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.

• Muhammad Hanif vs The State Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 2380 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Muhammad Ramzan1983 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Eckhard & Co. Marine GMBH and 2 Others1983 PLD Karachi 613 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-10
  stay of suitforeign arbitrationdiscretion of courtbalance of conveniencebreach of contractdamagesjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arose from an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 by the defendants seeking to stay a suit for damages and refer the dispute to arbitration in London, as stipulated in a Memorandum of Agreement for the sale of a vessel. The plaintiff resisted the application, arguing that the contract was executed, performed, and allegedly breached in Karachi, where all material evidence and witnesses were located. The Sindh High Court examined the scope of judicial discretion under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court held that while parties are ordinarily bound by their contractual bargains, a foreign arbitration or exclusive jurisdiction clause does not completely oust the jurisdiction of domestic courts. The court retains discretion to refuse a stay of proceedings if the party opposing the stay discharges the burden of showing that foreign arbitration would cause extreme inconvenience, excessive expense, or a virtual denial of justice. Finding that the entire evidence was in Karachi, the contract was to be performed there, and one of the defendants was not a party to the arbitration clause, the Court dismissed the application.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foreign arbitration clause completely oust the jurisdiction of domestic courts in Pakistan?
  • Under what circumstances can a court exercise its discretion under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to refuse a stay of proceedings despite a foreign arbitration agreement?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to show that a matter should not be referred to foreign arbitration, and how can that burden be discharged?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2340 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux Etc. vs Abdul Majid1983 CLC 2555 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir and 2 Others vs Board of Revenue and 5 Others1983 CLC 930 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bakhsh vs Khushi Muhammad1983 CLC 2740 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Mst. Aisha Begum1983 CLC 2300 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Iqbaluddin1983 CLC 2271 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Askari Khan and 5 Others vs Authorised Officer and Additional Settlement Commissioner1983 CLC 1975 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Alias Taoo vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad Hashmi vs Mst. Malika Begum1983 CLC 2107 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif vs Mirza Qanna T Hussain1983 CLC 343 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Malik vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2088 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arab and 2 Others vs Jaffery Muhammad Hassan Opponent1983 CLC 335 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 503 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and Another vs Provincial Government of Sind and Another1983 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Mst. Hameeda Begum1983 CLC 3237 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-21
  rented premisesevictionco-ownerlandlordpurdah-nasheenpersonal requirementsummary evictionnotice period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an eviction order issued under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant-tenant contested the eviction, arguing that the respondent-landlady, a co-owner, lacked standing to file the application, that the notice was insufficient, that the application was premature, and that the landlady failed to prove the bona fide nature of her personal requirement. The Court held that a co-owner authorized by other co-owners falls within the definition of "landlord" under the Ordinance and is entitled to seek eviction. Regarding procedural objections, the Court ruled that substantial compliance with notice requirements is sufficient, and an application filed prematurely is not fatal if the cause of action matures before the final adjudication. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 14 of the Ordinance does not necessitate an inquiry into the bona fides of the landlord's personal requirement, unlike Section 15. Finally, the Court found no prejudice in the landlady’s non-appearance as a witness, given her status as a purdah-nasheen lady and the testimony of her authorized attorney.

  Questions settled

  • Can a co-owner file an application for eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is an eviction application filed prematurely liable to be dismissed if the cause of action matures before the final decision?
  • Does Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 require the landlord to prove the bona fide nature of their personal requirement?
  • Is the personal appearance of a purdah-nasheen landlady as a witness mandatory in eviction proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs MRS. Sayeeda Rauf1983 CLC 2428 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Siddiqui vs Syed Jamil Ahmed1983 CLC 3102 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Alam vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1734 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mst. Yasmin and Another1983 CLC 3098 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Mahmood Ali B. Nanjiani and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1242 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mahboob Mustafa1983 CLC 2608 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afaq Paracha vs Seventh Senior Civil Judge and Rent1983 CLC 769 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zohra Alias Munawar vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Bibi and Others vs Muhammad Saeed and Others1983 CLC 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Begum vs Wing Commander Ziauddin Ahmed and 5 Others1983 CLC 187 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10
  co-operative societiesarbitration awardstatutory periodwrit jurisdictionalternate remedytransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected constitutional petitions challenging an arbitration award and subsequent appellate order concerning the transfer and alleged gift of a residential plot in Karachi. The core legal questions revolved around whether a revision remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act barred writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether the two-month statutory time limit for rendering an arbitration award under Rule 32 of the Co-operative Societies Rules was mandatory or directory. The Sindh High Court held that a discretionary revision remedy does not constitute an adequate alternate remedy barring a constitutional petition against orders passed without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held, following Supreme Court precedent, that an arbitration award rendered after the expiry of the statutory two-month period without an extension is illegal, regardless of whether the delay is of a few days or months. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the impugned award and appellate orders were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the availability of a revision remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act bar the exercise of constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Is the two-month statutory time limit for rendering an arbitration award under Rule 32 of the Co-operative Societies Rules mandatory or directory?
  • Does an arbitration award rendered after the expiry of the statutory period without an extension become illegal irrespective of the duration of delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zahida Begum vs Messrs Nadri Bakery & StoresPL D 1983 Karachi 618 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Syeda Banoo vs Muhammad Saleem and Another1983 P Cr. L J 2349 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sona and 2 Others vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 Others1983 PLD Karachi 575 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan vs Abdul Khaliq and Another1983 CLC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-06
  Muslim Family LawsTalaqArbitration CouncilTerritorial JurisdictionFailure CertificateDivorce Notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the validity of a failure certificate issued by the Chairman of the Arbitration Council, Mirpurkhas, regarding a divorce (Talaq) proceeding. The core legal question is whether a notice of Talaq under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, and the subsequent failure certificate, are valid when submitted to a Chairman outside the jurisdiction where the wife resided at the time of the pronouncement. The petitioner argued that under Rule 3(b) of the West Pakistan Rules under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, the notice must be given to the Chairman of the Union Council where the wife was residing at the relevant time. The Court held that the failure certificate issued by the Mirpurkhas Arbitration Council was without jurisdiction and of no legal effect, as the petitioner was residing in Karachi when the Talaq was pronounced. The Court established the principle that strict compliance with the territorial jurisdiction requirements for serving Talaq notices is mandatory, and such notices must be submitted to the Chairman of the Union Council where the wife resides at the time of the pronouncement.

  Questions settled

  • To which Chairman must a notice of Talaq be sent under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • Is a failure certificate issued by a Chairman lacking territorial jurisdiction legally valid?
  • Does the residence of the wife at the time of the pronouncement of Talaq determine the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Council?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sardar Begum vs Mst. Hasina Jan1983 CLC 3258 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needwidow landlordSind Rented Premises Ordinanceco-ownersubsequent rent application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the appellant from the disputed premises. The original owner had filed a rent application before his death, subsequent to which his widow, the respondent, served a notice under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need after becoming a widow. The Rent Controller ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the present appeal. The core legal questions involved whether a rent application under Section 14 is maintainable during the pendency of a prior rent application, whether a widow who inherits a share is an owner/landlord competent to maintain such an application, and whether proof of good faith is required under Section 14. The court held that a new cause of action arises upon becoming a widow, rendering the Section 14 application maintainable despite pending proceedings, that a co-owner widow qualifies as a landlord, and that proof of good faith is not a prerequisite under Section 14. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is maintainable during the pendency of a previous rent application concerning the same premises?
  • Whether a widow who inherits a share in a property is considered an owner and landlord competent to file a rent application under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is required to prove personal requirement in good faith?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Jawaid and 3 OTHERSs vs S. M. Arshad and 7 Others1983 PLD Karachi 303 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-18
  temporary injunctionappointment of receiverinherent powersnon-disclosure of material factsadministration suitinterim reliefCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses two civil miscellaneous applications concerning the grant of a temporary injunction and the appointment of a receiver in a suit for the recovery of money and accounts. The core legal questions involved whether interim relief could be granted under Order XXXIX or Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure, or alternatively under the inherent powers of the court via sections 94 and 151, and the effect of the plaintiffs' failure to disclose pending related litigation. The court held that the properties in question were not the subject matter of the suit and the case did not strictly fall within the specific rules of Order XXXIX or Order XL, but affirmed that the court possesses inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief in exceptional circumstances where the ends of justice so require. However, declining to exercise inherent powers due to the lack of compelling reasons, the unexcused non-disclosure of the earlier administration suit, and the absence of proof of irreparable loss, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' application, granted the defendant's application, and recalled the ad interim injunction. The key principles laid down are that while courts can exercise inherent powers under section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant temporary injunctions or appoint receivers outside the strict confines of Order XXXIX and Order XL when the interests of justice demand, full disclosure of prior related proceedings is essential, and interim relief will generally be withheld in the absence of compelling reasons, irreparable loss, or material concealment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary injunction or receiver can be granted under the inherent powers of the court when the conditions of Order XXXIX and Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not strictly met?
  • Does the failure of a litigant to disclose the pendency of a prior related suit disentitle them to the equitable relief of a temporary injunction?
  • Can properties belonging individually to defendants that are not the direct subject-matter of the suit be subjected to a temporary injunction or receivership?
  • Whether the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are restricted by the specific provisions for injunctions and receivers contained in the Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sahera Begum vs The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.1983 CLC 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safia Bai vs Abdul Sattar1983 PLD Karachi 419 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-08
  ejectment applicationwidow's right to evictionlandlord-tenant relationshipsummary proceedingsjurisdiction of Rent Controllerco-ownerSind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of a Rent Controller dismissing an ejectment application filed by a widow under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions were whether a widow, as a co-owner, is entitled to maintain an eviction application under the Ordinance, and whether a Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed ownership of the property or the structures thereon. The Court held that the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction is strictly confined to determining the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and does not extend to resolving complex title disputes. The Court further held that a widow is not required to be the sole owner of the property to invoke the summary eviction provisions of the Ordinance. Additionally, the Court established that vague, unsubstantiated allegations of mala fides regarding other vacant premises do not warrant a departure from the summary nature of the proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was granted, emphasizing that the Rent Controller must avoid assuming the powers of a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the ownership of property or structures in an eviction proceeding?
  • Is a widow required to be the sole owner of a property to maintain an ejectment application under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a co-owner maintain an ejectment application against a tenant under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Do vague allegations of mala fides regarding other vacant premises require a Rent Controller to conduct a full evidentiary trial in summary proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Khatoon and Another vs Muhammad Nisa and Another1983 CLC 2209 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum vs Muhammad Mobin1983 CLC 1458 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Begum vs Mazhar Iqbal1983 CLC 380 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24
  ejectment applicationlandlord and tenant relationshiptentative rent orderpreliminary issuerent controllersecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellant, claiming to be the landlord of the premises. The respondent contested the application, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting that the appellant was a minor at the time of the alleged tenancy. The Rent Controller initially struck off the respondent's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The First Appellate Court set aside this order, remanding the case to the Rent Controller to frame and decide a preliminary issue regarding the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, holding that where the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship is specifically denied by the tenant, the Rent Controller is legally obligated to frame and determine this as a preliminary issue before passing a tentative rent order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Court emphasized that a tentative rent order cannot be validly passed without first establishing the jurisdictional prerequisite of the landlord-tenant relationship.

  Questions settled

  • Must a Rent Controller frame and decide a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant before passing a tentative rent order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when that relationship is denied?
  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent order if the landlord-tenant relationship is in dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rabia Begum vs Mst. Saeeda Khatoon and Another1983 PLD Karachi 507 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Najjan and 9 Others vs Smt. Asudi Bai (Represented by Legal Heirs)1983 PLD Karachi 211 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naila vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1300 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Minhaj-UN-Nisa vs Deputy Commissioner_District Magistrate, Karachi and Another1983 CLC 2228 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-31
  requisition of immovable propertyejectment executionretrospective notificationvested rightslandlord and tenantmala fide requisitionaudi alteram partemrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  These two consolidated constitutional petitions arose from disputes surrounding a commercial building in Karachi owned by the petitioner, the first floor of which was rented and later taken over by the Provincial Education Department under Martial Law Regulation 118 in 1972. After the tenants defaulted on rent, the Rent Controller passed a tentative rent order and subsequently struck off their defence, ordering ejectment. While execution proceedings were pending, the Deputy Commissioner issued a requisition order under the Sind Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956. Later, the Provincial Government issued a notification exempting schools taken over under MLR 118 from the operation of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, prompting the Rent Controller to dismiss the execution application. The Sindh High Court held that property already in possession of the Government cannot be requisitioned under the Act of 1956, that the requisition order was mala fide to bypass execution, that prior notice to the landlord is mandatory, and that executive notifications cannot operate retrospectively to nullify vested rights or existing judicial decrees. Both petitions were consequently allowed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can a property already in possession of the Provincial Government or its educational institutions be requisitioned under section 3 of the Sind Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
  • Whether a landlord who is not in physical possession of the property is entitled to a prior notice under section 3 of the Sind Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
  • Can an executive notification issued under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be given retrospective effect so as to nullify an existing ejectment order passed by a competent court?
  • Does a requisition order passed to avoid the execution of a lawful order of a Rent Controller constitute a mala fide exercise of power?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehfoozan and Others vs Nasim Beg1983 CLC 2328 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Koonch Amna and 7 Others vs Mst. Zubaida and 4 Others1983 PLD Karachi 584 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Khanum Shujat Ali vs Mst. Malika1983 CLC 2700 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Bibi vs Province of Sind and 4 Others1983 CLC 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khursheed Begum vs Met. Sitara Parween and 2 Others1983 CLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Merchant vs The K. M. C. through Mayor1983 CLC 535 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-02
  rented premisesnationalisation of schoolsMartial Law Regulation 118retrospective operationjurisdiction of Rent Controllertransfer of ownershipejectment application
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order dismissing an ejectment application filed by the appellant against the respondent in respect of a rented building used as a school, which was nationalised under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972. The core legal questions were whether the original owner was barred from selling the rented premises under M.L.R. 118 and whether a subsequent notification under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 operated retrospectively to bar pending proceedings. The court held that M.L.R. 118 applies only to nationalised educational institutions and their own properties, not to privately owned rented buildings housing them, meaning the sale-deed in favour of the appellant was valid. However, the notification excluding nationalised educational institutions from the operation of the Ordinance related to procedure and remedy, thereby applying retrospectively to bar pending ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller, leaving the appellant to seek remedies under the general law. The key principles established are that rented premises do not vest in the government merely because the tenant institution is nationalised, and jurisdictional notifications affecting remedies operate retrospectively on pending proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a privately owned building rented out to an educational institution vest in the Government upon the nationalisation of that institution under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972?
  • Is a notification issued under section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 excluding certain institutions from its operation retrospective so as to affect pending proceedings?
  • Does a change of forum or jurisdiction through a statutory notification constitute a matter of procedure?
  • Does the nationalisation of a school under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 of 1972 preclude the private landlord from selling the rented property?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Bai and 26 OIHRESs vs Government of Sind and 3 Others1983 CLC 2604 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janat and 4 Others vs Muhammad Siddique and 2 Others1983 CLC 2295 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ishrat-UN-Nisa vs Mst. Saeeda Begum and 2 Others1983 CLC 2689 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Iqbal Begum vs Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Khan1983 CLC 2617 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hasina Bano vs MRS. Mumtaz Yunus1983 CLC 2272 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hasina Bano and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 132 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processmala fide complaintcivil disputecriminal breach of trustcriminal intimidationinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a private criminal complaint, filed by the wife of a tenant against a landlord, constituted an abuse of the court's process when the underlying dispute was essentially civil in nature and already subject to pending civil litigation. The Court held that the criminal complaint was mala fide, having been instigated by the tenant to coerce the petitioners into withdrawing ejectment proceedings. The Court observed that the allegations of criminal misappropriation and intimidation were unsubstantiated and served as a pressure tactic. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings, establishing the principle that criminal law cannot be weaponized to settle civil disputes or exert pressure on opposing parties in pending civil litigation. Such actions amount to an abuse of the process of the court, warranting intervention under the inherent powers of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they are initiated to coerce a party in a pending civil dispute?
  • Does the failure to file an application under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a petition for quashment under Section 561-A?
  • Is a criminal complaint filed by a third party at the instigation of a litigant to pressure an opponent in a civil suit considered an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haseena vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1742 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hameeda vs Mst. Hajiani Sakina and 8 Others1983 CLC 2065 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Halima vs Muhammad Ramzan and Others1983 CLC 1290 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hafeez Begum vs Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property1983 PLD Karachi 374 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21
  evacuee trust propertyPermanent Transfer Deedvalidation of transferprivate trustreligious trustconstitutional petitionnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash orders passed by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and the Government of Pakistan, which declared the disputed property in Hyderabad to be evacuee trust property and cancelled the petitioner's Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD). The petitioner contended that because the PTD was issued in her favour on June 19, 1974, prior to the commencement of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, the Evacuee Trust authorities lacked jurisdiction to cancel it. The High Court analyzed Sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975, holding that statutory validation of transfers of urban evacuee trust properties is only available if the PTD was issued prior to June 1968 and the transaction was bona fide. Since the petitioner's PTD was issued in 1974, it could not be validated. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the term 'religious trust' encompasses both public and private religious trusts, and the concurrent findings of the authorities below were based on sufficient evidence. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Permanent Transfer Deed issued after June 1968 in respect of evacuee trust property be validated under Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975?
  • Does the term 'religious trust' under the evacuee laws encompass both public and private religious trusts?
  • Can a party successfully claim a violation of natural justice in a constitutional petition if they were granted a full hearing during revision proceedings and failed to raise the ground in their petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulzar Begum vs S. A. Mirza and 4 Others1983 CLC 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gohar Sultana and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 347 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 10 Others vs Mst. Inayat Khatoon and 6 Others1983 CLC 1938 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima and Others vs Mst. Hanifa Anjum and Others1983 CLC 300 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima and 4 Others vs Fazalur Rahman1983 CLC 792 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Birjis Khatoon vs Jabbar Ahmad1983 CLC 3066 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Qamarunnisa vs Kashif Muhammad Ali & Co. Ltd. and Another1983 CLC 1285 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Barkat Bibi and Another vs Abdul Qadus1983 CLC 1895 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakhtan Bibi vs Messrs Pakistan General Insurance Co. Ltd.1983 CLC 1117 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ashrafunnisa vs The State and 8 Others---1983 P Cr. L J 1428 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ashraf Alia vs DR. Asif Majid1983 CLC 1607 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ameena vs Mst. Kulsum Begum and 2 Others1983 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha Bibi vs Haji Yar Muhammad and Another1983 P Cr. L J 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst, Bashiran and Another vs Mst. Shahzadi Begum and Another1983 CLC 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
• MRS. Sadiq vs Syed Intekhab Hyder Abedi1983 CLC 1623 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23
  bona fide requirementrent evictionpleadingsdeemed admissionlandlord-tenant disputepersonal userent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a First Rent Appeal filed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenging an eviction order granted on the grounds of the landlord's personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions were whether the landlord’s requirement for the premises was bona fide and whether the tenant's failure to specifically traverse the landlord's pleading regarding the need to vacate employer-provided housing constituted an admission of that fact. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order. The court established that where a landlord pleads a specific fact, such as being required to vacate employer-provided housing, and the tenant fails to specifically traverse this in the written statement, the fact is deemed admitted under the principles of pleading, rendering further proof unnecessary. Furthermore, a landlord residing in employer-provided premises who is asked to vacate demonstrates a bona fide need to occupy their own property. The court clarified that while the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply to rent proceedings, its broad principles regarding pleadings remain relevant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to specifically traverse a factual allegation in a written statement constitute an admission of that fact in rent proceedings?
  • Is a landlord's requirement for personal use considered bona fide when they are being evicted from employer-provided housing?
  • Are the broad principles of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• MRS. Rehana Masud and 2 Others vs Settlement Commissioner Karachi1983 CLC 369 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
• MRS. Qudsia Bano vs General Secertary of Officers Club of Central1983 PLD Karachi 486 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
• MRS. Hazratbai Merchant and Another s vs Muhammad Isma1l1983 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
• MRS. Ameena Lodhi and 2 others vs Maqbool Hussain1983 CLC 178 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mozal and 11 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 64 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-19Read full judgment →
• Moulana Mushtaq Ahmad vs Delite Cinema and 2 Others Opponents1983 CLC 3056 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-03Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1752 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux Bhutto vs Muhammad Hussain1983 CLC 277 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
• Mooso and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
• Mondi's Refreshment Room & Bar, Karachi vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another1983 PLD Karachi 214 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-12
  excise dutyexcisable servicesconstitutional petitiontaxationultra viresdiscriminatory legislationhotel and restaurant tax
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of constitutional petitions challenged the imposition of central excise duty on "excisable services," including hotels, restaurants, and liquor bars, under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, as amended by the Finance Ordinance, 1970. The core legal questions concerned whether the legislature had the constitutional competence to levy excise duty on services rather than goods, whether the definition of "excisable services" included hotel room rent, and whether the exemption thresholds based on city location were discriminatory. The High Court held that the term "excise duty" is of wide import, encompassing services, facilities, and utilities, and is not restricted to manufactured goods. The court affirmed that the legislature acted within its constitutional competence. Furthermore, the court ruled that the classification for tax exemptions based on turnover and location was reasonable and not discriminatory. Finally, the court determined that room rent in hotels constitutes an excisable service. The principle laid down is that excise duty, as a fiscal measure, may validly extend to services and utilities provided by commercial establishments, and legislative classification for tax purposes is permissible if based on a rational nexus.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'excise duty' under the Constitution extend to services, facilities, and utilities, or is it strictly limited to manufactured goods?
  • Is the imposition of excise duty on services provided by hotels and restaurants ultra vires the Constitution?
  • Does the definition of 'excisable services' under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 include rent charged for hotel rooms?
  • Are legislative provisions creating different excise duty exemption thresholds for different cities based on turnover unconstitutionally discriminatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Moinuddin Qureshi vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 946 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Alias Sagi vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2454 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mohim Dehvery vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 441 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mohib Ali and 2 Others vs The State--Opponent1983 P Cr. L J 2443 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• Moharram vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 471 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-02Read full judgment →
• Mohan Lal vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 2 Others1983 CLC 2743 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Shafi vs Messrs Bambino Ltd. and Another1983 CLC 985 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mithal Shah vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 182 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-03Read full judgment →
• Miss Samina Nighat vs P. R. C. Appellate Tribunal and 3 Others1983 PLD Karachi 324 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Miss Rubina Almas and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 47 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mishal Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-25
  explosive substancescriminal appealburden of proofrecovery memomashirreasonable suspicionspecial courtpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against convictions under the Explosive Substances Act 1908. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the recovery of explosive substances and whether the circumstances established a 'reasonable suspicion' of unlawful possession to shift the burden of proof onto the accused under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975. The Court held that the convictions were unsustainable because the prosecution failed to prove the recovery beyond doubt, as the independent witnesses (mashirs) turned hostile and the investigating officer’s testimony was unreliable. Furthermore, the Court determined that mere possession of 10 kilograms of gunpowder did not inherently raise a 'reasonable suspicion' of unlawful purpose, particularly as such quantities were permissible under the Explosives Rules 1940. The key principles laid down are that the initial burden of proof rests on the prosecution even under special statutes; 'reasonable suspicion' is an objective criterion; and the mere presence of individuals at a location where contraband is found does not constitute possession or abetment under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 before the prosecution establishes a prima facie case?
  • Is the testimony of a police officer sufficient to prove recovery when the independent mashir witnesses have turned hostile?
  • Does the mere presence of an individual at a premises where explosive substances are recovered constitute an offence under the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
  • What constitutes 'reasonable suspicion' for the purpose of establishing unlawful possession under the Explosive Substances Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mirza Mustafa Beg vs Mst. Khatoon Hadi1983 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mir Rasool Bux vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission1983 PLD Karachi 346 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mir Mustafa Ali Khan and Another vs The Additional Settlement1983 CLC 2202 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 957 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mir and Others vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 1518 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →