment suit automatically negate the bona fide nature of their requirement?
  • Is a landlord required to explain why they prefer the disputed premises over other available accommodation during the pendency of an ejectment case?
  • Can an appellant be penalized for the failure of the court's copying agency to notify them of the date a certified copy is ready for delivery?
  • Does the mere passage of time between the onset of a medical condition and the filing of an ejectment application invalidate a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Khatoon vs Muhammad Ahmad Latifi1985 CLC 1392 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Begum and another vs The Settlement Commissioner, Sind1985 MLD 519 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rasheeda Bukhari vs Abde Ali Lotia1985 CLC 2134 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rahmat Khatoon and 7 others vs Seth Bhagwandas and another1985 CLC 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Raheela vs The State1985 MLD 861 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qudsia Kishwar and 7 others vs Hakim & Co. Travel Bus Service and 10 others1985 CLC 2119 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qaisar Jahan and 3 others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and 2 others1985 MLD 255 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Agha vs Mst. Zubaida Fikree1985 CLC 1861 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasera Begum vs Vith Additional District Judge, Karachi and 21985 PLD Karachi 645 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naima Begum vs Mst. Maqboolan Begum and another1985 CLC 2458 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Marium and 5 OTHERSs vs Haji Ali and 3 Others1985 PLD Karachi 705 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-28
  civil revisionfraudulent decreesection 12(2) CPCdeclaratory decreebinding effect of decreeparties to the suitstranger to the suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge dismissing an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for setting aside a previous decree alleged to have been obtained by fraud. The core legal question is whether a stranger to a suit who was not a party to the proceedings can maintain an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or be bound by a declaratory decree passed therein. The court held that a declaratory decree is binding only on the parties to the suit and persons claiming through them, and that strangers to the suit cannot invoke section 12(2) because the term 'parties' refers strictly to parties to the suit or their legal representatives. The key principle laid down is that a person who was not a party to a suit and is not bound by its decree cannot challenge it via an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a stranger to a suit can maintain an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree?
  • Is a declaratory decree binding on persons who were not parties to the suit in which it was passed?
  • Does the term 'parties' in the definition of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include strangers to the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam Rozina vs Robert Ashraf1985 P Cr. L J 1469 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-24
  habeas corpuschild custodyillegal detentionparental custodySection 491
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the recovery and production of the petitioner's minor daughter, aged about four years, from the custody of the respondent. The petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband, and the minor child is the offspring of their marriage. The core legal question before the High Court was whether a minor child residing with her biological father can be considered to be in illegal or improper custody so as to attract the provisions of Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that custody of a minor child with her biological father cannot be deemed illegal or improper detention. The Court laid down the principle that custody disputes between parents should be resolved through appropriate civil remedies under family laws rather than invoking the extraordinary criminal jurisdiction of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the custody of a minor child with their biological father can be deemed illegal or improper custody under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a writ of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as a substitute for civil proceedings to resolve child custody disputes between spouses?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam Bai vs Mst. Mehrunnissa Begum1985 CLC 1941 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahjabeen Begum vs R.M. Khan1985 MLD 949 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahar Bano vs Additional Commissioner and Settlement1985 MLD 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T through her Legal Representatives vs Custodian Evacuee1985 MLD 325 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T and 9 camas vs Abdul Kadir and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 18 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hayat Khatoon vs Allah Dino and another1985 CLC 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hashmi Begum vs Mst. Alya Zohra Begum1985 MLD 1514 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hamidun Nisa and another vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind1985 MLD 274 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Parekh vs M. Rashid-Ud-Din1985 CLC 256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajiani Ghulam Fatima vs Mst. Hajiani Allah Bachai1985 CLC 1943 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghafooran vs Muhammad Yaqoob and another1985 CLC 2263 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fazal Bibi vs Mst. Kaniz Fatima1985 CLC 1373 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farukh Nisa vs Safdar Ahmed and 6 Others1985 PLD Karachi 639 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30
  ejectment applicationpersonal requirementgood faithrented premiseslandlord and tenantbona fide needindependent children
  Summary & questions settled

  This rent appeal arises from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlady against her tenants, wherein she sought possession of the premises for the personal use of her married daughter. The core legal questions were whether the statutory provision allowing eviction for the requirement of a landlord's 'children' extends to independent or married children, and what constitutes 'good faith' requirement under the law. The Court held that the term 'children' in the statute encompasses both dependent and independent/married children, rejecting the notion that it is restricted to dependents. However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the application, ruling that the landlady failed to substantiate her claim of 'good faith' requirement. The Court established that 'good faith' requires more than a mere desire; it necessitates an objective demonstration of reasonable need. The landlord must provide specific details regarding existing accommodation, family size, and the inadequacy of current space to enable the Rent Controller to properly assess the genuineness of the claim, as mere ipse dixit is insufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory term 'children' in the context of a landlord's personal requirement include married or independent children?
  • Is a landlord's mere desire or intention sufficient to establish 'good faith' requirement for eviction?
  • What specific details must a landlord provide to the Rent Controller to prove that a requirement for premises is bona fide?
  • Does the Rent Controller have a duty to objectively assess the reasonableness of a landlord's claimed need for premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dianat Fatima and 8 others vs Mir Abbas Khan and another1985 CLC 239 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Barkat-UN-Nisa vs Humayun Parakah and 2 others1985 MLD 523 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asmat Ara Begum vs Mst. Khatoon Bibi and others1985 MLD 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Jehan Ahmad vs Mst. Baghwanti1985 MLD 157 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amna vs Nizamuddin and 3 others1985 MLD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs Syed Abdul Qayum1985 CLC 534 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha and 7 others vs Ahmad Din1985 CLC 2443 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
• Mst . Siy a NI/defendant vs Jamaluddin and 2 others1985 CLC 2405 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mst . K H Ursh Id Bib I vs The Custodian, Evacuee Property, Sind and 231985 CLC 395 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-20Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sylvia D'Souza vs Abdul Ghafoor1985 CLC 2709 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rehmat Bai and 9 others vs Shireen and 6 others1985 CLC 287 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Mariam and others vs Muhammad Ayub1985 CLC 2531 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mrs. J.C. Rehman vs Mrs. Sultan Ahmad1985 CLC 2271 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-23
  first rent appealevictiondefault in rentwater and conservancy chargesbona fide personal requirementlandlord's prerogativere-letting penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal filed by the tenant arises out of an eviction order dated 19-3-1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, directing the appellant to vacate the ground floor of the premises. The respondent-landlady sought eviction on grounds of default in payment of water and conservancy charges and bona fide personal requirement for herself and her children. The appellate court evaluated whether agreed additional charges like water and conservancy constitute rent, and whether the landlady established genuine personal need despite having an upper floor vacant. The High Court affirmed the lower court's findings, holding that agreed utility and conservancy charges fall within the definition of rent, making failure to pay them an actionable default. Furthermore, the court held that the statement of a landlady on oath regarding personal requirement is to be accepted when consistent with her pleadings and unshaken in cross-examination. The court emphasized that choice of residential accommodation rests within the landlord's discretion, and section 15-A provides adequate safeguards against re-letting. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the tenant six months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Do agreed water and conservancy charges payable by a tenant form part of the rent for determining default?
  • Whether the uncontradicted statement on oath by a landlady regarding personal need is sufficient to establish bona fide requirement?
  • Does a landlord possess the sole discretion to choose which portion or floor of a premises to occupy for personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Anthony vs Riaz Ahmed Malik1985 CLC 1309 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
• MRs, Hamida Malik vs MRs, Raffat Jehan Begum1985 MLD 121 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
• MRs, Aftab Kari vs Muhammad Hidayat Ullah1985 MLD 445 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Motia and 3 others vs Ghulam Mehdi and 6 others1985 CLC 2238 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Morio Goth Welfare Association vs Muhammad Bachal and 6 others1985 CLC 1680 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31
  civil revisionpublic propertyencroachmentjurisdiction barnecessary partymaintainability of suitex parte decree
  Summary & questions settled

  These four Civil Revision Applications arise from a dispute concerning the ownership of land and an encroachment notice issued by the Mukhtiarkar. The core legal questions were whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the bar under the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975, and whether the suit was maintainable without impleading the Government of Sind as a necessary party. The High Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved public property, for which exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Tribunal constituted under the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975. Additionally, the Court ruled that the suit was not maintainable due to the failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the impleadment of the Government. The Court emphasized that when a statute explicitly bars civil court jurisdiction over specific matters, such as encroachment on public property, the court cannot entertain such proceedings. Consequently, the impugned judgments and decrees were set aside, and the suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding a dispute over property defined as public property under the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975?
  • Is a suit against public officers in their official capacity maintainable without impleading the Provincial Government as a party?
  • Can an appellate court exercise powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in favor of parties who did not file an appeal?
  • Does the withdrawal of an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by a government pleader constitute collusion?
  Read full judgment →
• Moosa Karim vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 720 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-15
  public servanttrap raidillegal gratificationSpecial Judge Anti-Corruptionjurisdictionprovincial corporationconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, passed by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Karachi. The appellant, a clerk in the Sind Small Industries and Handicrafts Development Corporation, was apprehended in a trap raid after demanding and receiving illegal gratification. As a preliminary objection, the appellant contended that the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction because the appellant was not a public servant at the time of the offence. The High Court examined the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 and Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that an employee of a provincial corporation is neither an employee of a corporation controlled by the Federal Government nor covered under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the appellant, rendering the conviction void ab initio. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee of a provincial corporation set up under a provincial statute qualify as a public servant under Section 2(b) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
  • Does a clerk employed by a provincial statutory corporation fall under the definition of a public servant in Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a conviction by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption against a non-public servant void for lack of jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →