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.

• Khawaja Iqbal Ahmad vs Sardar Ahmad Qureshi1984 MLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• Khatumal and 3 Others vs Sitaldas and Another1984 CLC 3244 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-06Read full judgment →
• Khatija Khatoon vs DR. Begum Razia Khalyli1984 CLC 161 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• Khaqan Ahmad vs Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation and Another1984 CLC 477 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Khan Afsar vs The State1984 PLD Karachi 84 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• Khamiso and Anothers vs The Board of Revenue, Sind and 3 Others1984 CLC 3087 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-23Read full judgment →
• Khaliqurrehman vs Khilafat Hussain1984 CLC 1339 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
• Khaliqur Rahman vs Ammeruddin and another1984 MLD 664 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• Khalid vs Mst. Hajiani Wallayat1984 CLC 2580 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-22Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sultan vs Mst. Rabia Bibi1984 CLC 2573 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
• Khalid Saigal vs National Investment Trust Ltd. and 2 Others1984 CLC 182 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-15Read full judgment →
• Khalid Saeed vs District Judge, Karachi and another1984 CLC 2903 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javed Abbasi vs Sharafat Ali Abbasi and 4 Others1984 CLC 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
• KH a Liqurrehman vs Khilafat Hussain1984 CLC 3486 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
• Kazi Muhammad Yusuf vs Khamiso1984 CLC 636 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• Kassam Ali vs National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Karachi1984 CLC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• Karam Chand Leal and Anothers Decree holders vs Mehdi1984 CLC 1941 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-21
  execution of foreign decreeforeign judgmentjurisdictionjudgment-debtorenforceability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an execution application filed to enforce a foreign decree passed by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, England, against the defendant. The core legal question was whether a foreign judgment is executable in Pakistan when the defendant was neither a resident of the foreign jurisdiction at the time the action was initiated nor had submitted to the jurisdiction of that foreign court. The Court, relying on established precedents, held that such a foreign decree cannot be executed in Pakistan under these circumstances. The principle laid down is that the enforceability of a foreign judgment in Pakistan is contingent upon the defendant's residence in the foreign jurisdiction at the time of the action or the defendant's voluntary submission to that court's jurisdiction. As the defendant in the present case had neither resided in England nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court, the application for execution was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a foreign decree be executed in Pakistan if the defendant was not a resident of the foreign country at the time the action was brought?
  • Is a foreign judgment enforceable in Pakistan if the defendant did not submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi] Gefulam Mustafa vs Mehran University of Engineering &1984 MLD 654 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-29Read full judgment →
• Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. vs Workmen Union and Others1984 CLC 2382 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
• Karachi Port Trust and Another vs Sibghatulla and Another1984 PLC 1476 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1984 PLC 1359 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-11
  Collective Bargaining Agentindustrial disputeovertime wagesSection 34 IROSection 25-A IROenforcement of rightslabour court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders passed by the Sind Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had directed the petitioner to pay overtime wages to its workers based on various allowances. The core legal question was whether a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) is competent to file an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to enforce rights guaranteed or secured to individual workmen under other laws, such as the Factories Act, 1934. The Full Bench held that the application filed by the CBA under Section 34 was incompetent and not maintainable. The court reasoned that Section 34 allows a CBA to enforce only those rights guaranteed or secured to the CBA itself, not to individual workmen. The court clarified that rights guaranteed to individual workmen must be enforced through the specific mechanism provided in Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared to be without jurisdiction and lawful authority, establishing that a CBA cannot bypass the statutory grievance procedures of Section 25-A by invoking Section 34 for individual worker claims.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Collective Bargaining Agent file an application under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to enforce rights guaranteed to individual workmen?
  • Does the term 'it' in Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, refer to the Collective Bargaining Agent or to individual workmen?
  • Is the procedure for enforcing rights guaranteed to individual workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, distinct from the procedure for enforcing rights of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation vs Ashiq Ali Suleman Lalan1984 MLD 1132 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
• Karachi Metropolitan Corporation vs Associated Constructors Ltd.1984 CLC 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-10
  arbitration awardnon-speaking awardreasons for awardarbitration act amendmentintra-court appealremittal of awardpending proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal arises from a common judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing objections to two non-speaking arbitration awards and making them rules of the court. The appellant, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, contended that the awards lacked detailed reasons and sought their remand under section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, introduced via Ordinance XV of 1981. The respondent argued that section 26-A applied only to pending suits and not appeals, and that the court held discretion regarding remittal. The Sindh High Court held that an appeal is a continuation of a suit and forms part of the same proceedings, making section 26-A applicable at the appellate stage. The court further held that the statutory requirement for the arbitrator to state reasons in sufficient detail is mandatory, and remitted the awards back to the sole arbitrator for reasoned decisions within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940 apply to appellate proceedings pending at the time of its enactment?
  • Does the word 'shall' in section 26-A(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 impose a mandatory duty on the court to remit an unreasoned award?
  • Can a non-speaking arbitration award be set aside or reviewed for insufficiency of evidence without a patent error of law on its face?
  • Whether an appeal is a continuation of the original suit and constitutes a step in the same judicial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Dawood1984 CLC 2080 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-07
  allotment cancellationnatural justiceadministrative delaycivil revisionplot allotmentright to be heard
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application arose from a dispute between the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) and an allottee regarding the cancellation of a plot allotment. The KDA cancelled the allotment, citing the allottee's failure to commence construction within the stipulated timeframe. The core legal questions were whether the KDA could penalize an allottee for delays caused by the KDA’s own administrative failures—specifically in delivering possession and approving building plans—and whether the cancellation, executed without a hearing after the allottee submitted a show-cause explanation, violated natural justice. The Court held that the KDA could not justify the cancellation when it was responsible for the delays that prevented the allottee from commencing construction. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the KDA’s unilateral cancellation without affording the allottee a fair opportunity to be heard was arbitrary and violated fundamental principles of natural justice. The Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the appellate court's decree in favor of the allottee, establishing that administrative bodies must act fairly and cannot penalize parties for delays attributable to the authority's own conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authority cancel an allotment for failure to construct when the delay was caused by the authority's own administrative inaction?
  • Does the cancellation of an allotment without providing the allottee an opportunity to be heard violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is a statutory body entitled to penalize an allottee for a breach of contract that resulted from the body's own failure to deliver possession or approve plans in a timely manner?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority through Its Secretary vs Evacuee1984 PLD Karachi 34 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-11
  Order VII Rule 11 CPCrejection of plaintstatutory noticejurisdiction of civil courtpublic propertystatus quoevacuee trust propertyKarachi Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an appellate court order that set aside the trial court's rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the Karachi Development Authority (KDA), claiming possession of land and challenging the KDA's acquisition. The KDA argued the suit was incompetent due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order and barred by the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1975. The High Court held that for the purpose of rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, the court must exclusively consider the averments made in the plaint, not the contentions or documents presented in the written statement. Because the plaintiffs disputed the KDA's title and the status of the land, the statutory bars could not be determined at the threshold. Consequently, the court affirmed the appellate order, directing the trial court to proceed with evidence to resolve the disputed title and maintain the status quo to prevent irreparable injury.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court consider the contents of a written statement when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a mandatory notice under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order required when the plaintiff challenges the very authority and title of the KDA?
  • Does the bar on civil court jurisdiction under the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1975 apply before the status of the property as public property is established?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamil vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2328 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• Kamal Nasir Khan vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad and 2 Others1984 CLC 1578 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kaloomal and another vs Suresh Kumar and 2 others1984 CLC 2715 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
• Kalimullah alias Abdul Kadir vs The State Opponent1984 P Cr. L J 2825 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Kaiser Jehan Begum and 10 Others vs Muhammad Zaki and Another1984 CLC 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
• K. R. Byraji vs The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Karachi1984 PTD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• Joseph Ibrahim Zogheib vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1065 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
• Jehan Khan vs Gul Hassan and 2 others1984 CLC 2558 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Javed Ahmed vs Tub State Opponent1984 P Cr. L J 965 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-02Read full judgment →
• Javaid Mubarak vs Shamsuddin and 5 Others1984 CLC 3252 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 376 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The District Council, Dadu1984 CLC 2750 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmed vs Abdul Karim1984 CLC 1815 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-08
  default in rentpayment of rent in advancepersonal bona fide needejectmentrent appealtenancy agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two rent appeals filed by tenants against the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide need of the landlord. The core legal questions involved were whether the tenants committed default in payment of rent under the relevant rent restriction laws when the tenancy agreement stipulated rent was payable in advance without specifying a particular date or time, and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal need for the shops. The High Court held that where a tenancy agreement requires rent to be paid in advance but fails to fix a specific date or time for such payment, the 15-day grace period from a fixed date does not apply; instead, the tenant is entitled to the 60-day period from the period for which the rent is payable, and thus no default was committed. Furthermore, the court held that the landlord failed to establish his bona fide personal need for the premises through cogent and convincing evidence, particularly after already obtaining possession of another shop in the same building. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the ejectment orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenancy agreement that merely specifies rent is payable in advance without fixing a specific date trigger the 15-day grace period for default?
  • What is the applicable time period for paying rent in the absence of a specific date fixed in the tenancy agreement under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is the bare statement of a landlord sufficient to prove bona fide personal need for commercial premises?
  • Does obtaining possession of another shop during the pendency of ejectment proceedings affect the burden of proof regarding the landlord's requirement for additional premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed Chandna vs Mst. Sarwar Begum1984 CLC 2630 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
• Jamaluddin vs Mst. Hamida Begum1984 CLC 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• Jamal Musharrif and 3 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1984 MLD 593 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Khan vs Mrs. Zeenatun Nisa and 7 Others1984 CLC 3019 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• Izzat Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1566 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs Settlement Commissioner and 7 Others1984 CLC 894 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Chairman, Pakistan Railways, Lahore vs Messrs Eishat Trading Co., Larkana and Another1984 CLC 2963 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Islam Raffat Siddiqui vs Mahmood Abid Rizvi1984 CLC 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-29
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencerent arrearsejectmentlandlord and tenantrent controlnon-compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant’s defense for failure to comply with a tentative rent order issued under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the tenant’s failure to deposit the full amount of arrears within the specified timeframe, despite having previously sent bank drafts to the landlord, justified the striking off of the defense. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller’s order was clear and mandatory. The Court affirmed that compliance with a tentative rent order is a condition precedent for the Rent Controller to adjudicate the merits of the case. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that non-compliance with such an order necessitates the summary disposal of the case, specifically the striking off of the defense and the issuance of an eviction order. The judgment reinforces the principle that tentative rent orders must be strictly followed, and prior private tenders of rent that remain unrealized by the landlord do not constitute valid compliance with a judicial directive to deposit funds into court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with a tentative rent order require the Rent Controller to strike off the tenant's defense?
  • Is compliance with a tentative rent order a condition precedent for the Rent Controller to examine the merits of a tenant's defense?
  • Does a private tender of rent via bank draft constitute valid compliance with a judicial order to deposit rent into court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ishrat & Company vs Controller of Insurance, Karachi1984 CLC 216 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ishaque vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 517 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ishaque and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2505 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Masih and another vs The State1984 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
• International Beverages Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1984 PTD 431 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Maida Ltd. and 3 Others1984 CLC 2987 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Amalgamated Food Ltd.1984 MLD 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Independent Newspapers Corporation Ltd. vs Deputy Director, Labour1984 PLC 188 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Inayat Ali Khan vs Mst. Husain Bi1984 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-25Read full judgment →
• In re: Warner Lambert (Pakistan) Ltd. and another vs Not1984 MLD 1179 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
• In re: the Insurance, Act, 1938, the Companies Act, 1913 and the Indus1984 CLC 3008 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• In Re: Haji Yousif Haji Moosa Trust Fund, Karachi vs Not1984 CLC 2847 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• In re : Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd and Another vs Not1984 CLC 613 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
• In re : the Companies Act, 1913 vs Not1984 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-01Read full judgment →
• Imdad Khan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1984 PLC 1381 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali Sa H Ito vs Razikdino and 4 Others1984 CLC 3107 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
• Illahi Bakhsh vs Bodo Mal and 5 Others1984 CLC 624 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• Ikramuddin and 4 others vs The State and another1984 P Cr. L J 2736 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Rashid vs Mst. Inayat Begum1984 CLC 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain Khan vs Abdul Karim1984 MLD 520 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-18Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs Mst. Saeeda Bang1984 MLD 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
• Hyesons Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Directorgeneral/Commissioner, Excise &1984 CLC 2408 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
• Hussaini vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3096 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
• Hussain Mills Ltd. vs Abdul Rashid Khan and 2 Others1984 CLC 2452 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• Hussain K Hoda I vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2621 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
• Ho Muhammad Zainul Abadin vs Abdul Ghaffar and 3 others1984 MLD 1142 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
• Hindu General Panchayat (Regd.) vs Government of Province of Sind1984 CLC 503 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Ali alias Dharoo and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3207 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
• Hassan. Shah and another vs Investigation Agency, Martial Law Office, Nawabshah and 2 others1984 MLD 256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-29Read full judgment →
• Hassan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1281 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-10
  counterfeit currencyforged currency notesguilty knowledgeburden of proofcriminal intentpossession of forged notescriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for passing forged currency notes. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved that the appellant had the requisite guilty knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes were forged at the time of use or possession. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that mere possession or passing of counterfeit notes without proof of guilty knowledge is insufficient for an offence under section 489-B, drawing an analogy to the principles governing section 489-C. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must establish guilty knowledge through surrounding circumstances and antecedents, and where the accused is a rustic villager unable to distinguish counterfeit notes, mixes genuine notes with forged ones, and exhibits no guilty conduct like fleeing, the essential ingredient of knowledge is absent and cannot be presumed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere possession or passing of forged currency notes is sufficient to convict an accused under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of guilty knowledge?
  • Does the requirement of guilty knowledge or reason to believe notes are forged apply equally to offences under section 489-B and section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can guilty knowledge under section 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be presumed against a rustic villager who mixes genuine and forged currency notes and exhibits no attempt to flee?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1772 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali and Others vs Member (Relief and Settlement), Board of Revenue, Sind and Others1984 CLC 2349 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Ali Beg and another vs Karachi Transport Corporation--1984 MLD 538 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-31Read full judgment →
• Haseen vs Muhammad Ibrahim1984 CLC 791 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
• Haroon vs Haji Umar Ahmed (Represented by Legal Heirs)1984 CLC 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
• Hanifullah vs WAPDA and Others1984 PLC 1654 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• Hamza Ali vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Sind, Hyderabad and 31984 CLC 2242 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-13Read full judgment →
• Hameer and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Hamal and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 279 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Hall Ghulam Qadir through Legal Heirs and Anothers vs Custodian of Evacuee Property and 2 OTHERSRepondents1984 CLC 204 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
• Halai.Enterprises vs Collector of Customs, Karachi and 3 others1984 MLD 658 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• Hakimuddin vs Eastern Automobiles Ltd. and 4 Others1984 PLC 158 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
• Hakim Muhammad Lukman vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, Sind and 21984 CLC 2308 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hakim Jamshed Ahmed Khan vs Fateh Muhammad and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1540 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Hakim Bashir Ahmed (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs The Government1984 CLC 3061 · Sindh High Court
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11civil court jurisdictionDisplaced Persons Actfraud and misrepresentationmala fidelimitationres judicataestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an appellate court order that reversed the trial court's rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a civil suit challenging orders of settlement authorities on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and mala fides is barred by the ouster clauses in Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether defenses like res judicata and estoppel justify rejecting a plaint at the threshold. The court held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to scrutinize orders of special tribunals where fraud or mala fides are specifically pleaded, as such orders are not immune from attack. Regarding the procedural aspect, the court affirmed that when deciding an application under Order VII, Rule 11, the court must accept the plaint's averments as true and cannot consider external defenses or the likelihood of the plaintiff's success at trial. Consequently, issues of limitation, res judicata, and estoppel are matters for trial, not for summary rejection of the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court examine orders of settlement authorities if they are alleged to be fraudulent or mala fide?
  • Should a court consider the defendant's pleas of res judicata or estoppel when deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the starting point of limitation under Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908 run from the date of the fraud or the date the fraud became known to the party?
  • Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff's success at trial is uncertain?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 878 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Uma R vs Mst. Mahmooda Khatoon1984 CLC 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
• Kalati vs Ali Gohak and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 523 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Usman vs Muhammad Moos a Mayat and 11 others1984 MLD 586 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Umar vs The Officeronspecial Duty, Federal Land1984 CLC 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Umar vs The Officer on Special Duty, Federal1984 CLC 354 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Munir vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sukkurand Another1984 CLC 2339 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ibrahim vs Ramzan Ali1984 CLC 2364 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →