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.

• Naimuddin Siddiqui vs S. M. Ahmed Habibur Rehman1983 CLC 1378 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-23
  EjectmentDefault in rentBona fide personal useLandlord-tenant disputeRent deductionTenancy agreementAppellate reviewImplied default
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an ejectment order issued by the Controller, which was based on two grounds: the tenant's alleged default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement of the premises. The appellant contended that no specific plea of default was made and that the landlord's bona fide requirement was not established, citing a previous instance where the landlord returned to Zambia after making a similar demand. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Controller's findings. The Court held that while a specific plea of default was absent, it could be implied from the landlord's complaint of non-payment and illegal adjustment of rent, as the tenant had notice of the allegations. It was further held that the landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use was established, as he had resigned from his job abroad and demonstrated a clear intention to permanently settle in Pakistan with his family, despite a prior temporary return. The suitability of the premises for the landlord's family was also considered.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finding of default in rent payment be made even if there is no specific plea, provided the tenant has notice of the allegations?
  • Does a landlord's prior temporary return from abroad negate a current claim of bona fide personal requirement for premises if permanent settlement is now established?
  • What factors are considered when assessing a landlord's bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation of rented premises?
  • Can a tenant unilaterally deduct repair costs from rent without the landlord's consent or Controller's permission?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Asghar vs The Government of Pakistan through Special1983 P Cr. L J 881 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmad Shaikh vs Province of Sind1983 CLC 495 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bux vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Malik vs Shamim Ahmed1983 CLC 2886 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muzaffar Ali vs Tauqir Alam Ashhar and 5 Others1983 PLD Karachi 445 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Mallick vs Syed Shafarat Hussain1983 CLC 3081 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-13Read full judgment →
• Munir Masih vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
• Munawwar Begum and 9 Others vs Mst. Alqab Begum1983 CLC 1548 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali vs Habibur Rashid For The State1983 PCr. LJ 1709 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mullah Ghulam Ali and 3 Others vs The Commissioner of Karachi and 2 Others1983 PLD Karachi 602 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiarkar, Panoakil and Another vs Wali Muhammad1983 PLD Karachi 573 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Khan and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmed Khan vs The State--1983 P Cr. L J 950 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1738 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad-Hassan and 8 Others vs Executive Engineer (Civil), Karachi Development Authority and 3 Others1983 CLC 2681 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zubair Chaudhry vs The Muslim Commercial Bank Limited1983 CLC 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 477 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yusif and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 535 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Burney vs S. Muhammad Ali1983 CLC 1498 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27
  partnership dissolutionappointment of receiverstay of suitarbitration agreementsupervision of businessdisclosure of dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two applications arising from a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and accounts. The first application sought the appointment of a receiver for the partnership firm, while the second, filed by the defendant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940, sought a stay of the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration. Regarding the receivership, the Court held that in disputes between partners involving dissolution and accounts where assets are exclusively held by one party, appointing a receiver is standard practice. The Court appointed the Nazir as a receiver with limited supervisory powers over the business, which the defendant continued to operate, while maintaining an injunction against the disposal of partnership assets. Regarding the stay application, the Court dismissed it, holding that the application failed to disclose the specific nature of the dispute between the parties, a prerequisite for invoking Section 34. Furthermore, the Court determined that allegations of coercion and undue influence regarding a prior agreement were unsuitable for determination by an arbitrator.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a receiver a standard course of action in suits for the dissolution of a partnership and accounts where assets are held by one party?
  • Does an application for a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 require the applicant to specify the nature of the dispute?
  • Can a court refuse to refer a matter to arbitration if the dispute involves allegations of coercion and undue influence regarding the underlying agreement?
  • Does a party's previous withdrawal of a suit for dissolution of partnership preclude them from being considered 'ready and willing' to arbitrate in a subsequent suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousif vs Muhammad Khan1983 CLC 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs Mst. Chand Bibi and 5 Others1983 CLC 777 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Mst. Zubeda Khatoon and 4 Others1983 CLC 12 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen and Another vs Mst. Akhtar Jehan1983 CLC 3063 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Abdullah and Another1983 CLC 2216 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yakoob Jakhro vs Haji Yar Muhammad Respendent1983 CLC 1583 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yahya vs S. Jamilur Rehman1983 CLC 2001 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wali Khan vs DR. Jawad Ali Khan and 5 Others1983 PLD Karachi 425 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs S. D. M. and Tribunal, Mirpur Sakro and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 439 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 941 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs Muhammad Usman1983 CLC 2875 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uris and Another vs Muhammad Yaqoob1983 CLC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs Mst. Qaisar Jahan1983 CLC 3097 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tofique vs The State.1983 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Election Tribunal, Sind 2 and Others1983 CLC 2859 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Ehsan Ali (Represented by Legal Heirs)1983 PLD Karachi 537 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-16
  second appeallimitationcourt-feeimplied extension of timetime-barred appealexclusion of timepoverty as ground for extensionvested rightproper presentation of appealCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenged the dismissal of a first appeal by the Additional District Judge, Karachi, on grounds of limitation and deficit court-fee. The respondent/plaintiff had sued for declaration and possession of a hotel, which was decreed by the Civil Judge. The appellant's first appeal was filed with insufficient court-fee, and the deficit was paid after the limitation period expired. The core legal questions were whether the appeal was time-barred, whether time for obtaining copies should be excluded twice, and if the acceptance of deficit court-fee by the office constituted an implied extension of time under Section 149, C.P.C. The Sindh High Court held that the first appeal was time-barred, affirming that an appeal is not properly presented until the correct court-fee is paid. It clarified that time for obtaining copies cannot be excluded twice, and an implied extension of time under Section 149, C.P.C. requires judicial application of mind, not mere acceptance by office. Poverty was also held not to be a valid ground for extending time, especially when a vested right had accrued to the opposing party.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appeal be considered properly presented if filed with deficit court-fee?
  • Can the time requisite for obtaining copies of judgment and decree be excluded twice under Section 12 of the Limitation Act?
  • Does the mere acceptance of deficit court-fee by the court office constitute an implied extension of time under Section 149, Code of Civil Procedure?
  • Is poverty a valid ground for the court to exercise discretion and extend the period for paying deficit court-fee, especially when a vested right has accrued to the defendant?
  • Is a court bound to grant time to make up a deficiency in court-fee under Order VII Rule 11(c), Code of Civil Procedure, when the suit has already become time-barred?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulaiman Malik and Anothers vs Royal Trust Corporation1983 PLD Karachi 382 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-08
  administration suitstamp dutyinstrument of partitioncourt feesfinal decreepartition suitestate administration
  Summary & questions settled

  This office reference addressed whether a final decree passed in an administration suit is liable to stamp duty as an instrument of partition under the Stamp Act, in addition to court fees payable under the Court Fees Act. The court examined the legal distinction between administration suits, which involve the management and distribution of a deceased's estate, and partition suits. It held that while administration suits and partition suits are distinct legal proceedings, a decree in an administration suit may still fall within the definition of an instrument of partition under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act if it effectively partitions property. However, the court determined that because the specific decree in this case did not effect a partition—as assets remained to be realized and further acts were required—it did not constitute an instrument of partition. Consequently, the court ruled that no stamp duty was payable on the decree. The principle established is that stamp duty liability for an administration suit decree depends on whether the decree actually effects a partition of property.

  Questions settled

  • Is a decree passed in an administration suit liable to stamp duty as an instrument of partition?
  • Does the payment of court fees in an administration suit exempt the decree from stamp duty?
  • What is the legal distinction between an administration suit and a partition suit for the purposes of stamp duty?
  • Under what circumstances does a decree in an administration suit qualify as an instrument of partition under the Stamp Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq A. Memon vs Messrs Pakistan Milk Food1983 CLC 845 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddik vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1163 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shaukat Ali vs Khawaja Ammar Hussain1983 CLC 2015 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mazharul Haq and 5 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1440 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 475 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shareef vs Mst. Naseem Begum and Another1983 CLC 341 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah vs Mst. Zohra Khatoon1983 CLC 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq vs Muhammad Azeem Khan1983 CLC 774 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi vs Muhammad Adam Khan1983 CLC 2657 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-30
  ejectmentbona fide requirementpersonal uselandlord and tenantfirst appealrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a first appeal arising from an order of the Rent Controller which accepted the ejectment application of the respondent-landlord in respect of a commercial shop on grounds including default in rent, damage to property, construction of a unauthorized structure, and personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller decided against the landlord on default and unauthorized construction, but found in favour of the landlord regarding property damage and bona fide requirement. Upon appeal, the High Court evaluated the evidence concerning personal requirement and the availability of other properties. The core legal question was whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement and whether the possession of other properties precludes such a claim. The Court held that a landlord has the prerogative and discretion to choose any suitable property for his personal use, and his consistent statement on oath is sufficient proof of bona fide requirement. The Court set aside the finding on property damage due to insufficient evidence, but upheld the ejectment order based on proven bona fide personal requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the ownership or possession of other commercial properties by a landlord preclude him from seeking ejectment of a tenant for his bona fide personal use?
  • Is the statement of a landlord regarding his personal bona fide requirement sufficient proof of the fact if consistent with his averments?
  • Does a tenant or a Rent Controller have the power to dictate which property a landlord should choose for his personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Dad Khan vs Hassanulazmi1983 CLC 2238 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and Another vs Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks1983 PLD Karachi 463 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 2 Others vs Haji Ibrahim and 8 Others1983 CLC 2197 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Serajuddin vs Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1983 PLC 1286 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-26
  workmanjurisdiction of labour courttermination of servicesre-organizationconstitutional petitionback benefitsmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the termination of the petitioner's services as a Supervisor due to re-organization, prompting him to file a grievance petition before the Labour Court, which ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The Labour Appellate Tribunal subsequently set aside the Labour Court's order, leading to the instant petition before the Sindh High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner qualified as a 'workman' under the relevant labor law to invoke the Labour Court's jurisdiction, and whether the termination resulting from re-organization was mala fide. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish that he was a workman based on the nature of his duties, and that the employer's re-organization was bona fide and not a cloak to victimize employees. The court laid down the principle that the determination of an employee's status as a workman depends strictly on the actual nature of their duties rather than their designation or salary, and that proving such status is a jurisdictional prerequisite for maintaining a claim before the Labour Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of an employee being a workman is a prerequisite for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Labour Court?
  • Does designation or salary determine the status of an employee as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer undertake re-organization of its institution to retrench redundant employees in the absence of mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and Another vs Muhammad Abdullah Mushariff1983 CLC 3053 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim and 6 Others vs Bakhshal Khan and Another1983 PLD Karachi 497 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-14
  rent controllerstatutory interpretationimplied supersessiongovernment notificationcivil judgerent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a reference to a larger Bench of the Sindh High Court to determine whether a government notification dated 30th October 1963, investing Third Class Civil Judges with the powers of Rent Controllers, was impliedly superseded by a subsequent notification dated 25th March 1964. The petitioners argued that because the second notification was issued 'in continuation of' the first, it merged with it and was implicitly wiped out when the third notification superseded the first. The Court examined the rules of statutory interpretation, the meaning of 'continuation', and the absence of repugnancy between the notifications. Answering the reference in the negative, the Court held that the second notification was a parallel appointment and was not superseded by implication when the first notification was replaced. The previous contrary ruling in Ghulam Sarwar v. Ghulam Muhammad Mithal was overruled, affirming that Third Class Civil Judges retained validly conferred powers of Rent Controllers under the surviving notification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a government notification investing Third Class Civil Judges with powers of Rent Controllers was impliedly superseded by a later notification superseding an earlier related notification?
  • Does the expression 'in continuation of' in a statutory notification imply that the subsequent notification merges into the earlier one as an addendum or supplement?
  • When can an earlier statute or statutory notification be deemed repealed or superseded by implication on the coming into force of a later one?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1457 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Messrs Esso Standard Eastern Inc. and Another1983 CLC 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghir Ahmad vs Qurban Ali and Others1983 CLC 2127 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-11
  equitable mortgagepower of attorneydelegation of authorityclog on redemptionequity of redemptionpromissory noteratificationprivate sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of two connected suits, one for declaration, cancellation of a conveyance deed, and redemption of an equitable mortgage, and the other for possession and mesne profits. The core dispute centered on whether an attorney holding a general power of attorney to manage, mortgage, and sell property had the implied authority to delegate those powers and execute a separate power of attorney in favour of a creditor as security for a personal loan, and whether the creditor could privately sell the mortgaged property without court intervention. The court held that an agent cannot delegate authority without express power or exceptional circumstances under the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, that an equitable mortgagee cannot privately sell the mortgaged property without the intervention of the court, and that any separate document vesting such a power to sell without redemption options acts as an unlawful clog on the equity of redemption. The suits were adjudicated by decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for redemption upon payment of the principal loan and declaring the subsequent private sale void.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agent or attorney can delegate powers of sale and mortgage without express authorization from the principal?
  • Does an equitable mortgagee possess the right to privately sell the mortgaged property without the intervention of the court?
  • Whether a separate power of attorney executed to secure a loan over mortgaged property constitutes an illegal clog on the equity of redemption?
  • Can a promissory note executed without consideration be enforced against the borrower?
  • Whether the unauthorized filing and signing of a plaint by an agent can be cured by subsequent ratification by the principals?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Hajiani Noor Bai and Others1983 CLC 1883 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17
  pre-emptionTalabsMuslim lawregistered sale-deedTransfer of Property Actcivil revisionvicinage
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from judgments and decrees of the lower courts dismissing the applicant's suit for possession and pre-emption regarding a house. The trial court and appellate court dismissed the suit on two grounds: first, that the pre-emption demands (Talabs) were premature as they were made prior to the registration of the sale-deed; and second, that the vendor belonged to the Shia sect while the applicant was a Sunni, precluding the claim. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts erred on both counts, ruling that a pre-emption claim can be maintained based on the intent of the parties and the applicable law of pre-emption without strictly waiting for a registered sale-deed, and that the vendor's sect was not properly pleaded or proved. However, upon examining the evidence, the High Court found that the pre-emption demands (Talabs) were not performed strictly in accordance with the requisite legal formalities under Muslim law. Consequently, the revision was dismissed and the dismissal of the suit was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of pre-emption can be claimed prior to the execution and registration of a sale-deed under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does the description of a vendor in the title of a plaint constitute a formal pleading requiring a specific denial in the written statement?
  • Whether the failure to properly perform Talab-i-Mowasibat and Talab-i-Ashhad strictly in accordance with Muslim law defeats a suit for pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Alias Baba vs Muzamil Hussain and Another1983 P Cr. L J 480 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Ahmed and 21 Other vs Government of Sind and 21983 PLC (C. S.) 607 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadique vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 Others1983 CLC 2734 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07
  quo warrantowrit jurisdictionlachesdiscretionary relieflocal government electionlocus standibona fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the election of respondent No. 1 as a member and subsequently Chairman of a Town Committee, alleging he was disqualified under section 37(2)(f) of the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979, due to his alleged affiliation with a political party. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto in circumstances involving unexplained laches and disputed questions of fact regarding the respondent's eligibility. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, dismissing it on the grounds that the petitioner failed to explain the significant delay in filing the petition and failed to provide admissible evidence to substantiate the allegations of disqualification. The Court affirmed that the issuance of a writ of quo warranto is discretionary, not a matter of course. It established that the Court must examine the conduct and motives of the relator, and may decline relief where the petition is vexatious, involves complex factual disputes better suited for alternative forums, or where the petitioner lacks bona fides.

  Questions settled

  • Is the issuance of a writ of quo warranto a matter of course or a discretionary remedy?
  • Can a High Court decline a writ of quo warranto if the petitioner fails to explain significant delay in filing the petition?
  • Should a High Court exercise its writ jurisdiction to resolve complex questions of fact that require the recording of evidence?
  • Does the Court have the authority to inquire into the motives and conduct of a relator seeking a writ of quo warranto?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Rehmatullah1983 CLC 3197 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Katiar vs Union Council, Darasanna Channa1983 CLC 1543 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Katiar vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan1983 CLC 3281 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2039 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Moti vs Pakistan through Section Officer, Ministry1983 PLD Karachi 589 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qassim vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qasim and Another vs Board of Revenue and 2 Others1983 CLC 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qamarul Islam and 3 Other vs Third1983 PLC 385 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Paral vs Town Committee, Chak, Taluka Sukkur1983 CLC 9 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Omar and Others vs DR. Amina Ashraf1983 CLC 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03
  limitationcertified copytime requisiteexclusion of timeact of courtomission of officeSind Civil Courts Rulesrent eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from rent eviction proceedings under Section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Following a remand order to determine whether an appeal filed by the respondent landlady against the Rent Controller's order was time-barred, the District Judge held that the appeal was filed within time. The core legal question was whether the time elapsed between applying for a certified copy and its delivery could be excluded as 'time requisite' under limitation principles when court stamps were supplied later and court officials omitted to reject the application or post notice of completion under the Sind Civil Courts Rules. The High Court affirmed the District Judge's finding, holding that where the court office failed to notify the applicant of the completion of the copy or reject the application for non-supply of stamps, the delay could not be attributed to the party. The court reiterated that litigants must not suffer due to the acts or omissions of the court or its officers.

  Questions settled

  • Can the time taken to obtain certified copies be excluded from limitation when the court office failed to notify the applicant of its completion?
  • Does an omission or act of the court or its officers prejudice a litigant's right to compute limitation?
  • Whether failure to reject a copying application for non-supply of stamps under the Sind Civil Courts Rules entitles the applicant to an extension of time under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Noman Malik vs Mst. Rukhsana Noman and 2 Others1983 CLC 2846 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nazir vs The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railway1983 CLC 3064 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naqi vs Khalilur Rehman1983 PLD Karachi 238 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustaqeem and Another vs Secretary to Government of Sind and 2 Others1983 PLC (C. S.) 339 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26
  quashment of criminal proceedingsfalse FIRshow-cause noticepending direct complaintspeaking orderjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings under Sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pending before a magistrate. The core legal questions involved whether a magistrate can accept a police report recommending cancellation of an FIR and direct prosecution of the informant without a reasoned order, without a show-cause notice, and while a direct complaint by the informant remains pending. The Sindh High Court held that a magistrate must apply judicial mind and pass a speaking order supported by reasons when dealing with police cancellation reports, that an informant is entitled to a pre-action show-cause notice before being prosecuted for giving false information, and that prosecution under Sections 182 or 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is premature and not maintainable while the informant's direct complaint regarding the same incident is still pending. The court accordingly quashed the pending proceedings against the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a magistrate can accept a police report and direct prosecution under Sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code without passing a reasoned judicial order?
  • Is an informant entitled to a show-cause notice before proceedings under Section 182 or 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code are initiated against them?
  • Can criminal proceedings for lodging a false information be legally maintained while a direct complaint filed by the same informant regarding the incident is still pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mirza vs Muhammad Hussain Gani1983 PLD Karachi 162 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01
  second appealejectmentrent restrictionmaterial impairmentadditions and alterationsconcurrent findings of factmisconception of lawtenant liabilitylandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenged an ejectment order issued under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the tenant's alleged additions and alterations to the demised premises materially impaired their value or utility, thereby rendering him liable for ejectment. A secondary question concerned the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal. The court held that mere alterations or additions are insufficient for ejectment unless they are proven to materially impair the value or utility of the building. It further ruled that concurrent findings of fact, though generally not interfered with, lose their sanctity and can be set aside in a second appeal if based on misinterpretation of documents, misreading of evidence, misstatement of facts, or a misconception of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the ejectment application against the tenant was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be ejected for making additions or alterations to premises if they do not materially impair the value or utility of the building?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal?
  • Does the replacement of an old door with a new one, including a lintel, constitute material impairment of a building's value or utility?
  • Is a mere statement about alleged additions or alterations sufficient to render a tenant liable for eviction without proving material impairment?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact based on a misconception of law be disturbed in a second appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Matin vs MRS. Dino Manekji Chinoy and Others1983 PLD Karachi 387 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26
  temporary injunctionspecific performancefirst preferencelease deedconcluded contractbalance of conveniencemandatoriness of statutory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's application for a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from selling or purchasing the property in dispute, which was the subject-matter of a specific performance suit. The core legal question concerned whether the lease deed and subsequent correspondence established a concluded contract giving the appellant a valid right of pre-emption or first preference to purchase the property, and whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant had indeed established a serious and arguable case regarding the existence of a valid contract and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo. The court laid down the principle that the mere absence of a fixed time for completion in a contract for the sale of immovable property does not destroy its basic characteristics, and time cannot be made the essence of the contract unilaterally. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and an injunction was granted subject to the appellant depositing a sum of rupees fifteen lakhs in court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a fixed time for completion in a contract for the sale of immovable property robs the contract of its basic characteristics?
  • Can time be made the essence of a contract for the sale of immovable property by unilateral action?
  • Whether the provisions of Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding notice before presentation of appeal are mandatory or directory?
  • What constitutes a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction in a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Manzar and Another vs Summary Military Court and 21983 CLC 377 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mah vs Sultan Ahmad and Another1983 CLC 2640 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Luqman vs Obedur Rehman and 4 Others1983 CLC 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Juman vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2133 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Issa vs State1983 P Cr. L J 1674 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Ibrahim (through His Legal Heirs)1983 CLC 961 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Khan vs Khurshid Bibi1983 CLC 3267 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and Another vs Muhammad Siddiq1983 PLD Karachi 514 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Akhtar H. Ghori1983 CLC 3290 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Nisar Muhammad and Another1983 CLC 3251 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1746 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal and 2 Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind and 21983 CLC 1327 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Inayat vs Mir Muhammad and Another1983 CLC 2180 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2491 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Mst. Karamnissa and 2 Others1983 CLC 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Muhammad Aslam1983 CLC 2621 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Haji Ramzan1983 CLC 2800 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Muhammad Amin and 3 Others1983 CLC 1621 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 PCr.LJ 619 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat Bhatti vs The Official Assignee, Karachi1983 CLC 1773 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and Another vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands)1983 PLD Karachi 353 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1686 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →