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.

• Nazar Muhammad Quraishi vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1982 PLC (C. S.) 721 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
• Nawab & Co. vs Rustam and 4 Others1982 PLC 357 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
• Navaid Hussain vs MRS. A. Mirza1982 CLC 1518 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
• National Insurance Corporation vs Sind Employees' Social Security1982 PLC 647 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs S. Ameen Tareen1982 CLC 900 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs M/s. Ocean Industries Ltd. and 5 Others1982 CLC 2606 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs M/s. Ocean Industries Ltd. and 5 Other1982 CLC 2606 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Rafiq Malik and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Nasir Industries, Karachi and Other1982 CLC 388 · Sindh High Court · -
  execution of decreeauction salebalance purchase moneymandatory provisionextension of timevoid saleresale of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This execution matter before the Sindh High Court arose from applications filed by judgment-debtors seeking to set aside an auction sale of a factory property. The auction-purchaser had failed to deposit the remaining seventy-five percent of the purchase money within the fifteen-day period prescribed under Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, having instead obtained an ex-parte extension of time from a single judge. The core legal questions were whether the Court had jurisdiction to extend the statutory time limit for depositing the balance purchase money, and whether non-compliance rendered the sale void. The High Court held that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 85 are mandatory, not directory, and non-compliance automatically renders the sale void. The Court has no jurisdiction under Section 148 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the time. Consequently, the Court declared the sale void, ordered a resale of the property, and directed the return of the deposited amount to the auction-purchaser without forfeiture.

  Questions settled

  • Are the provisions of Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the payment of the balance purchase money mandatory or directory?
  • Does the Court have jurisdiction under Section 148 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to extend the fifteen-day period for depositing the balance purchase money?
  • What is the legal effect of an auction-purchaser's failure to deposit the balance purchase money within the period prescribed under Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Under what circumstances does the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' apply to protect a party who has acted upon an erroneous order of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs F. S. Naeemuddin And 3 Other1982 CLC 123 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-25Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs F. S. Aitzazuddin and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 577 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-12
  guaranteesurety liabilitynon-joinder of partieslimitation periodoverdraft facilityco-extensive liabilitybanking law
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit involves a claim by the National Bank of Pakistan against the successors of a guarantor regarding an overdraft facility extended to a principal borrower. The core legal questions were whether the suit was maintainable despite the non-joinder of the principal debtor, whether the claim was time-barred, and the extent of the guarantors' liability. The Court held that the suit was maintainable and within the limitation period. Relying on the Contract Act 1872, the Court affirmed that the liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, and the creditor is not legally compelled to exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before initiating proceedings against the surety. Furthermore, mere forbearance to sue the principal debtor does not discharge the surety. The Court established that a creditor may proceed directly against the surety when the guarantee contract creates a distinct liability, and such a suit is governed by the limitation period applicable from the date of the guarantee.

  Questions settled

  • Is a suit against a guarantor maintainable without joining the principal debtor as a defendant?
  • Does a creditor's failure to sue the principal debtor discharge the surety's liability?
  • Is the liability of a surety co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does the limitation period for a suit against a surety commence from the date of the letter of guarantee?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Darabshah B. Dalal1982 CLC 2007 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-25Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Bawany Industries Ltd. and 3 Others1982 CLC 2625 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Bawany Industries Ltd. And 3 Other1982 CLC 2625 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Abdul Majeed Kanjoo1982 CLC 1464 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
• Nasir Usman vs Ashiq Ali and 5 Others1982 P Cr. L J 306 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-02Read full judgment →
• Nasim Ahmad vs Senior Civil Judge & Rent Controller and Another1982 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-30
  tentative rentsummary enquiryrent controllerejectment proceedingsinterlocutory orderrate of rentarrears of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, directing the tenant to tentatively deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent during pending ejectment proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller is required to finally determine the rate of rent and arrears or pass a tentative order following a summary inquiry under Section 16 of the Ordinance. The High Court held that proceedings under Section 16 are interlocutory in nature, empowering the Controller to conduct a summary inquiry and pass a tentative rent order, while the final determination of the rate of rent and arrears must be decided after full evidence is recorded during the trial under Section 19. The petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the tentative determination based on documents and hearing is within the lawful jurisdiction of the Controller.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Rent Controller is required to finally determine the rate of rent and arrears or pass a tentative order under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • What is the nature of the summary inquiry conducted by the Rent Controller under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can an application under Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be filed independently of an eviction proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Narayana vs Province of Sindh and 15 Other1982 CLC 12 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
• Nanik Ram and 3 Others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1982 CLC 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• Nan Fung. Textiles Ltd. vs Sadiq Traders Ltd.1982 PLD Karachi 619 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-18
  foreign awardarbitration agreementnon-speaking awardstamp dutypublic policylimitationcommercial arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three petitions filed under section 5 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, seeking enforcement of foreign arbitration awards made by the Liverpool Cotton Association Ltd. against various Pakistani companies for breaches of cotton purchase contracts. The core legal questions involved whether a non-speaking foreign award could be challenged under the Arbitration Act, 1940 or the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, whether foreign awards are subject to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, and whether the petitions were barred by limitation. The Sindh High Court held that foreign awards governed by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 are distinct from domestic awards, that the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and subsequent domestic amendments regarding non-speaking awards do not apply to foreign awards, that foreign awards executed outside Pakistan and not relating to property or acts within Pakistan are not chargeable with stamp duty under the Stamp Act, and that limitation periods prescribed for domestic awards do not apply. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, ordered the awards to be filed, and pronounced judgment in terms of the awards.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 apply to foreign awards governed by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
  • Does a non-speaking foreign award violate public policy so as to be unenforceable under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
  • Are foreign awards executed outside Pakistan chargeable with stamp duty under the Stamp Act?
  • Does Article 178 of the Limitation Act apply to applications for the enforcement of foreign awards under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
  Read full judgment →
• Najmuddin vs Zamir Ahmad1982 PLD Karachi 188 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01
  default in payment of rentsublettingpartnershiplandlord and tenantdiscretion of controllerwaiver and acquiescencetransfer of tenancy rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arose from an eviction application filed by the landlord against the tenant on the grounds of subletting, default in rent payment, unauthorized constructions, and misuse of the premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the first appellate court set aside this order, holding that the default was not wilful and that subletting was not established. The core legal questions involved whether the lower appellate court properly exercised its discretion regarding default and whether entering into a partnership constitutes subletting or transfer of tenancy rights. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant was led into default by the landlord's conduct and that a mere partnership does not amount to subletting or transfer of tenancy rights unless tenancy rights are expressly assigned to the firm. The key principle laid down is that the Controller has ample discretion not to order eviction for default where the tenant was misled by the landlord, and that allowing a partner to use demised premises while retaining legal possession does not constitute unlawful subletting.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Controller is bound to order eviction in every case where a default in payment of rent has been proved under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does a tenant entering into a partnership with another person and permitting the firm to carry on business in the demised premises amount to subletting or transfer of tenancy rights?
  • Can non-action or delay by a landlord in taking action against alleged subletting amount to waiver or acquiescence?
  • Whether the mere use of demised premises by a partnership firm in which the tenant is a partner constitutes a breach of the covenant against subletting or assigning tenancy rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Najmuddin and Another vs The State and 12 Others -1982 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bux Khoso vs Pakistan Television Corporation1982 PLD Karachi 725 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16
  newspaper establishmentnewspaper employeewage board awardstatutory interpretationbeneficial legislationtalent contractmaster and servantconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV), filed constitutional petitions seeking benefits under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, and the III Wage Board Award, contending they were "newspaper employees." The core legal question was whether PTV constitutes a "newspaper establishment" under the Act, thereby bringing its employees within the Act's purview. The Court held that PTV is not a "newspaper establishment" as defined by the Act, as its primary function is entertainment rather than operating as a news agency or syndicate for the sale of news. Consequently, the petitioners, despite performing work akin to journalism, did not qualify as "newspaper employees" under the statute. The Court affirmed that while beneficial legislation requires liberal construction, this principle cannot override express statutory definitions. Furthermore, the Court established that the term "news agency" implies an entity primarily engaged in gathering and selling news to other media outlets. As the petitioners failed to satisfy the statutory requirements, the petitions were dismissed, confirming that PTV employees are governed by their specific service terms rather than the Newspaper Employees Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Pakistan Television Corporation qualify as a 'newspaper establishment' under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  • Can a court extend the benefits of a beneficial enactment to persons who do not fall within the express statutory definitions?
  • What is the legal distinction between the use of the terms 'means' and 'includes' in a statutory definition clause?
  • Does a talent contract override the statutory protections provided to employees under the Newspapers Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Muhammadia Trading Co. vs Collector of Customs and 2 Others1982 CLC 1581 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
• M/s. Bagh Construction Co. vs Trustees of Port of Karachi1982 CLC 1830 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mvkhi Chatromal vs The State and 3 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 604 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
• Mv. Hussain Shah and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 704 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
• Munir Hussain vs Mst. Mehrun Nisa (through Her Legal Heirs)PLD 1982 Karachi 71. · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-25
  second appealpower of attorneyejectment applicationmaintainabilitystrict construction of power of attorneyattestationdefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts ordering the appellant-tenant's ejectment from the disputed premises on the application of the landlady. The core legal question was whether an ejectment application signed, verified, and presented by a special attorney was validly instituted when the power of attorney did not expressly grant the power to sign, verify, or present pleadings, and was not properly attested under the law. The Sindh High Court held that a power of attorney must be construed strictly and an agent cannot exceed the powers specifically granted, and further found that in the absence of proper attestation and supporting evidence, the execution of the power of attorney was not proved. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ejectment orders on this technical ground while leaving the respondents at liberty to file a fresh ejectment application under the relevant law. The key principle laid down is that a special power of attorney must be construed strictly according to its terms, and an attorney cannot institute legal proceedings or sign pleadings unless specifically authorised by the instrument, the execution of which must be duly proved if not entitled to statutory presumptions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a special power of attorney must be construed strictly regarding the powers granted to an agent?
  • Can an attorney sign, verify, and present an ejectment application without express authorization in the power of attorney?
  • Whether a power of attorney lacking proper attestation requires formal proof of execution in the absence of statutory presumptions?
  Read full judgment →
• Municipal Committee, Larkana vs Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation1982 CLC 611 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-07Read full judgment →
• Muneeruddin vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 240 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Begum and Another vs Haji1982 CLC 1208 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Begum and Another vs Hafiz Abdul Muqtadir and 4 Other1982 PLD Karachi 783 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 844 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Abdul Latif and 2 Other1982 CLC 398 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-11
  rent restrictionevictiondefault in rentdiscretion of Rent Controllerappellate interferencewilful defaultsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges an appellate order that reversed a Rent Controller's decision and directed the eviction of the appellant-tenant. The respondents sought eviction alleging default in rent payment for three months. The Rent Controller found that the eviction application was premature regarding two months and that the default for the third month was merely technical. Consequently, the Rent Controller exercised discretion to refuse eviction, citing the tenant's long-standing tenancy, the absence of prior defaults, and the mala fide nature of the application following a civil suit filed by the tenant. The appellate court reversed this, holding that the four-day delay in payment constituted a default warranting eviction. The High Court, however, held that the Rent Controller acted within his jurisdiction by considering relevant circumstances to determine the default was not wilful. The Court ruled that an appellate authority should not interfere with the discretion exercised by a Rent Controller when such discretion is based on sound, relevant considerations. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Rent Controller’s dismissal of the eviction application.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court interfere with the discretion exercised by a Rent Controller when such discretion is based on relevant considerations?
  • Does a minor, technical delay in rent payment constitute wilful default justifying eviction under the W. P. Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Is a long-standing tenancy and the absence of prior defaults a relevant factor for a Rent Controller to consider when exercising discretion against eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Azad vs Tribunal Constituted under Sind Crimes.1982 P Cr. L J 275 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus Qureshi and 5 Otiiers vs MRS. Feroz Quraishi and 21982 CLC 976 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus Qureshi and 5 Others vs MRS. Feroz Quraishi and 21982 CLC 976 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus Khan and Another vs Settlement Commissioner, Karachi, Sindh and 3 Other1982 CLC 2518 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus Khan and Another vs Settlement Commissioner, Karachi, Sind and 3 Others1982 CLC 2518 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin Allahwala and Another vs Mehrban Shervan Irani1982 CLC 478 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob and 3 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 961 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yameen vs The State and Another Opponents1982 PLD Karachi 279 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Wali vs Mariam Begum1982 CLC 1789 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Muhammad Rafique1982 CLC 2248 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Uris vs Ziauddin1982 CLC 4 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer and Others vs DR. Amina Ashraf1982 CLC 410 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11
  ejectmentpersonal requirementnon-residential premisessublettinglandlord and tenantrent restrictionburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which had ordered the ejectment of the appellants from a commercial shop. The respondent landlady sought eviction on grounds of personal requirement for her husband and alleged subletting. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the application. The central legal question was whether the statutory provision for 'own use' in a non-residential building includes the personal requirement of a landlady's husband, and whether the evidence sufficiently established subletting. The High Court held that while the term 'own use' might broadly include a spouse's requirement if the landlord derives benefit, the respondent failed to demonstrate any such benefit in this specific case, given her independent economic status. Furthermore, the Court found the finding on subletting to be based on conjecture, as the alleged sub-tenants occupied space outside the premises, not within. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate order and dismissed the ejectment petition, ruling that the respondent failed to substantiate the grounds for eviction under the relevant rent legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'own use' in the context of non-residential premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include the personal requirement of a landlady's husband?
  • Can a landlady obtain an ejectment order for a non-residential building based on her husband's requirement if she fails to prove she derives personal benefit from such occupation?
  • Is the occupation of space outside a shop by third parties sufficient to constitute subletting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulleman and 2 Ot Heirs vs The State-1982 P Cr. L J 234 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Suleman vs Abdul Ghaffar1982 CLC.1717 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Abdul Rasheed1982 CLC 217 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-17
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentwilful defaultdiscretion of rent controllerconsistent practicesecond appealrent receipts
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent findings of the lower courts refusing to pass an ejectment order against the respondent-tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground that the default in payment of rent was not wilful and deliberate. The core legal question was whether the lower courts properly exercised their discretion under section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance by considering the landlord's consistent past practice of accepting rent in lump sums over several months for a period of seven years. The High Court held that the landlord's conduct of consistently recovering rent in lump sums led the tenant to believe that such practice would continue, and in the absence of a notice indicating a departure from this practice, the tenant's default could not be considered wilful or deliberate. The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact regarding the exercise of judicial discretion in rent matters will not be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the non-wilful nature of a tenant's default in rent can be interfered with in second appeal?
  • Does a landlord's consistent practice of accepting rent in lump sums over several years preclude a claim of wilful default without prior notice?
  • Whether the Rent Controller and appellate authority have the discretion under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, to refuse ejectment despite proved default if the default was not wilful or deliberate?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Government of Sindh and Another1982 CLC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Government of Sind and Another1982 CLC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs District Magistrate and Tribunal (South), Karachi and Another1982 PLD Karachi 297 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Ahmed vs Syed Safdar Hussain1982 CLC 434 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamim Siddiqui vs MRS. Kausar Aziz and Others1982 CLC 1972 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shamim Siddiqui vs MRS. Kausar Aziz and Other1982 CLC 1972 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Siddiq vs Iftikhar Hussain Khan1982 CLC 244 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and Others vs Sind Building Control Authority and Others1982 CLC 952 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shah and Others vs Hind Building Control Authority and Other1982 CLC 952 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 91 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-23
  post-arrest bailcounter-caseright of private defencefurther inquiryaggressor
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by Muhammad Shafiq, Muhammad Sharif, and Arbab Ali, along with others, facing charges under sections 302, 307, and 325 read with section 149, and sections 147, 148, 504, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code before the Sessions Court, Sukkur. The core legal question revolves around whether bail should be granted in a case involving a sudden fight with counter-versions where it is uncertain at the preliminary stage which party was the aggressor or exceeded the right of private defence. The Sindh High Court held that due to the existence of counter-cases and uncertainty regarding the aggressor, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry under the law, making it a fit case for bail. The court confirmed the interim bail previously granted to the applicants, supported by precedents from the Supreme Court and the consent of the Assistant Advocate-General, while also addressing the territorial entertaining of the matter at the main seat in Karachi under special circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Does a counter-case involving mutual injuries make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Can bail be confirmed when it is uncertain at the preliminary stage which party was the aggressor?
  • May the High Court entertain a matter pertaining to an outlying bench at its main seat under special circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Assistant Commissioner, Karachi and Another1982 CLC 249 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghir Khan vs Hiralal and Others1982 CLC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saghir Khan vs Hiralal and Other1982 CLC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Khan vs Returning Officer, Karachi Municipal1982 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed Jehangir- vs MRS. Sanjida Bano and Another1982 PLD Karachi 263 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 579 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Hafiz Abdullah and 3 Others1982 CLC 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Hafiz Abdullah and 3 Other1982 CLC 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Paeral vs Mst. Khurshid UN Nisa Begum Alias Khurshid Nisa1982 CLC 195 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz and Another vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and Another1982 PLC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1382-01-26
  misconductgambling convictionstatutory corporation rulesdispensing with inquiryindustrial relationsconstitutional petitiondiscretionary writ jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the decision of the Sind Labour Court and upheld the dismissal of the petitioners from service. The petitioners, who were municipal employees working at a Fire Brigade station, had been convicted upon their own plea of guilty under the Gambling Ordinance for gambling at their place of duty. Following their conviction, they were issued a show-cause notice and subsequently dismissed from service by the respondent corporation. The core legal question was whether their conviction for gambling constituted misconduct under the applicable legal framework and whether the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or the specific statutory service rules of the corporation governed the matter, particularly regarding the requirement of a formal inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that statutory corporations having their own service rules are exempted from the purview of the Standing Orders Ordinance where inconsistent, and that the petitioners' conduct fell within the definition of misconduct under the Sind People's Local Council Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1974. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be exercised to protect employees who engaged in anti-social acts like gambling at their place of duty. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conviction for gambling at the place of duty constitutes misconduct under the applicable service rules?
  • Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to an establishment that has its own statutory rules of service and discipline?
  • Can a competent authority dispense with a formal inquiry under the Sind People's Local Council Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1974 in a fit case?
  • Will the High Court exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant relief to municipal employees dismissed after being convicted of gambling on duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasir vs Sadiq Muhammad1982 CLC 856 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03
  substituted serviceex parte decreesetting aside ex parte decreecivil revisionlimitation and knowledgeSind Civil Courts Rulesbailiff report
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision is directed against an appellate order whereby an ex parte judgment and decree for possession and mesne profits was set aside. The core legal questions involved the legality and propriety of resorting to substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, compliance with the Sind Civil Courts Rules, and the computation of limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree tainted by lack of proper service and an element of fraud. The Sindh High Court held that the lower appellate court committed no jurisdictional error in setting aside the ex parte decree due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements for substituted service and lack of proper judicial application of mind. The Court laid down that before ordering substituted service, a court must be satisfied that the defendant is actively avoiding service, and that where an ex parte decree is obtained without proper service amounting to an element of fraud, the period of limitation of thirty days for setting aside the decree is to be computed from the date of knowledge of the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court is justified in ordering substituted service without being satisfied that the defendant was avoiding service?
  • Does non-compliance with the Sind Civil Courts Rules regarding bailiff reports vitiate the legality of substituted service?
  • From what point in time is the period of limitation computed for filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree obtained without proper service?
  • Can a revisional court interfere with a well-reasoned appellate order setting aside an ex parte decree when no jurisdictional defect is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Najeeb Akbar vs Iqbalul Haque and Another1982 P Cr. L J 1090 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar vs Jan-E-Alam1982 CLC 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mukhtar vs Jan E Alam1982 CLC 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin vs Haji Akhtar Hussain1982 CLC 419 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehdi vs Government of Sindh and Other1982 CLC 2374 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehdi vs Government of Sind and Others1982 CLC 2374 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khalid Moghal vs Government of Sind and Another1982 CLC 1937 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kalim and 11 Others vs Ephrahim Joseph and Another1982 CLC 2058 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Government of Sind and Another1982 PLD Karachi 833 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Abdul Haque and 2 Other1982 CLC 665 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Obaidullah vs Muhammad Sahib1982 CLC 2632 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imtiaz Ahmad vs Province of Sindh and 3 Other1982 CLC 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imtiaz Ahmad vs Province of Sind and 3 Others1982 CLC 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas Alvi vs Zafar Pasha1982CL C 1324 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst.. Naimunnissa1982 CLC 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Naimunnissa1982 CLC 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Fakir Muhammad1982 CLC 230 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-14
  ejectmentpersonal requirementbona fide usesecond appeallandlord and tenantpleadingsvalidity of transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was filed by the tenant challenging an order of ejectment passed by the District Judge, Jacobabad, which reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of the landlord's ejectment application. The landlord, a retired Government servant, sought eviction on the sole ground of bona fide personal requirement for commercial use. The tenant resisted eviction on grounds including the landlord's failure to specify the exact nature of intended use in the pleadings, the existence of other shops in the names of his sons, and allegations of mala fide transfer of title.

  The High Court held that a landlord is not required to specifically plead every detail of the intended use under Section 13, and stating during testimony an intention to run a medical store or work as a petition-writer is sufficient. Furthermore, once the landlord-tenant relationship is established, the tenant cannot dispute the validity of the property transfer. The Court affirmed that shops owned by sons do not defeat the landlord’s bona fide personal need, and Section 13(4) provides adequate protection to the tenant should the landlord fail to occupy the premises. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord required to specifically plead in the ejectment application the exact nature of the business or use intended for the rented premises under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a tenant challenge the validity of the landlord's title or the transfer of the rented premises in ejectment proceedings once the relationship of landlord and tenant is established?
  • Does the existence of commercial properties in the names of the landlord's sons disentitle the landlord from seeking ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Abdul Haseeb Khan1982 CLC 2025 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and Another vs Taslimul Hassan.1982 CLC 264 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim and Another vs Taslimul Hassan1982 CLC 1798 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Akbar Hussain1982 CLC 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Kathawala and Another vs Ghulamali and Another1982 CLC 2448 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Brohi vs Karachi and Others1982 CLC 2646 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Brohi vs Election Tribunal (Special Judge), Anti.1982 CLC 2646 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 990 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 888 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Provincial Election Authority and 3 Others1982 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Provincial Election Authority and 3 Other1982 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Ghulam Hyder Shah and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 957 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Khan vs Pakistan and 2 Others1982 CLC 1396 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →