Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Aftab Ahmed vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 735 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- Administrator, Kambar Municipality vs Khan Anwar Baig and 3 others1984 MLD 767 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- Additional Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And 2 Other vs Ministry Of FinancePTCL 1984 (CL) 49 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Adamjee Paper and Board Mills Ltd. vs Maritime Agencies Ltd.1984 CLC 440 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order disposes of two interlocutory applications: one by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for rejection of the plaint due to improper valuation, and another by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 6 read with Rule 10 seeking a delivery order for a consignment of 4,812 bales of wood-pulp imported as industrial raw material.
The core legal questions involved whether the court could correct an arbitrary valuation under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where consequential relief is sought, and whether the court could order the delivery of goods under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 subject to furnishing security where a defendant asserts a lien for a money claim.
The High Court held that courts possess inherent power to correct arbitrary suit valuations. It directed the plaintiffs to revalue the suit at Rs. 11 lacs, representing the actual value of the asserted lien, and pay ad valorem court-fees. Furthermore, finding that it was 'just and convenient' under Order XXXIX Rule 10 and Section 94(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to avoid severe industrial disruption, the Court directed the defendants to issue the delivery order upon the plaintiffs furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 11 lacs to secure the defendants' potential money claim.
Questions settled- Does the court have the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to correct an arbitrary or undervaluation of a suit filed under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act 1870?
- Can the court under Order XXXIX Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 order the interim delivery of goods to their owner subject to securing the defendant's money claim via a bank guarantee?
- Does a finder or bailee claiming a contractual or statutory lien on goods have an absolute right to withhold delivery of all goods when their monetary claim is significantly less than the total value of the goods?
- Achar and 6 others vs Ahmad and 3 others1984 MLD 169 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Abul Mokarram Muhammad and 2 others vs Haji Nazir Ahmed Khan1984 MLD 938 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
- Abul Kalam vs Bashir Ahmad Rana and Another1984 CLC 2997 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
- Abubakar and 11 Others vs Mirza M. Fazal Ali Baig and 2 Others1984 CLC 2110 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain vs Government of Sind through Chief Secetary, S&Gad1984 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition concerns the recovery of Rs. 5,172,000 seized by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) during a raid in 1976. The petitioner sought the return of the funds, which were held by the authorities after lower courts and the government failed to resolve his claim, instead directing him to file a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction to order the release of the property, given the existence of a pending civil suit and the state's argument regarding disputed facts. The Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction was appropriate because the civil suit was not an equally efficacious, speedy, or adequate remedy, and the state's possession of the funds under Section 524 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 did not constitute confiscation but rather a trusteeship for the true owner. The Court established that where a public functionary fails to perform a ministerial duty, the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar constitutional relief if that remedy is not equally beneficial and expeditious.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'at the disposal of the Provincial Government' under Section 524 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 imply the confiscation of property?
- Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to order the return of seized property when a civil suit regarding the same subject matter is pending?
- Is the existence of an alternative remedy by way of a civil suit an absolute bar to the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction for the performance of a public duty?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Abid Ali vs Sheikh Muhammad Jamal1984 MLD 60 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Karim Khan1984 CLC 2640 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan vs The State1984 MLD 1384 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan vs Mst. Amtul Begum and others1984 MLD 11 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Khan vs Abdul Majeed1984 PLD Karachi 178 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Husain Haroon vs The Provincial Election Authority, Sind1984 PLD Karachi 472 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Biial vs Adamali J1wajee Charitable Trust1984 CLC 166 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
- Abdulali P. Jivani vs Pakistan through General Manager Pakistan1984 CLC 3257 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wasey Jamil and Another vs MRS. Nasreen Tafazal1984 CLC 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahid vs Ghulam Murammad1984 MLD 1198 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Waheed vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3138 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wahab vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 873 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Subhan vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Manpower and 3 others1984 CLC 2815 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs Mst. Amtul Hamid1984 CLC 846 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Yousuf vs The Managing Director, Quality Steel Works1984 CLC 194 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs VTH Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 Others1984 PLC 181 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by the Sind Labour Court and Junior Labour Court dismissing the petitioner's application for reinstatement. The core legal questions involve whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was mandatory at the relevant time, and whether the petitioner, designated as an Assistant Security Officer drawing Rs. 850 per month, fell within the definition of a 'workman' under the relevant labor laws. The court held that the requirement of a grievance notice was mandatory and that subsection (6) of section 25-A did not dispense with it, and further found that the petitioner was employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 800 per month and exercising managerial functions, thereby excluding him from the definition of a workman. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that supervisory staff drawing wages above the statutory threshold and performing managerial duties are excluded from the definition of workmen.
Questions settled- Whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was mandatory for filing a petition for reinstatement?
- Does an employee working in an establishment necessarily have to be regarded as a workman if they are not covered by the definition of an employer?
- Whether an Assistant Security Officer drawing more than eight hundred rupees per month and performing supervisory duties falls within the definition of a workman?
- Can the disjunctive word 'or' in section 2(xxviii)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 be read as 'and'?
- Abdul Sattar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar and another vs The State and another1984 P Cr. L J 2808 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam vs Mst. Wasim Begum1984 MLD 642 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam vs Mrs.Tahira Zaidi1984 CLC 2855 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from rent proceedings wherein the respondent-landlady obtained an ex parte ejectment order against the appellant-tenant from the Rent Controller, which was subsequently executed. The core legal question concerned the validity of the substituted service by publication and affixation, and whether the requirements of due diligence under procedural rules were fulfilled before declaring the tenant ex parte. The Sindh High Court held that the order for substituted service by publication and affixation was improper and illegal because the Controller failed to ensure that sufficient attempts and due diligence had been made to effect personal service, and the pre-conditions for substituted service were lacking. The Court laid down the principle that while strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure may not directly apply to rent proceedings, their underlying principles must be strictly followed when adopted, requiring multiple genuine attempts at personal service and adherence to safeguards such as the presence of witnesses before resorting to substituted service.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court examine whether an order for substituted service was properly passed by the trial court?
- What constitutes due and reasonable diligence by a serving officer before resorting to substituted service by affixation?
- Whether the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to rent proceedings when a Rent Controller adopts modes of service provided therein?
- Does an endorsement of 'left' on a registered postal cover raise a legal presumption that the tenant was avoiding service?
- Arif vs Hamid Ali1984 MLD 1223 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam Qureshi and Another vs Judge, Special Court of Banking for Sind and Another1984 PLD Karachi 462 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the validity of the constitution of a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, specifically questioning whether the presiding judge, Mr. Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, was qualified to be appointed as a "District Judge" under Section 5 of the Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement that a Special Court consist of a person who "is a District Judge" necessitates that the appointee must hold that specific post at the time of appointment. The court held that the term "is" should be construed liberally to mean "has been," thereby qualifying individuals who previously held the rank of District Judge. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if the appointment were technically defective, the de facto doctrine validates the judgments and decrees passed by the judge to prevent public confusion and protect private rights. The key principles established are that statutory language may be interpreted to avoid absurdity and that the de facto doctrine precludes collateral attacks on the validity of judicial appointments in private litigation.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'is a District Judge' in Section 5 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 require the appointee to hold the post of District Judge at the exact time of appointment?
- Can the word 'is' in a statute be interpreted as 'has been' to fulfill the legislative intent?
- Are the judgments and decrees of a judge whose appointment is technically defective protected by the de facto doctrine?
- Can a plaint in a suit by a corporation be signed by a principal officer under Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Abdul Sa M Ad vs Commissioner and Appellate Authority (Election), Hyderabad and 2 Others1984 CLC 232 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman vs Nazeer Ahmad and 5 Others1984 CLC 3054 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rehman and 2 others vs Federal Land Commission and 2 others1984 CLC 2586 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzaq vs Deputy Superintendent (Prev), Central Excise and Land Customs and Others,1984 PTD 300 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Muhammad Yusuf and 3 Others1984 CLC 1673 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Amina Bano1984 MLD 825 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak A. Thahim, J A.M. Qureshi vs Province of Sind through Secretary to the Government of Sind, Revenue Department, Sind Secretariat, Karachi and 4 others1984 MLD 779 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak Khan vs Muhammad Illahi and 6 others1984 CLC 2724 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak alias Appla and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2708 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Others1984 PLC 386 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs Mst. Bashiran1984 CLC 2677 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rasheed vs Manzoor Ahmed1984 MLD 621 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul RAllAK vs Mst. Qaiser Sultan and 2 others1984 MLD 147 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahman vs Fareed1984 CLC 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahman vs Abdul Shakoor1984 MLD 1140 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum and 4 others vs Pervaiz Iqbal and another1984 MLD 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir vs Muhammad Mahfooz1984 CLC 3511 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qadir vs Ist Additional District Judge, Karachi and 3 others1984 MLD 777 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Q a Dir vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and 2 others1984 MLD 310 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Nabi vs The Collector of Customs and 2 Others1984 CLC 2028 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs Muhammad Ali1984 CLC 929 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs Mst. Jamila Khatoon1984 CLC 2025 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Khan vs Fazalurrehman and another1984 CLC 2938 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs Syed Nazimuddin1984 CLC 2691 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs Ibrahim1984 CLC 1596 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Latif Jusab vs Commissioner of Income Tax (East), Karachi1984 PTD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khalique vs National Bank of Pakistan1984 MLD 830 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq vs The State and Others1984 P Cr. L J 3123 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Syed Usman Qureshi and 3 others1984 MLD 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Anwar1984 CLC 1964 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim Kureshi (Represented by Heirs) vs Abdul Khaliq1984 CLC 259 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui vs Government of Sind through Secretary.1984 CLC 2860 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Hasan Azad vs Provincial Election Authority, Karachi and 21984 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hanna N Khan vs Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board,1984 MLD 607 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hameed alias Majan vs Hakeem Muhammad Fazal Haque1984 MLD 788 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Haleem vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 611 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal and suo motu revision challenge the conviction of the appellant and co-accused under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for murder. The core legal questions involved the voluntariness and admissibility of a retracted judicial confession made by a minor accused, the sufficiency of time for reflection before recording such a confession, the compliance with mandatory statutory procedures, and the requirement of independent material corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that the confession was involuntary due to insufficient time for reflection, lack of proper warnings regarding police custody, and procedural lapses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court held that a retracted confession cannot form the basis of a conviction without reliable independent corroboration, and that unanalyzed recoveries of bloodstained items do not link the accused to the crime. The appeal was accepted, both accused were acquitted of the charge, and the suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence was discharged.
Questions settled- Whether a retracted judicial confession can be made the basis for a conviction without material corroboration?
- Whether the time given to an accused person for reflection prior to recording a confession is legally sufficient?
- Does failure to strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the voluntary character of a confession?
- Can unverified recoveries of blood-stained articles not sent to a chemical examiner serve as legal corroboration of a confession?
- Abdul Haleem Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2470 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hafeez Khan vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 919 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Government Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And Two OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 223 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry1954 P Cr. L J 540 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs Muhammad Jumman and another1984 P Cr. L J 2748 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 870 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor vs K. Maracair alias Malakar and another1984 MLD 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-30Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghafoor and 6 others vs The State1924 P Cr. L J 2119 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar vs Mirza Muhammad Hussain1984 CLC 3023 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghaffar Abdur Rehman vs Asghar Ali and 3 others1984 CLC 2863 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Bashir Khan vs Haji Ali Raz a and 7 others1984 MLD 160 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
- Abdul Baqi Khan vs The Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and 21984 MLD 202 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Tayeb vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi1984 CLC 2393 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Memon vs Syed Tanzeem Ahmad and Another1984 PLC 67 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Chohan vs The Evacuee Trust Property Board through Its1984 CLC 2367 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz and Others vs Muhammad Ebrahim and 5 Others1984 CLC 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 530 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz and Another vs Hassan Muhammad1984 PLD Karachi 168 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
- Abco International Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi vs Mrs. Salima1984 CLC 2483 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abbas Raza vs Syed Arid Arabi1984 CLC 2390 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
- A.J. Shah vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 others1984 CLC 2592 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
- A. J. Hartshorn vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi1984 PTD 53 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
- A. Aslam Shaiq vs Hasan Askari and 2 Others1984 CLC 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-04Read full judgment →
- A Bdullah vs Ghulam Abbas1984 MLD 844 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- Zehra Begum vs Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd.1983 CLC 1592 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller dismissing an application for ejectment filed under section 15(2)(vii) of the Ordinance. The landlady sought to evict the respondent-company from a leased open plot used as a petrol service station, claiming personal bona fide use for herself and her family. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application as premature due to the subsisting lease agreement and an arbitration clause. The High Court held that while the application was not premature merely due to the lease period as ground (vii) is an independent ground, the appellant failed to establish bona fide personal requirement, particularly as the landlady and her daughter were residing abroad indefinitely for medical treatment and the husband was accommodated at the Sind Club. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that proof of good faith is mandatory for eviction under personal requirement grounds.
Questions settled- Whether an ejectment application filed under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is premature during the subsistence of a fixed-term registered lease deed?
- Does an arbitration clause in a lease agreement oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate an ejectment dispute under the rent laws?
- Can an appellate court maintain an order of dismissal on a ground other than that which found favour with the Rent Controller?
- Whether the absence of the landlord and her daughter from the country for medical treatment impacts the establishment of bona fide personal requirement for eviction?
- Zeba Textile Mills vs Ghulam Haider and 4 Others1983 PLC 1095 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-02Read full judgment →
- Zakawat Ali Shighri and Another vs Shah Din and 6 Others1983 CLC 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
- Zafar Saeed vs Sharful Haq Qureshi and Another1983 CLC 2625 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
- Zafar Ali Soomro and 3 Others vs Karachi Development Authority1983 CLC 731 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
- Zabar Din vs Settlement Commissioner (Sind) and 3 Others1983 CLC 3002 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-10Read full judgment →
- Yusuf vs Zubeda and 2 Others1983 CLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- Yousuf vs Fazal Karim1983 CLC 2219 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns applications for the readmission and restoration of two First Rent Appeals that were dismissed for non-prosecution under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908, prescribing a thirty-day limitation period for applying for the readmission of an appeal dismissed for want of prosecution, applies to applications seeking restoration of appeals filed under the special provisions of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The High Court held that since the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance is a special and local law providing a period of limitation different from the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, only specific provisions mentioned in Section 29(2)(a) apply, making Article 168 inapplicable. Consequently, such restoration applications are governed by the residuary limitation period of three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The key principle laid down is that where a special law prescribes a different period of limitation, exclusionary rules under Section 29 of the Limitation Act apply, leaving applications not specifically provided for to be governed by the residuary Article 181.
Questions settled- Does Article 168 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to an application for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for default under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Which article of the Limitation Act, 1908 governs an application for the readmission of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under a special law when no specific article applies?
- Do the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply exclusively to proceedings before a regular court or do they also extend to tribunals and special forums?