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.

• M.C. Bibbert vs Muhammad Nazir Alam1985 MLD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
• M. Yousaf vs Wali Muhammad and anothers1985 MLD 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-06Read full judgment →
• M. Habibullah vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 680 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-17Read full judgment →
• M. a . Wa Heed vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind at Karachi and 91985 CLC 95 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Luqman vs Yar Muhammad and 3 others1985 CLC 2327 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MawasbatTalab-e-Ishhadchance witnessburden of proofcross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed a suit claiming a right of pre-emption and possession over a portion of agricultural land, asserting his status as a Shaf-e-Jar and Shaf-e-Khilat and alleging that he duly performed the requisite demands of Talab-e-Mawasbat and Talab-e-Ishhad. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but the District Judge set aside the judgment and dismissed the suit on appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove the making of Talab-e-Ishhad through reliable and independent witnesses. Upon second appeal, the Sindh High Court evaluated the evidence of the witnesses produced for Talab-e-Ishhad and noted significant contradictions, the status of a chance witness, and the failure to disclose witness names in the plaint or subsequent lists. The High Court upheld the appellate court's finding that the witnesses were untrustworthy and that the mandatory requirement of making Talab-e-Ishhad in the presence of two credible witnesses was not established. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to mention the names of witnesses for Talab in the plaint is fatal to a pre-emption suit?
  • Does an unchallenged statement of a defense witness regarding threats have to be accepted if not cross-examined?
  • Whether the testimony of a chance witness with material contradictions is sufficient to prove Talab-e-Ishhad?
  Read full judgment →
• Lukman and another vs Yar Muhammad1985 MLD 347 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-31Read full judgment →
• LT.-Col. (Retd.) Amanullah Qureshi and Another vs Pakistani through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 Others ,1985 PTD 700 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-23Read full judgment →
• Leemon vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1826 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
• Leelo alias A. Ghaffar and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 948 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-15Read full judgment →
• Latifur Rahman Khan vs Anwar Ali and 2 others1985 MLD 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
• Lal Baz Khan Afridi and 2 others vs Regional Transport Authority, Karachi through its Secretary and another1985 CLC 2402 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
• Laiqur Rehman vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1224 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Kouro vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 684 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-22Read full judgment →
• Kishandas and 2 others vs Motiram1985 MLD 212 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-18Read full judgment →
• Kifayat Ali vs Ali Bux1985 MLD 422 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
• Khushti Khan vs The State and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1423 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• Khushhal Khan and 20 others vs The Land Management Officer, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation1985 CLC 2144 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Marble Industries Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and another1985 CLC 2437 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-03Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad vs Mst. Zubaida Khatoon and 5 others1985 CLC 2366 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-13Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and 9 others1985 CLC 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-05Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2873 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• Khawar M. Butt and another vs Abdullah H. Habib and 2 others1985 MLD 1193 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-30Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Gulzar Ahmad vs Mst. Latifan1985 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Asimuddin vs Iftikhar Ban001985 CLC 707 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs M.A.H. Bokhari and others1985 CLC 2507 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-03Read full judgment →
• Khamisani Sons vs Excise & Taxation Officer 'P' Division and 2 others1985 CLC 267 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman and another vs Mst. Radhi Bai (through his legal Heirs)1985 CLC 142 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khalifa Haji Muhammad Hanif and 3 others vs Chief Administrator1985 MLD 221 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mansur and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 281 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs Zafar Iqbal and 7 others1985 CLC 2285 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• Kha Dim Hussain vs Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation and 2 Others1985 PLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• Kassam Haji vs Ibrahim Umer1985 MLD 583 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
• Karimuddin vs The State1985 MLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
• Karam Illahi vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
• Karachi], Barkat Ali vs Noor Hussain Alwani1985 CLC 2445 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
• Karachi Gascompany Ltd. and another vs The Deputy Registrar, Joint1985 MLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
• Karachi Gas Company Limited and others vs The Deputy Registrar, Joint1985 MLD 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs S. Rais Ahmad1985 PLC 912 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs Director Taxes, Karachi1985 CLC 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Mst. Fatima Bai and another1985 MLD 1496 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-08Read full judgment →
• K.R.S. Captain vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), Karachi1985 PTD 39 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• K.C. Mamoo vs Mrs. Badrunnisa1985 CLC 332 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04
  second appealejectmentsublettingunauthorized constructionwaivermaterial impairmentacceptance of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts ordering the appellant-tenant's ejectment from the demised premises on the grounds of default, unauthorized construction, and subletting. The core legal questions concern whether the landlord's continued acceptance of rent with knowledge of the alleged breaches constituted a waiver under rent restriction law, and whether the alleged alterations materially impaired the value or utility of the building. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord's prolonged acceptance of rent for over three years after acquiring full knowledge of the subletting and structural changes operated as an implied waiver of the right to seek eviction on those grounds. Furthermore, the Court held that minor alterations or repairs do not amount to material impairment of a building's value or utility under the statute without concrete expert evidence. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the ejectment application dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the continued acceptance of rent by a landlord with full knowledge of subletting or unauthorized construction constitute a waiver of the right to seek ejectment?
  • What constitutes material impairment of the value or utility of a building under rent restriction laws?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in second appeal if they are based on a misreading of evidence or misconception of law?
  Read full judgment →
• K H Aliq Urrehma N vs Khilafat Hussain and another1985 CLC 953 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-22Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Miniority Affairs and 21985 CLC 231 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Jehangir and another vs Jamil Ahmad and another1985 MLD 518 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
• Jawed Salehjee vs Ansar Ahmad1985 MLD 587 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Iqbal vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2402 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Jamsheed Ansari vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1251 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
• Jamilur Rehman vs Muhammad Saleem Usman1985 CLC 2463 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmad and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2483 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-11Read full judgment →
• Jamal Bhai and 2 others vs Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property and 6 others1985 CLC 1411 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11
  evacuee trust propertybar of jurisdictionvoid and voidable ordersfraud and misrepresentationlimitation periodrejection of plaintsettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves three interlinked revision applications arising from a civil suit concerning the status and transfer of a commercial godown in Jodia Bazar, Karachi, which was managed as evacuee trust property. The core legal question was whether a civil suit filed by the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, to challenge orders passed by the Settlement Commissioner and Deputy Settlement Commissioner declaring the property as non-trust and transferring it—allegedly obtained through fraud and the use of a dead person's name—was maintainable, within limitation, and outside the bar of jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Sindh High Court held that the civil suit was barred by jurisdiction and limitation, that an order passed by a competent authority having jurisdiction is merely voidable (even if allegedly obtained by fraud) rather than void ab initio, and that the suppression of a party's death did not vitiate an order where the authority acted within its exclusive statutory domain. The court allowed the revision applications and set aside the lower appellate court's judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Is an order obtained from a tribunal or authority through fraud or misrepresentation void ab initio or merely voidable?
  • Does the invocation of a settlement authority's jurisdiction in the name of a deceased person automatically render the resulting order a nullity?
  • What is the applicable period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908, for setting aside a voidable order passed by a government official in an official capacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmad vs Abdul Aziz1985 MLD 1562 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
• Islamuddin vs The Provice of Sind and others1985 P Cr. L J 1468 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ishwardas vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Mirpurkhas and another1985 CLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ishaq vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 595 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-02Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2091 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Iqbal And Another vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL) 47 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan- Plain tiff vs Messrs Haji1985 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Chemfabs Ltd. and 2 vothers1985 CLC 982 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Johar Ali Shariff and another1985 CLC 2176 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• Inayat Mir and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 588 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-26Read full judgment →
• Inamur Rehman and another vs Habib Bank Ltd.1985 CLC 296 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
• In re: Succession Certificate in Respect of Assets and Liabilities of1985 MLD 1559 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-14Read full judgment →
• In re: Mst. Tahira Khatoon vs Not1985 CLC 2735 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-27Read full judgment →
• In re: Messrs Aizad Beverage Industries Ltd vs Not1985 MLD 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
• In re: His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Cordoiro vs Not1985 CLC 2202 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-27Read full judgment →
• In re: District Judge, Karachi vs Not1985 CLC 718 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
• In Re; Synthetic Chemicals Co. Ltd. Karachi vs Members And Creditors Of The CompanyPTCL 1985 (CL.) 307 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
• In re : Synthetic Chemicals Co. Ltd. Karachi vs Not1985 PLD Karachi 193 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14
  winding-upcorporate entityloss of substratumjust and equitableimplied repealstatutory interpretationnationalizationinsolvency
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 166 of the Companies Act 1913 by Synthetic Chemicals Company Limited seeking its winding-up on the grounds of a special resolution, suspension of business, loss of substratum, and just and equitable circumstances. The company had incurred massive, continuous losses under both private and subsequent public management under the Economic Reforms Order 1972, resulting in liabilities far exceeding its assets. Opposing creditors argued that the company had ceased to exist as a corporate entity upon government takeover and that Martial Law Regulation 125 barred winding-up. The High Court of Sindh held that the takeover of management under the Economic Reforms Order 1972 did not vest entire ownership in the state or dissolve the corporate entity, as the government only acquired 58% of the shares. Furthermore, the court ruled that there was no implied repeal of the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act 1913 by Martial Law Regulation 125. Finding that the company's substratum was entirely gone due to insolvency and obsolete technology, the Court ordered the winding-up of the company.

  Questions settled

  • Does the takeover of management of a company by the Federal Government under the Economic Reforms Order 1972 extinguish its status as a corporate body under the Companies Act 1913?
  • Under what circumstances is the substratum of a company deemed to be gone for the purposes of a winding-up order?
  • Can the doctrine of implied repeal be inferred where a subsequent special law or regulation does not expressly conflict with the winding-up provisions of the Companies Act 1913?
  Read full judgment →
• In re : Income-Tax Assessment of Messrs Premier Tobacco Industries1985 PTD 896 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-22Read full judgment →
• In re : Estate of Late Quaid-E-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah vs Not1985 PLD Karachi 478 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• Illahi Bux vs The Additional Settlement Commissioner and 3 others1985 CLC 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• Iftekhar Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1820 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-15Read full judgment →
• Iezed Export and Import Company vs Bahadur Yar Jung Academy, Karachi1985 MLD 1171 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ibrahimbhai Adamali Jiveji and 3 others vs Fakhruddin Salehbhoy Tapal1985 CLC 158 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ibra Him Khan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and Another1985 PLC 996 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• I.S.G.A. Ltd. vs Mrs. Rift Fakhir1985 CLC 364 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
• Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi, vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1985 PTD 785 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bux vs Mir Muhammad and 3 Others1985 PLD Karachi 161 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MawasibatTalab-e-IshhadIslamic lawright of pre-emptionShufapre-emption suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a suit for pre-emption regarding agricultural land, where the appellant sought to enforce his right of pre-emption based on vicinage. The core legal question was whether the failure to explicitly mention the first demand (Talab-e-Mawasibat) during the performance of the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad) rendered the pre-emption claim invalid. The trial court had dismissed the suit, relying on established case law that deemed such an omission fatal. Upon review, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The court held that the requirement to expressly refer to the first demand during the second demand is not a mandatory rule derived from the Hadith or primary Islamic legal sources, but rather a procedural suggestion by later commentators. Consequently, the court established the principle that the omission to mention the first demand during the second demand is not fatal to a substantive right of pre-emption, as the second demand serves primarily as a notice of the claimant's intention to exercise their right.

  Questions settled

  • Is the explicit mention of the first demand (Talab-e-Mawasibat) during the performance of the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad) a mandatory requirement for a valid pre-emption claim?
  • Does the omission of a reference to the first demand during the performance of the second demand render a pre-emption claim void?
  • Is the requirement to mention the first demand during the second demand supported by the Hadith or primary sources of Islamic law?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain and 6 others vs The State1985 MLD 790 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-15Read full judgment →
• Huma Enterprises and 3 others vs S.Pir Ali Shah and others1985 CLC 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22
  partnership dissolutiondealership agreementspecific performancemaintainability of suitamendment of plainttermination of contractdeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed by a partnership firm and its partners seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the cancellation of a dealership agreement by National Motors Limited. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the suit for specific performance-like relief and the status of the partnership following the termination of the dealership. The court held that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable, as the dealership agreement was not specifically enforceable; the appropriate remedy for unlawful termination would have been a claim for damages. Furthermore, the court determined that the partnership, having been constituted solely to operate the dealership, stood dissolved upon the termination of that dealership. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' late-stage application to amend the plaint to include a claim for damages, noting the excessive delay of eleven years and the prior dismissal of an injunction application which had put the plaintiffs on notice regarding the necessity of seeking damages. The judgment affirms that specific performance is not an available remedy for the termination of such commercial dealership agreements.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction maintainable to challenge the termination of a dealership agreement?
  • Does a partnership firm formed for a specific business purpose dissolve upon the cessation of that purpose?
  • Can an application for amendment of the plaint be allowed after the conclusion of arguments and significant delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Hotchand vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2318 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-20Read full judgment →
• Hazur Bakhsh vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1985 CLC 869 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-16Read full judgment →
• Hayat vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24
  post-arrest bailnarcotics recoveryillegal searchcognizable offenceProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Orderprivate residence search
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused facing trial for an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the recovery of heroin from his person inside his private residence by an Excise Sub-Inspector. The core legal question was whether the search and subsequent recovery, conducted within a private house rather than a public place, rendered the proceedings illegal and entitled the applicant to bail. The Court held that, pursuant to Article 16 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, an offence under Article 4 is only cognizable if committed in a public place. Consequently, the search of the applicant's person within his private house was deemed illegal. Relying on established precedents, the Court concluded that this illegality entitled the applicant to the grant of bail. The principle laid down is that a search and recovery conducted in violation of the statutory requirement that an offence under Article 4 must occur in a public place to be cognizable vitiates the legality of the recovery, thereby providing sufficient grounds for the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offence under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, cognizable if committed in a private house?
  • Does an illegal search and recovery of narcotics from a private residence entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Raza vs The State1985 MLD 65 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Hassan Bhai vs Haji1985 MLD 215 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• Hasan Mohiuddin vs Muhammad Hanif1985 CLC 1606 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Punhoon vs Province of Sind and 3 others1985 CLC 932 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Punhoo vs The Province of Sind and 3 others1985 CLC 899 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Peeral Khan and 2 others vs Government of Sind and 6 others1985 CLC 2068 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Mehar Ellahi represented by Legal Heirs and 6 others vs Messrs Mandviwalla Motor Co. and 2 others1985 CLC 2155 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ismail through Legal Representatives and 8 others vs Wadho Akharo Trust1985 CLC 1406 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Aslam Aijaz Ali & Bros. vs Cotton Trading1985 CLC 848 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Khuda Bakhsh vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1985 CLC 2707 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Jan Muhammad and 4 others vs Muhammad Bachal1985 MLD 1218 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim and 4 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2560 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Gul and Another vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies and 41985 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Din Muhammad vs Mst. Husna Begum and 3 others1985 MLD 976 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Bashir Ahmad and 9 OTHERs vs Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 3 Others1985 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-08Read full judgment →