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 Khan vs Pakistan and 2 Other1982 CLC 1396 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs Muhammad Umar and 2 Others1982 CLC 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez vs Muhammad Umar and 2 Other1982 CLC 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez Azmat vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi Port1982 CLC 2099 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Haji Mustajab Khan1982 CLC 1581 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs Nazir Ahmad1982 CLC 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux and Another vs Mst. Rafiquan1982 CLC 1919 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux and Another vs Ghulam Rasool1982 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18
  second appealrelationship of landlord and tenantdefault in payment of rentfrivolous pleadenial of titleejectment orderrecording of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge directing the ejectment of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondent had filed an ejectment application alleging default and personal requirement, which the appellant resisted by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and claiming to have entered into a purchase agreement with the previous owner. A preliminary issue on the relationship of landlord and tenant was decided against the appellant after evidence, following which the Rent Controller ordered ejectment for default without recording further evidence. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller is invariably bound to record evidence on the question of default after deciding the preliminary issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant against a tenant who denied such relationship. The court held that if a tenant raises a frivolous objection or denies the landlord's title and fails to substantiate it with evidence, the Rent Controller is justified in passing an ejectment order on the ground of default straightaway without recording further evidence, as the factum of default stands proved by the unfounded denial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller is bound to record evidence on the question of default after deciding the preliminary issue of the relationship of landlord and tenant against the tenant?
  • Can an ejectment order be passed straightaway without recording evidence when a tenant raises a frivolous plea denying the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  • Does a tenant's failure to substantiate a plea of purchase in evidence render their denial of landlord-tenant relationship frivolous?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bibi vs Additional Settlement Commissioner/Deputy1982 CLC 1685 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azizullah Qureshi vs Iqbal Umar and 2 Other1982 CLC 558 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz vs Mst. Ahmad Bang1982 CLC 585 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz Ullah Qureshi vs Iqbal Umar Etc1982 CLC 1081 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz Ullah Qureshi vs Iqbal Umar arc.1982 CLC 1081 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz Khan and Others vs Mst. Ahmed Bano1982 CLC 1651 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Umar and Another1982 PLD Karachi 107 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11
  rent restrictionstriking off defencedeposit of rentpenal provisionstrict compliancearrears of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from the order of the VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi, which upheld the Rent Controller's order striking off the tenant's defence under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The landlord sought ejectment for non-payment of rent, while the tenant claimed to have deposited the rent in court, though a discrepancy in accounting led to a minor deficit. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller's order, which directed the tenant to deposit arrears minus the amount already deposited in a miscellaneous rent case without specifying the exact sum, complied with Section 13(6). The High Court held that Section 13(6) is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Since the Controller failed to determine the approximate amount due and instead left the calculation to the tenant, the order was vague and not in strict conformity with the law. Consequently, the tenant could not be penalized for its non-compliance. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is valid if it leaves the calculation of the rent deposit to the tenant?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order that is vague or not in strict conformity with Section 13(6)?
  • Does the Rent Controller have a duty to approximately determine the amount of rent due when there is a dispute regarding arrears?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Sheikh vs Roshan Khan and Others- Respondents1982 P Cr. L J 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif Khan and Another vs Mubarak Ahmed1982 PLD Karachi 557 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-29
  personal bona fide useevictionrented premisesgood faithlandlord and tenantSind Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an order of the Rent Controller allowing an eviction application filed under section 15 of the Ordinance on the ground of personal bona fide use. The core legal question was whether a landlord residing in rented premises is legally entitled to seek the eviction of a tenant from their own property on the ground of good faith personal requirement, and whether occupying a rented house constitutes a bar under the law. The court held that a landlord's occupation of a rented house does not disqualify them from seeking eviction of a tenant from their own premises, and that paying higher rent for rented accommodation while receiving lesser rent from the tenant supports the honesty and reasonableness of the landlord's personal need. The key principle laid down is that the expression 'another residential building' in rent restriction legislation refers to a building owned by the landlord and does not extend to cover rented premises, meaning a landlord living in a rented house is not barred from seeking eviction of their tenant for personal occupation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the occupation of a rented house by a landlord bar them from seeking the eviction of a tenant from their own property for personal use?
  • What constitutes 'good faith' under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the context of personal requirement?
  • Whether the phrase 'another residential building' in rent restriction laws includes premises occupied by a landlord as a tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad vs The Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1982 PLC (C. S.) 81 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 65 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwer Shahzad vs Muhammad Ismail and 2 Others1982 P Cr. L J 133 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 223 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad Mir vs Government of Sindh and Another_Respondents1982 CLC 2634 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amjad Mir vs Government of Sind and Another1982 CLC 2634 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin vs Ghulam Nabi and Another1982 CLC 888 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Syed Asghar Ali Imam1982 CLC 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali vs Chairman, Pakistan Railways1982 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-09
  civil servantworkmanrailway employeeretirement orderservice lawoutdoor dutiesadministrative office
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of retirement issued by the Pakistan Railways against the petitioner, a Junior Welfare Officer, under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as a 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or as a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, thereby exempting him from the purview of the former. The court examined the nature of the petitioner's duties, noting that his role involved significant outdoor responsibilities, including labour inspections and court appearances, rather than being confined to an administrative office. The court held that the petitioner fell within the definition of a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Consequently, the retirement order issued under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, was declared illegal and without lawful authority. The key principle established is that the classification of a railway employee as a 'workman' versus a 'civil servant' depends on whether their duties are permanently confined to an administrative office or involve substantial outdoor functions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a railway employee whose duties involve outdoor work qualify as a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
  • Is a Junior Welfare Officer (Labour) in the Pakistan Railways considered a 'civil servant' for the purposes of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • What is the test for determining whether a railway employee is permanently employed in an administrative office for the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs The, State1982 P Cr. L J 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs S. Mahmood Hussain1982 CLC 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zubeda Bang vs S. M. Anwar Sethi and Another1982 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zebunnisa and Others vs Sindh Road Transport Corporation and Another1982 CLC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zebunnisa and Others vs Sind Road Transport Corporation and Another1982 CLC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sundri Bai vs Ghulam Hussain1982 CLC 2441 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sughra Bai vs Mst. Rabia1982 CLC 344 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-02
  temporary injunctionmandatory injunctionstatus quointerlocutory stageirreparable lossrevisional jurisdictionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi, which set aside the trial court's grant of a temporary injunction in favor of the tenant applicant. The dispute concerned the installation of a water pipe and electric motor by the tenant to overcome a water shortage allegedly caused by the landlady's unauthorized construction, following which the landlady locked the machine-room. The core legal question was whether a temporary mandatory injunction could be issued at the interlocutory stage to alter the status quo existing on the date of the suit. The Sindh High Court held that a mandatory injunction cannot be granted to create a new situation or to alter the status quo prevailing at the time of instituting the suit, but is limited to restoring the status quo ante. The court further held that where a party's alleged loss is assessable in monetary terms and alternative arrangements exist, irreparable loss is not established, and dismissed the revision application in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary mandatory injunction be issued to create a new situation not prevailing on the date of the suit?
  • Whether a temporary injunction can be granted when the alleged loss is assessable in terms of money?
  • What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction against an appellate order concerning interlocutory injunctions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaukat Sultana vs Mst. Zohra Bibi1982 CLC 1761 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaukat Sultana vs Mst. Zohra Bi1982 CLC 1761 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan vs Khuda Bux (Represented by Legal Heirs)1982 CLC 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharif Bibi and 3 Others vs Mehmood and Another1982 CLC 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shams Hassan vs MRS. Abida Bano1982 CLC 839 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shams Hassan vs Mrs. Abida Bang1982 CLC 839 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Saeed vs Nayyer Nazir and 2. Other1982 CLC 799 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Samina Saeed vs Nayyer Nazir and 2 Others1982 CLC 799 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Zaheen and Another vs Anwar H. Pirbhai and 6 Others1982 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Salma Zaheen and Another vs Anwar H. Pirbhai and 6 Other1982 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Taseer vs Messrs Orient Impex1982 CLC 288 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Begum vs Mst. Farida1982 CLC 1298 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum vs Saghir Ai Imad1982 CLC 1586 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum vs Saghir Ahmad1982 CLC 1586 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Razia Begum vs Messrs Pak1stan Medical & General Stores1982 CLC 659 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rashida Bibi Chaudhry vs P. T. V. Karachi and Another1982 CLC 257 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Sultana Alias Qamarunnisa vs Abdul Hussain and Another1982 PLD Karachi 355 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-10
  restoration of suitdismissal in defaultno instructionsdate of hearingtransfer of suitcivil revisionsubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from the dismissal of a suit for non-appearance and the subsequent rejection of a restoration application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The suit had been administratively transferred, and a notice was issued for the appearance of the parties. On the scheduled date, the plaintiff's counsel reported "no instructions" because the plaintiff had temporarily taken the physical file, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The High Court examined whether the trial court had jurisdiction to dismiss the suit on a date fixed merely for appearance rather than a hearing. The Court held that "hearing" under Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 entails the taking of evidence, hearing arguments, or considering questions enabling final adjudication, and does not include interlocutory matters or mere appearance dates. Consequently, the trial court acted without jurisdiction. The High Court further emphasized that procedural rules should be construed liberally to advance substantial justice rather than stifle it on technical grounds. The revision was allowed, and the suit was restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court has jurisdiction to dismiss a suit for non-appearance on a date fixed solely for the appearance of parties or interlocutory matters rather than a formal hearing?
  • What constitutes a "hearing" within the meaning of Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an advocate's oral statement of "no instructions" in the absence of the client legally terminate a Vakalatnama without complying with the prescribed rules for withdrawal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Sultana alias Qamar-UN-Nisa vs Abdul Hussain and Another1982 CLC 767 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Sultana Alias Qamar UN Nisa vs Abdul Hussain and Another1982 CLC 767 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Jehan vs Mukaramali1982 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Qamar Jehan Kazmi and 3 Others vs Karachi Development1982 CLC 1076 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Noushaba Sultana vs Officer on Special Duty and Another1982 CLC 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mussarat Jehan vs Mustafa Ali Beg1982 CLC 205 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam Bai Adam Ali vs Mst. Salima Khatoon1982 CLC 1314. · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12
  first rent appealex parte orderservice of summonsnullity in lawlimitation periodpersonal bona fide useejectmentrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenges an ex parte ejectment order and subsequent execution proceedings passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question concerns whether an ex parte order passed without service of notice is a nullity, and whether the bar of limitation applies to an appeal against such an order when service was never effected. The court held that where no service of summons or notice is effected upon the tenant and the Rent Controller proceeds on a wrong assumption of service, the resulting ex parte order is a nullity in law and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the statutory period of limitation does not bar an appeal against a void order, and the principle that limitation runs from the date of knowledge applies when proceedings are kept concealed or unserved. The key principle laid down is that an ex parte order passed without proper service of notice is coram non judice and a nullity, rendering limitation inapplicable to a challenge brought immediately upon discovery of the order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte ejectment order passed without proper service of notice upon the tenant is a nullity in law?
  • Does the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal apply to an impugned order that is found to be a nullity and without jurisdiction?
  • Can an appellate court entertain a rent appeal filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation when the appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings due to lack of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maqbool Begum vs District Magistrate, Hyderabad and Another1982 CLC 200 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-07Read full judgment →
• Mst. Makhdooma and 8 Other vs Muhammad Arif and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 212 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-29
  lis pendensspecific performanceinterim injunctionbona fide purchaserstatus quotransfer of propertymultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, challenging a sale deed executed by the defendants in favor of a third party during the pendency of a prior suit for specific performance regarding the same property. The core legal question was whether a subsequent purchaser, having acquired property during pending litigation, could proceed with construction despite a prior agreement for sale and a registered notice of lis pendens. The court held that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case, as the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 prohibits the alienation of property during pending litigation to the detriment of the other party. The court emphasized that a subsequent purchaser must prove they are a bona fide transferee for value without notice of the prior contract to defeat a claim for specific performance. Finding that construction would cause irreparable loss and complicate the litigation, the court granted an interim injunction maintaining the status quo and consolidated the present suit with the earlier pending suit for specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 prevent the alienation of immovable property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance?
  • Must a subsequent purchaser of property prove they acted in good faith and without notice of a prior contract to defeat a claim for specific performance?
  • Can a court grant an interim injunction to restrain construction on a disputed property when a suit for specific performance is pending?
  • Does the failure to conduct a search for encumbrances on a property defeat a claim of bona fide purchase?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom vs District Judge, Hyderabad and 2 Others1982 CLC 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kalsoom vs District Judge, Hyderabad and 2 Other1982 CLC 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra Bai Sulaiman vs Mst. Aisha Bai1982 CLC 1444 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-08
  ejectment applicationbona fide personal requirementdefault in rentlandlord and tenantrent restrictionconcurrent findingstender of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the concurrent orders of the Controller and the Additional District Judge, Karachi, which dismissed the appellant-landlady's application for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant. The core issues were whether the respondent committed default in rent payment by sending money orders in the name of the owner care of the appellant, and whether the appellant established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It held that the rent tender, though technically addressed to the owner care of the attorney, did not constitute a default. Furthermore, the appellant failed to substantiate her claim of personal need, as the family members cited as the basis for her requirement were no longer residing with her. The court established that a landlord must prove bona fide need through convincing evidence; mere desire or occupation of rented premises does not automatically entitle a landlord to ejectment without satisfying statutory requirements under the relevant rent control laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does the tender of rent via money order in the name of the owner, care of the attorney, constitute a valid tender to prevent default?
  • Is a landlord residing in rented premises automatically entitled to the ejectment of a tenant from their own property?
  • What is the standard of proof required for a landlord to establish a bona fide personal requirement for ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Firdous Begum vs DR. Shamsunnissa1982 CLC 332 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05
  rent appealevictionstatutory tenantdefault in rentnuisancelandlord and tenantexpired lease agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was filed against the Rent Controller's dismissal of an eviction application. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and creating a nuisance. On the issue of default, the Court held that upon the expiry of a written tenancy agreement, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant, and the specific payment timelines in the expired agreement cease to apply; hence, no default occurred. On the issue of nuisance, the tenant had allegedly beaten the landlord, threatened her, thrown rubbish, and intercepted her mail. The Court clarified that 'nuisance' under the rent laws is not restricted to 'public nuisance' as defined in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. It encompasses any act or conduct causing material injury, annoyance, or discomfort to an occupant of a building in the neighbourhood, which includes a landlord residing in the same building. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant become a statutory tenant upon the expiry of a written lease agreement, rendering the specific terms of the expired agreement inapplicable to rent payment timelines?
  • What constitutes a 'nuisance' under Section 13(2)(iv) of the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and is it limited to 'public nuisance' as defined in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a landlord residing in the same building as the tenant qualify as an occupant in the neighbourhood for the purpose of establishing a nuisance claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bai vs Jan Muhammad1982 PLD Karachi 971 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fakhrunnisa and 6 Others vs Ahmaduddin1982 CLC 2551 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fahmida and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1097 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Daulat Sadruddin vs Mst. Badar Jahan1982 CLC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Da Ulat Sadruddin vs Mst. Badar Jahan1982 CLC 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bismillah Begum vs Pervez Subhani and Another1982 P Cr. L J 93 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilquees Jehan Begum and 12 Others vs Mst. Khatoon Fatima1982 CLC 451 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bani and Another vs Haroon and Another1982 CLC 1772 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aziz Begum and 2 Others vs Member, Federal Land Commission and 2 Other1982 CLC 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aziz Begum and 2 Diners vs Member, Federal Land Commission and 2 Others1982 CLC 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asifa Zafar vs Muhammad Rafique1982 CLC 2344. · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwer.Sultana vs Muhammad Azad Abbas1982 CLC 2164 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwer Sultana vs Muhammad Azad Abbas1982 CLC 2164 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amtul Rahim vs Abdul Ghaffar and 4 Others1982 CLC 1833 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amtul Rahim vs Abdul Ghaffar and 4 Other1982 CLC 1833 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Nasimi vs Martial Law Administratior, Zone "C", Karachi1982 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-15
  writ petition conversioninherent powers of courtejectment orderstatutory validationlimitation periodrent appealMartial Law Order 20
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged ejectment orders passed by Military Courts under Martial Law Order 20. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Military Courts (Validation of Orders) Ordinance, 1980 was promulgated, which validated the impugned orders and deemed them to be orders passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, granting an aggrieved party the right to appeal within thirty days. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the authority to convert these pending writ petitions into statutory rent appeals, notwithstanding the expiration of the limitation period for filing such appeals. The Court held that it possesses inherent power to adopt procedures not expressly prohibited by law to foster justice. Consequently, the Court permitted the conversion of the pending writ petitions into appeals, reasoning that this procedure prevented injustice and provided both parties a fair opportunity for adjudication. However, the Court refused to convert a petition filed after the statutory limitation period had already expired. The key principle established is that a court may convert one form of legal proceeding into another to further the administration of justice where no express prohibition exists.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court convert a pending writ petition into a statutory appeal when the nature of the impugned order has been changed by subsequent legislation?
  • Does the High Court have the inherent power to adopt a procedure not expressly provided for by law to further the administration of justice?
  • Can a writ petition filed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal be converted into an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst, Kamila Khatoon and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 1035 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Mss. Bagh Construction Co. vs Trustees of Port of Karachi1982 CLC 1830 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• MRS: Gul Bano and 4 Others vs Muhammad Ramzan and Another1982 CLC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
• MRS. Rashida Sayeed vs Metropolitan Development Corporation Ltd.1982 CLC 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
• MRS. Piroja and 4 Other vs Mst. Sharifunnisa and Other1982 PLD Karachi 222 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
• MRS. Nimmi Francis and 5 Others vs Muhammad Saeed Qureshi and Another1982 CLC 1703 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23
  fatal accidentsdamagesrash and negligent drivingcompensationlife expectancycontributory negligenceearning capacity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for recovery of damages filed by the legal heirs of the deceased under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1858, following a fatal motor vehicle accident. The core legal questions involved determining whether the defendant was liable for the death due to rash and negligent driving, and subsequently, the quantum of compensation payable to the plaintiffs. The court held that the defendant was liable, rejecting the defense of contributory negligence and the plea that the incident was an "act of God." The court established that while the deceased’s employment abroad was temporary, his earning capacity and life expectancy must be realistically assessed rather than based on speculative future increments. Consequently, the court fixed the deceased's life expectancy at 60 years and calculated the compensation by deducting one-third of the estimated earnings for personal expenses. The judgment affirms that in fatal accident claims, damages should reflect a balance between the deceased's actual earning potential and the economic realities of the jurisdiction, rather than relying on inflated projections of foreign employment.

  Questions settled

  • What is the appropriate method for assessing damages in a fatal accident claim involving a deceased person employed abroad on a temporary project?
  • Can a defendant escape liability for a fatal accident by pleading that the deceased was negligent in crossing the road?
  • How should the court determine the life expectancy of a deceased person for the purpose of calculating compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1858?
  • Does a guilty plea in a criminal court regarding a motor vehicle accident constitute conclusive proof of liability in a subsequent civil suit for damages?
  Read full judgment →
• MRS. Nawab Din Ahmed and Another vs Faizur Rehman (Represented by His Legal Heirs)1982 PLD Karachi 89 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-09Read full judgment →
• MRS. Bilquis Begum and 6 Others vs Hatim Bhoy and 3 Others1982 CLC 1584 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
• MRS. Bilquis Begu M and 6 Others vs Hatim Bhoy and 3 Other1982 CLC 1584 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
• MRS. Batool Zafar Armed vs Sor. Ldr. (Retd.) Muhammad an War Rehani1982 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• MRS. Batool Zafar Ahmed vs Sor. LDit. (Retd.) Muhammad an War Rehani1982 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Asma Ibrahim and 2 Other vs Sind Road Transport Corporation1982 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-09
  fatal accidentvicarious liabilitynegligencequantum of damageslife expectancyemployer liabilitycivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for compensation arose from a fatal road accident where the deceased, Muhammad Ibrahim, died after falling from a bus owned by the Sind Road Transport Corporation. The plaintiffs alleged that the driver, acting in the course of his employment, started the bus rashly and negligently while the deceased was attempting to board, causing him to be dragged and thrown onto the road. The core legal questions concerned the liability of the employer for the driver's negligence and the calculation of pecuniary loss for the dependents. The Court held that the driver acted rashly by starting the bus without ensuring the safety of the intending passenger, thereby establishing vicarious liability for the defendant corporation. Relying on the Fatal Accidents Act, the Court determined that the deceased’s life expectancy was 65 years and calculated the total pecuniary loss accordingly. The principle established is that transport operators are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees when they fail to ensure the safety of passengers boarding or alighting, and damages are to be assessed based on reasonable life expectancy and dependency.

  Questions settled

  • Is a transport corporation vicariously liable for the death of a passenger caused by the rash and negligent driving of its employee?
  • What is the standard life expectancy to be used when calculating pecuniary loss in fatal accident cases?
  • Does the failure of a defendant to produce material witnesses allow the court to draw an adverse presumption against them?
  Read full judgment →
• MRs, Gul Bano and 4 Others vs Muhammad Ramzan and Another1982 CLC 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-12Read full judgment →
• MR. Goolam Husein Rajwany vs Paramount Glass Industries and Another1982 CLC 2476 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• Motal Bai (Represented by Her Heir) vs Abdul Aziz and 4 Others1982 CLC 862 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
• Motal Bai (Represented by Her Heir) vs Abdul Aziz and 4 Other1982 CLC 862 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
• Moosa Bhunji (through Legal Heirs) vs Hashwani Sales & Services Ltd.1982 PLD Karachi 940 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10
  permanent injunctioneasement of light and aircustomary right of privacybuilding controlmandatory injunctionestoppelcourt-fee
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for permanent injunction sought to restrain the defendants from constructing a multi-storey building on an adjacent plot, alleging infringement of customary privacy, easement rights to light and air, and violation of building regulations. The core legal questions concerned the existence of a customary right of privacy in the locality, the validity of the building plan approvals, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction for the demolition of completed structures. The Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a customary right of privacy or any actionable infringement of easement rights. Furthermore, the Court found that the building plans were lawfully approved by the relevant authorities under the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The judgment establishes that customary rights must be proven with specific, reasonable evidence, and that a plaintiff cannot obtain an injunction against construction without demonstrating actual nuisance or a violation of personal rights. Additionally, the Court clarified that while silence does not always constitute waiver, a plaintiff must prove that construction is illegal or causes actionable nuisance to succeed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a customary right of privacy exist in the Garden East area of Karachi?
  • Can a plaintiff obtain an injunction against construction without proving actual nuisance or infringement of personal rights?
  • Does the failure to pay proper court-fee on an amended relief for demolition preclude the grant of that relief?
  • Does silence or delay in objecting to construction by a neighbor constitute waiver or estoppel?
  Read full judgment →
• Moinuddin vs Presiding Officer and Another1982 CLC 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mohsin Raza Khan and 9 Others vs Muhammad Kasim and Another1982 P Cr. L J 198 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Mohomed Karimuddin and 3 Other vs Kanza Food Industries Ltd., Karachi and 4 Other1982 PLD Karachi 590 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-13Read full judgment →
• Mohanlal vs Haji Ali Mohomed1982 CLC 2437 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →