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.

• Haji Muhammad Amin vs Haji Ghous Bukhsh and 2 others1984 MLD 659 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Altaf Janjua and 2 Others vs The State and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 641 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Mehrban vs Pakistan and 3 Others1984 P Cr. L J 3005 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Jamil Ahmad vs Muhammad Ibrahim1984 CLC 2804 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Ismail Dossa vs Monopoly Control Authority1984 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01
  monopoly control authorityvalue of assetsfixed and current assetsundue concentration of economic powerwilful defaultsubsequent legislative changesstatutory interpretationregistration of undertakings
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple miscellaneous appeals filed against the orders of the Monopoly Control Authority concerning the interpretation of the 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involved whether current assets are excluded from the definition of 'value of assets', whether liabilities should be deducted to arrive at net assets, whether subsequent legislative amendments during the pendency of an appeal apply, and what constitutes 'wilful failure' to register for the imposition of penalties. The court held that 'value of assets' encompasses both fixed and current assets at cost less normal income-tax depreciation, without deducting liabilities. Furthermore, the court held that an appellate court must take cognizance of legislative changes occurring during the pendency of an appeal, and that a mere default in registration does not amount to a 'wilful failure' warranting penal sanctions unless intentional and deliberate. The appeals were consequently remanded to the Authority for redetermination in light of these principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the expression 'value of assets' under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1979 includes current assets alongside fixed assets?
  • Should liabilities of an undertaking be deducted when calculating the 'value of assets' under Section 2(0) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can an appellate court take into account legislative changes and amendments introduced during the pendency of an appeal?
  • What constitutes a 'wilful failure' to register under Section 19 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1979 for the imposition of penalties?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Gul Beg and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 288 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Rasool and 3 others vs Federal Land Commissioner and another1984 MLD 291 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Amir Alim Angsi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Allah Dino vs Haji Fazal and 3 others1984 CLC 2686 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Ali Muhammad Shah vs Muhammad Munawar1984 PLD Karachi 187 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmed Zaheer Khan vs Anwar A.Rahim1984 CLC 2714 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah through his 5 Legal Heirs vs hist. Gohar Sultana and another1984 MLD 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Khalique vs Sind Province1984 P Cr. L J 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Khaliq vs Additional Member, Board of Revenue and 31984 CLC 2102 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Karim vs Dr. Abdul Sattar1984 MLD 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-08Read full judgment →
• Haft Faiz Muhammad and 2 Others vs The Officeronspecial Duty1984 CLC 1893(1) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Misbahul Hasan vs The Directorgeneral of Supplies1984 CLC 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15
  constitutional petitioncontractual obligationswrit jurisdictionspecific performancesale of goodscancellation of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the order of the respondent Director General of Supplies cancelling a contract for breaking and selling the scrap of a vessel and forfeiting security. The core legal questions were whether contractual obligations and disputes arising from a commercial transaction can be enforced or resolved through constitutional writ jurisdiction, and whether specific performance of a contract for the sale of goods/scrap can be granted. The Sindh High Court held that a breach of contract or failure to honour obligations arising out of an agreement cannot be decided in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, and specific performance of a contract for the sale of goods cannot be granted. The key principles laid down are that the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is reluctant to interfere in matters arising out of contractual obligations, and contractual rights and specific performance of sale of goods agreements cannot be determined or enforced in a constitutional petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contractual obligations and disputes arising from a commercial agreement can be enforced through writ jurisdiction?
  • Can the High Court interfere in matters arising out of contractual obligations in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether specific performance of a contract relating to the sale of goods and scrap can be granted under law?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Mansoor Ahmad vs Mst. Amina and 4 others1984 MLD 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman vs Mst. Nafeesunnisa Begum1984 CLC 2312 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-06Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Akhtar and another vs Mushtaq Ahmad1984 MLD 678 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-08Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Kamal Ahmad Siddiqui and Another1984 CLC 1871 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Iqbal Mujeeb and Another1984 PLC 151 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. and 2 Others vs Karachi Properties Investment Co, Ltd.1984 PLD Karachi 257 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-06
  leave to defendsummary suitbanking recoveryspecial courtmortgage suitoriginal civil jurisdictionprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns applications for leave to defend suits filed by banking companies against borrowers, which were transferred to the High Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, as amended by the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance 1983. The core legal question was whether the High Court, acting as a 'Special Court,' is bound to follow the summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for suits based on mortgages or statements of accounts, or if such suits require leave to defend. The Court held that the High Court, when exercising jurisdiction as a 'Special Court,' is mandated by Section 7 of the Ordinance of 1979 to follow the summary procedure of Order XXXVII, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, regardless of whether the suit is based on negotiable instruments or other claims like mortgages. Consequently, defendants must obtain leave to defend. The Court further determined that the defendants raised plausible factual defenses, warranting the grant of unconditional leave to defend the suits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court, when acting as a 'Special Court' under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, have to follow the summary procedure of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is leave to defend required for suits based on mortgages or statements of accounts under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the expression 'in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction' in the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance 1983 exempt the High Court from following the procedure prescribed in Section 7 of the Ordinance of 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Asian Shipping and Lighterage Co. Ltd. and 41984 MLD 631 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-02Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmad Vahidy vs Sind Small Industries and Handicrafts1984 MLD 1010 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-27Read full judgment →
• Ha Mzo vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 985 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• H. Muhammad Baloch and 2 Others vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1984 CLC 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
• H. M. Moinuddin Ansari vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Railways and 2 Others1984 CLC 1654 · Sindh High Court · 1967-04-27Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Hussain Awan vs Akbar1984 CLC 3164 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
• Guloo alias Gul Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2519 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Gulab and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2476 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• Grindlays Bank Ltd. and Another vs Messrs Alliance Commercial1984 CLC 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan through Secretary Home Department vs Naraindas and another1984 CLC 2876 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of Sind and 2 Others vs Muhammad Usman and 2 Others1984 CLC 3406 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25
  land acquisitionmarket value determinationlimitation periodreference to civil courtrevenue mutationspower of attorneyremand for evidenceenhancement of compensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by the Government of Sindh challenging the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Khairpur, which enhanced compensation awarded for acquired land from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 15,000 per acre under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The appellants raised objections concerning limitation under Section 18, the validity of representation via power of attorney on behalf of minors, and the legal sufficiency of the evidence relied upon to enhance compensation. The High Court rejected the limitation objection, ruling that limitation cannot run where acquisition proceedings and the award took place entirely without notice or knowledge of the landowners. The Court also upheld the attorney's authority to act on behalf of the minors. However, regarding compensation, the High Court held that the burden of proving market value under Section 23 rests on the landowners, and merely producing certified copies of revenue mutations without examining parties to the transactions is insufficient. Consequently, the High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after giving parties an opportunity to adduce proper evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply to bar a reference application if the acquisition proceedings and award were conducted entirely without notice to the landowners?
  • Can a father residing abroad lawfully execute a power of attorney appointing an agent to represent his minor children in land acquisition proceedings while the mother is alive?
  • Is the mere production of certified copies of revenue mutations sufficient to discharge the burden of proving higher market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 without examining parties to those transactions?
  • Can a reference court determine and enhance land acquisition compensation based solely on unsupported oral estimations of surrounding land values?
  Read full judgment →
• Gous Bux vs The State1984 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Gohram Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1980 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and 3 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2702 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir alias Qadir Bux vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 338 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Khuda Bakhsh and 2 Others1984 PLD Karachi 245 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-23
  nomination paperrectification of defectright of franchiselocal councils electionwrit jurisdictionproposer and seconder signatures
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenging the appellate order of the election authority that rejected his nomination paper for a local body by-election due to the absence of signatures of the proposer and seconder at the time of filing. The core legal question was whether the Returning Officer could permit the rectification of such a defect under the relevant election rules or if the omission mandated outright rejection. The High Court held that rule 17(3) and rule 19(3)(d)(ii) of the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979 must be read together, and since the proposer and seconder were present at the filing and the defect was not of a substantial nature, the Returning Officer rightly permitted it to be remedied. The Court established that election laws should be construed to advance the right of franchise rather than disenfranchise candidates on hypertechnical grounds, and that subsidiary rules cannot oust the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of signatures of a proposer and seconder on a nomination paper is a defect of a substantial nature warranting rejection under the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979?
  • Can a Returning Officer allow the proposer and seconder to remedy the omission of their signatures on a nomination paper forthwith during scrutiny?
  • Whether rule 65 of the Sind Local Councils (Election) Rules 1979 can take away the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether the appellate authority was justified in reversing the Returning Officer's order permitting the rectification of a technical defect in a nomination paper?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Uquaili vs Ghulam Nabi1984 CLC 1970 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State and 4 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1266 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Muhammad Samiullah Khan1984 MLD 627 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Mst. Shameema Khatoon1984 CLC 3440 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Khan vs The State and 7 others1984 P Cr. L J 2772 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Anothers vs Muhammad Usman and 4 Others1984 CLC 2378 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and another vs Abdullah and 2 others1984 CLC 2544 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 3 Others vs Federation of Pakistan through Member Op Federalland Commissionand 4 Others1984 CLC 1875 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohayuddin and 3 others vs Jaffar and another1984 MLD 771 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Kadir and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3228 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Karachi Development Authority and another1984 MLD 416 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and Anothers vs 0. S. D., Federal Land Commission and 2 Others1984 CLC 2334 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Asool alias Rasool BAKHSHApplicator Accused vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 12 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1525 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar Manit vs MRs,Shah Noor Fazal1984 MLD 846 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad Siddiqi vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd.1984 MLD 218 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ahmad and 2 others vs Mumtaz Ahmad and another1984 MLD 210 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Adamali Jeevaji vs N. Hassan Ali & Co./Opponent1984 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-23
  second rent appealwilful defaultmixed question of law and factconcurrent findingslump sum rent paymentdiscretion of Rent Controllertenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second rent appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by a landlord trust seeking the eviction of a tenant on grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and material alterations. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Authority had concurrently dismissed the ejectment application, finding that subletting and alterations were unproven and that the tenant's delay in paying rent for eight months was not a wilful default, exercising discretion in the tenant's favor based on an alleged past practice of lump-sum rent collection. On second appeal, the High Court affirmed the lower forums' findings on subletting and alterations. However, on the issue of default, the Court held that whether non-payment constitutes default warranting eviction under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is a mixed question of law and fact subject to High Court review. Re-evaluating the evidence, the High Court held that a past practice of accepting rent at irregular intervals cannot override statutory payment deadlines nor automatically entitle a tenant to discretionary relief, unless specific evidence shows the landlord induced the belief that rent was not payable monthly. Finding the practice unproven due to misreading of receipts by lower tribunals, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of default under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is a pure question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact subject to review in second appeal?
  • Can a practice of accepting rent in lump sum at irregular intervals alter statutory payment deadlines under rent restriction legislation?
  • Under what circumstances may a Rent Controller exercise discretion in favour of a tenant who has failed to tender rent within the statutory period?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghula M Mustafa vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1984 CLC 824 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05
  land reformstractor ownershipproduce index unitsregistration booksale of goodsconcession
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order by the Federal Land Commission disallowing the petitioner additional produce index units for owning a tractor on the ground that the registration book was not transferred in the petitioner's name. The core legal question is whether the transfer of ownership of a tractor requires the formal transfer of its registration book, or if ownership passes according to the general principles of the sale of goods. The Sindh High Court held that there is no legal requirement that ownership of a movable property like a tractor cannot be transferred without a transferred registration book; rather, under the relevant statutory provisions, property passes based on the intention of the parties and rules governing unconditional contracts for the sale of specific goods. The court established the principle that non-transfer of a tractor's registration book does not disentitle an owner from claiming land reform concessions where purchase, payment, possession, and certification by an authorized officer are established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the transfer of ownership of a tractor require the formal transfer of its registration book?
  • At what point does the property in specific goods pass to the buyer under an unconditional contract of sale?
  • Can the Federal Land Commission disallow a tractor concession solely because the registration book is not in the claimant's name?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghiasuddin and another vs Moin U Ddin1984 MLD 10 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ghi.Ilam Haider and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 436 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-22
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionfurther inquiryfatal injurycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicants seeking pre-trial release in a murder case. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail when they were armed with guns but did not fire them, and when it remains undetermined which accused caused the fatal injury, thereby raising a question of common intention under criminal law. The court held that since the applicants did not use their firearms to shoot and it is unclear from the record who inflicted the fatal head injury, the applicability of common intention requires further inquiry at trial. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicants subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where multiple accused are alleged to have caused head injuries but the specific author of the fatal injury is unascertained at the interim stage, and the use of weapons is inconsistent with an immediate intent to kill, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when it is unclear which of the co-accused caused the fatal injury?
  • Does the failure of armed accused to use firearms raise a question of common intention requiring further inquiry?
  • Is a case considered fit for further inquiry under criminal law when the attribution of the fatal blow is absent from the record at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor vs Subdivisional Magistrate,Naushahro Ferore and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1262 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
• George Levi vs MRS. Zakia Sultana1984 CLC 3066 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08
  ejectmentpersonal requirementwidow landladysummary procedurebona fide needcommercial premisesrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These First Rent Appeals challenge the orders of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellants from commercial shops on the ground of personal requirement by the respondent, a widow. The core legal questions involved whether the landlady was required to prove bona fide personal need under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether she qualified as an owner and landlady despite holding a fractional share or not utilizing other properties. The Sindh High Court held that section 14 of the Ordinance provides a summary procedure for eviction where the establishment of bona fide or mala fide intent is not a necessary prerequisite, unlike proceedings under section 15. The Court affirmed that the landlady's personal requirement based on her qualifications as a dress-maker to run a ready-made garments business in a commercial area was duly supported by evidence, and defined 'landlord' to include co-owners and those entitled to receive rent. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with a grace period granted for vacating the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Is it necessary for a widow landlady seeking eviction under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to prove bona fide personal requirement?
  • Does an application for ejectment under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 entail a summary procedure distinct from section 15?
  • Can a co-owner with a fractional share in a property maintain an ejectment application as a 'landlord' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the mere use of commercial premises for residential purposes alter the legal nature of the building under rent laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Gala Jan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2456 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
• G. F. Jacob vs Bashir Ahmed Khan1984 CLC 1792 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• G Ulla N vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner and another1984 MLD 162 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
• Furqan Hy Der alias Taj vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1129 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Furqan Ahmad vs Deputy Controller of Buildings and another1984 CLC 2476 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-27
  constitutional petitiondangerous buildingsdemolition noticedelegation of powersSind Building Control Ordinanceillegal notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a notice for the total demolition of a building issued by the Deputy Controller of Buildings under section 14 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner, an occupier, alleged mala fides and lack of statutory authority, contending the owners engineered the notice to evict tenants following a fire incident. The respondents maintained the building was dilapidated and dangerous, and that the Deputy Controller was competent to issue the notice as a functionary of the Authority. The High Court held that the impugned notice was issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect, as the mandatory procedural prerequisites—namely, a report by a duly constituted inspection committee and final orders from the Director-General, K.D.A., as required by the delegated powers—were not fulfilled, and the notice was issued prior to the committee's inspection report. The court established that statutory powers regarding dangerous buildings must strictly follow the procedural safeguards and delegated hierarchical steps prescribed under the governing law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Deputy Controller of Buildings issue a demolition notice for a dangerous building without a report from a duly constituted inspection committee?
  • Is a demolition notice issued without the final orders of the Director-General, K.D.A. lawful under the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does issuing a demolition notice directly to the owner without first following the statutory stages for vacating the building violate the spirit of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Furqan Ahmad Qureshi vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Manpower, Health, Population and Planning Division, Islamabad and Another1984 CLC 1984 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• FLT.LT. (Retd.) Mumtaz Khan vs Mst. Amtul Batool1984 CLC 3462 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-08
  specific performanceimmovable propertytime is of the essencebreach of contractdelay simpliciterlachessale agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns consolidated suits involving a dispute over an agreement for the sale of a residential property. The seller sought cancellation of the agreement, while the purchaser sought specific performance. The core legal question was whether the purchaser was entitled to specific performance despite delays in completing the transaction, and whether the seller was entitled to recover additional development charges. The court held that time was not of the essence in the agreement. It established the principle that delay simpliciter does not bar specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property unless the delay has caused prejudice to the other party or amounts to abandonment of the claim. Finding that the purchaser had performed substantial acts, including paying 90% of the consideration and taking possession, and that the seller failed to prove prejudice, the court decreed the suit for specific performance. The seller’s claim for development charges was rejected, as the contractual obligation rested with him. The court also awarded the seller interest on the withheld balance of the sale consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does delay simpliciter in the performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property bar the relief of specific performance?
  • Can a party claim specific performance if they have already taken possession and paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration?
  • Is a party entitled to recover development charges from the purchaser if the agreement stipulates the seller must bear all charges up to the date of possession?
  • Does the failure to disclose documents in an affidavit of documents absolutely debar a party from producing them at the first date of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Firoze Ardeshir Mehta and Anothers vs Moin Ahmed Hashmi and 51984 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• Firdous Cooperative Housing Society Ltd./Opponent vs Mehboob1984 CLC 2845 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Film Exhibitors Ltd. vs Messrs Trade Linkers and another1984 MLD 557 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• Film Exhibitors Ltd. vs Messrs Growel Marine Ltd.1984 CLC 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
• Feroze Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2931 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad alias Gullo and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2782 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• Fazulullah and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1451 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
• Fazalur Rehman vs Mst. Taj A. Samad and 5 others1984 CLC 2551 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Fazal Muhamma D and Another vs Mst. Aiyshan and 9 orHERs1984 CLC 3401 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• Fayyaz Ahmad and 7 others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and 5 others1984 MLD 570 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-15Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and another vs Ali Muhammad Kassam1984 MLD 249 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-14Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali vs Muhammad Bashir (deceased) and 13 others1984 MLD 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
• Farya D vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1527 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar1984 PLD Karachi 62 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Faridunnisa Begum vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi1984 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-24
  land reformsperiod of limitationcondonation of delayform lr-viimandatory and directory provisionssuo motu revisional powerstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Full Bench upon a reference made by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court to resolve a conflict of judicial opinion regarding whether the period fixed through notifications issued by the Sind Land Commission under paragraph 12 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R. 115) for filing Form LR-VII is in the nature of a period of limitation, and whether a claimant is debarred from filing such form after the notified date or if delay can be condoned. The core legal question revolves around the nature of the timeline prescribed for submitting administrative forms under land reform laws and whether statutory land authorities possess the inherent or delegated competence to condone delays. The Full Bench held that the date specified for filing Form LR-VII is not a period of limitation in the juristic sense, but rather a timeline set for administrative convenience and orderly disposal of claims. Consequently, the court decided that a claimant is not strictly debarred from filing the form after the notified date, and the delay can be entertained and condoned by the Land Commission authorities provided the claimant has acted diligently and no third-party rights have intervened. The key principle laid down is that substantive rights conferred by beneficial land reform legislation to retain additional land cannot be defeated by mere administrative timelines or policy decisions in the absence of explicit penal consequences of forfeiture provided in the statute itself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the period fixed through notifications issued by the Sind Land Commission under paragraph 12 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 for filing Form LR-VII is in the nature of a period of limitation?
  • Can a claimant file Form LR-VII after the notified date, and can such delay be entertained and condoned by the Land Commission Authorities?
  • Does a policy decision by the Sind Land Commission to withdraw previously condoned delays take away a substantive right conferred under paragraph 8(2) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Whether the failure to submit Form LR-VII within the notified timeline entails the forfeiture of the right to retain additional land under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 in the absence of an express statutory penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Fariduddin vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 760 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Fariduddin Ahmed vs Sadruddin1984 MLD 545 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• Farida vs Prince Apartments Cooperative Housing Society and 21984 CLC 2914 · Sindh High Court
  cooperative housing societyrejection of plaintmandatory noticespecific performancestatutory noticemaintainability of suitcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for specific performance of a contract filed by the plaintiff against a registered cooperative housing society. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable despite the plaintiff's failure to serve the mandatory two-month notice required under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 upon the defendant society. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of non-compliance with this statutory notice requirement. The Court held that the requirement of notice under Section 70 is mandatory for any suit instituted against a society regarding its business. The Court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that Section 70-A rendered Section 70 redundant, clarifying that Section 70-A provides additional protection rather than superseding the notice requirement. Consequently, the Court found the failure to serve the notice fatal to the suit's maintainability and ordered the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is the service of a two-month notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 mandatory before filing a suit against a registered cooperative society?
  • Does the insertion of Section 70-A in the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 render the notice requirement under Section 70 redundant?
  • Can a suit be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for failure to serve a mandatory statutory notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Farida Khatoon vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1984 CLC 884 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• Fakir Huss N and 2 others vs Board of Revenue, Sind and 3 others1984 CLC 2601 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad1984 MLD 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad alias Faizoo vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3051 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
• Fahim Akhtar and others vs Inspector-General of Police (Sind)1984 MLD 1281 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
• Ex-Capt. Ghulam Hyder Kureshi vs Mst. Rashida1984 MLD 266 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
• Essa vs Government of Sind through the Home Secretary, Government of Sind, Karachi and Another1984 PLD Karachi 392 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-10Read full judgment →
• English Boot House Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise and Land1984 PTD 247 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Elis D. Silva vs Salahuddin and Another1984 CLC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
• Elahi Bux and 11 Others vs Jan Mohomed Khan and 2 Others1984 CLC 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →