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.

• Maqbool Ahmed vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1266 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
• Manzoor and Another vs The State-Opponent1982 P Cr. L J 261 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad Khan and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1043 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mamoon and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 916 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Rasul vs Muhammad Ishaq1982 CLC 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• Major (RTD.) Ahmad Khan Bhatti vs District Judge, Karachi and Another1982 CLC 2614 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-16Read full judgment →
• Majoo Shah vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 476 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
• Majid Mahmood vs Sajid Hussain and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 147 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-27Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Shah vs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. and Another1982 PLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-14
  back benefitsreinstatementlabor courtfresh inquiryindustrial relationsdismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises out of a labor dispute wherein the petitioner, a permanent employee of respondent No. 1, was dismissed from service following an inquiry for alleged absence from duty. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits upon finding the inquiry unfair. On appeal, the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal upheld the finding regarding the unfair inquiry but modified the order by permitting the management to hold a fresh inquiry and making the award of back benefits dependent upon the outcome of such fresh inquiry. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the Tribunal was justified in withholding and making back benefits dependent on the result of a fresh inquiry where the original inquiry was flawed. The Sindh High Court held that since the initial evidence could not be relied upon to sustain the punishment, it could not simultaneously absolve the employee of the charges, thereby validating the Tribunal's order directing a de novo inquiry and making back benefits conditional. The key principle laid down is that where an employment inquiry is set aside for lack of a fair opportunity, the management may be permitted to hold a fresh inquiry, and the entitlement to back benefits can lawfully be made to abide by the final result of that fresh inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Labour Court or Tribunal can permit the management to hold a fresh inquiry when the original departmental inquiry is found to be unfair?
  • Can back benefits be validly made dependent upon the result of a fresh departmental inquiry when the initial dismissal order is set aside on procedural grounds?
  • Does the Labour Court have the jurisdiction under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to go behind a dismissal order to examine the facts and merits of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Khan vs Nasima Khatoon1982 CLC 1807 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ashraf vs Board of Trustees of Abandoned Properties and 3 Others1982 CLC 1724 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mahboob Alam Warsi vs Syed Muhammad Shamim1982 CLC 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mah.Boob Ash Raf vs Board of Trustees of Abandoned Properties and 3 Other1982 CLC 1724 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M. E. Patel vs Tajamul Husain1982 CLC 2239 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-08Read full judgment →
• M. Ayoob Saig and 2 Other vs Nawab Rasool and 7 Other1982 PLD Karachi 531 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
• M. A. Yahya vs Nawab Abdul Malik Estates Ltd.1982 CLC 772 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
• Loung Khan and 2 Others vs Muhammad Jumman and 2 Others1982 P Cr. L J 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-21
  quashment of proceedingsprivate complaintcivil disputeabuse of processSection 249-A CrPCSection 561-A CrPCpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated via a private complaint against the applicants for alleged offenses under Sections 419, 423, 465, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether an accused must first exhaust the remedy under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before approaching the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the quashment of a private complaint. The Court held that the requirement to move the trial court first, as established in police cases, is distinguishable in private complaints where the Magistrate has already issued process after a preliminary inquiry. Requiring an application under Section 249-A in such instances would be a futile exercise. Consequently, the Court determined that the underlying dispute was purely civil in nature, involving conflicting claims over land ownership and registered sale deeds. Finding that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the court's process, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the pending proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory to move the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before filing a petition for quashment under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a private complaint case?
  • Does the term 'prosecutor' in Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 refer exclusively to a Public Prosecutor?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Loung Anu 2 Others vs Tile State1982 P Cr. L J 1069 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-10Read full judgment →
• London Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Aini Amin Nizami and 6 Other1982 PLD Karachi 841 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
• Liberty Mills Ltd., Karachi vs S. M. Younus and 2 Other1982 CLC 616 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-14Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Rafi vs THB State1982 P Cr. L J 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• Leemon vs Mst. Kazbano and 2 Other'1982 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad and 4 Others vs Moulvi Dost Muhammad and 2 Others1982 CLC 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad and 4 Others vs Moulvi Dost Muhammad and 2 Other1982 CLC 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 352 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
• Kotri Association of Trade and Industry vs Government of Sindh and Another1982 CLC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-03Read full judgment →
• Korangi No. 2 Falahi Committee vs Karachi Development Authority1982 CLC 587 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Khawand Bakhsh vs Ghulam Sarwar and 2 Other/Accused1982 PLD Karachi 965 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22
  bail cancellationmurderstatutory delaydelay in trialpost-arrest bailstatutory right to bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the cancellation of bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who were facing trial under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The trial court had granted bail to the respondents under the third proviso to subsection (2) (read as subsection (1)) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that they had completed two years in detention. The core legal question was whether the delay in the trial was occasioned by an act or omission of the accused persons, thereby disentitling them to the statutory concession of bail. The High Court held that the delay in the commencement of the trial was not attributable to the respondents, and isolated adjournment applications by a co-accused or a single adjournment after the commencement of trial did not warrant the cancellation of bail. Consequently, the petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused is entitled to bail as of right after completing two years in detention under the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does delay caused by the conduct of a co-accused disentitle another accused person from claiming the statutory benefit of bail due to delay in trial?
  • At what point does delay caused by an act or omission of the accused become relevant for denying bail under the third proviso of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Mohammad Razzaque vs Omar Farouk1982 CLC 318 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-18
  rented premisessummary evictionlandlord-tenant relationshipbirth certificateEvidence Actstatutory interpretationnotice to vacateRent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  These First Rent Appeals challenged a Rent Controller's order allowing eviction applications under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions concerned whether the landlord, seeking summary eviction upon attaining 60 years of age, satisfied the statutory prerequisites, whether the Evidence Act applied to proceedings before the Rent Controller, and the validity of the eviction notice. The Court held that the Rent Controller functions as a court, thereby rendering the Evidence Act applicable to such proceedings. Consequently, the landlord failed to prove his age because the submitted birth certificate was not properly certified in accordance with the Evidence Act. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the eviction notice was invalid because it demanded vacation within two months, failing to strictly comply with the statutory requirement for notice. The Court established that special statutes conferring summary powers must be strictly obeyed and that substantive legal amendments are generally prospective. Accordingly, the eviction orders were set aside, as the landlord failed to establish the necessary conditions for summary eviction under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Rent Controller a court for the purposes of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Does a notice requiring a tenant to vacate within two months satisfy the statutory requirement for a two-month notice period?
  • Can a landlord contract out of the statutory protections provided to tenants under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Are substantive amendments to the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 retrospective in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Ahmad Khan and 4 Others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission1982 CLC 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Khamoon vs Haji Abdul Wahid1982 CLC 844 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Khamiso and 18 Others vs Board of Revenue and 4 Orherss1982 CLC 1069 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• Khamiso and 18 Others vs Board of Revenue and 4 Orhers1982 CLC 1069 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-29Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad Malik vs Mst. Habiba Begum1982 CLC 1496 . · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-29Read full judgment →
• Khalid Taqi Khan vs The State and 2 Others s1982 P Cr. L J 1313 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahboob vs "Vice Chancellor, University of Karachi and1982 PLD Karachi 581 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-27Read full judgment →
• Khaleel Ahmad and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 175 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-16Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad vs Abdul Hamid1982 CLC 101 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-08Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 773 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
• Kenneth Dean (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Archie Dean and Another1982 PLD Karachi 705 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali vs Mst. Musharaf Bano1982 CLC 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Kazim Ali vs Mst. Musharaf Bang1982 CLC 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Kassim vs Mst. Safooran1982 CLC 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
• Karimullah vs Mir Khalilur Rehman and Another1982 PLD Karachi 617 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-21Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad Khan vs Ghulam Hussain and Another1982 CLC 2012 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
• Karim Dad Khan Appellate vs Ghulam Hussain and Another1982 CLC 2012 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
• Karamali Jamali and 5 Others vs Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi1982 CLC 689 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation vs Ali Hussain1982 CLC 93 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-27
  tenancy vs licenserepresentative suitproof of documentsexclusive possessionlandlord and tenantcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute between the Karachi Municipal Corporation and a respondent regarding the nature of the respondent's occupation of certain premises. The respondent filed a suit seeking a declaration of tenancy and a permanent injunction against eviction, arguing they were tenants, while the appellant contended the respondent was a mere licensee. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge reversed this decision, declaring the respondent a tenant. The core legal question was whether the respondent's status was that of a tenant or a licensee, and whether the suit was maintainable as a representative suit. The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove the alleged license agreement (Exh. 32) because its execution was not properly established under the law. Conversely, the respondent's evidence (Exh. 7 and 9) demonstrated the payment and acceptance of rent, establishing a tenancy. The Court further held that because the trial court never granted permission for a representative suit under Order I, Rule 8, the decree could only bind the individual respondent, not the entire class of occupants.

  Questions settled

  • Does the delivery of exclusive possession of premises necessarily create a tenancy rather than a license?
  • Can a document be admitted into evidence if its execution is not proved in accordance with the Evidence Act?
  • Is a decree in a representative suit sustainable if the court never granted formal permission under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the acceptance of rent by a property owner establish a tenancy relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs National Industrial1982 PLC 541 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. vs Muhammad Kutty and Another1982 CLC 2421 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• Karachi Dock Labour Board vs Ahmed and 2 Others1982 PLC 36 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Haji Ghulam Ali and 58 Others1982 CLC 1894 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Haji Ghulam Ali and 58 Other1982 CLC 1894 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-08Read full judgment →
• Kaniyalal vs Muhammad Ismail1982 CLC 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-20
  rent controlejectmentdefault in rentpersonal bona fide requirementstatutory tenantburden of prooftenancy agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against a tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. Regarding default, the Court examined whether the tenant had defaulted under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Relying on the principle that upon the expiry of a tenancy agreement, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant governed by the Ordinance, the Court found that the 60-day grace period for payment had not elapsed before the rent application was filed; thus, no default occurred. Regarding personal bona fide requirement, the Court held that the burden of proof rests on the landlord to substantiate the need. A bare assertion by the landlord is insufficient, especially when the landlord previously constructed and rented out the premises. Because the landlord failed to provide a plausible explanation for why the premises were rented out in 1977 but suddenly required for personal use in 1980, the Court set aside the ejectment order, ruling that the landlord failed to prove bona fide requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant become a statutory tenant upon the expiry of a tenancy agreement?
  • Is a landlord's bare assertion sufficient to prove personal bona fide requirement for eviction?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish personal bona fide requirement in a rent case?
  • Can a rent application for default be maintained if filed before the expiry of the statutory period for payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaneez Fatima vs Abdul Waheed and Another1982 PLD Karachi 374 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• Kaley Khan vs Sulleman and Another1982 CLC 828 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-07Read full judgment →
• Kalan Khan vs The State-1982 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
• Kadir Dad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 840 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-13Read full judgment →
• K.Otri Association of Trade and Industry vs Government of Sind and Another1982 CLC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-03Read full judgment →
• K. A. Ghani, Abdul Nabi and 2 Others vs The Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission and Othars1982 CLC 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-17Read full judgment →
• Juna Bunder Joint Venture, Karachi vs Board of Trustees of Port of Karachi Etc1982 PLD Karachi 13 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jogi and 4 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 280 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• Khair Shah and 4 Other vs Hyder Shah and Another1982 PLD Karachi 128 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-29
  criminal revisionacquittaldirect complaintappellate jurisdictionleave to appealprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, which set aside an order of acquittal passed by a Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M. under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a criminal revision is competent against an order of acquittal passed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a direct complaint case, or whether the complainant must instead seek leave to appeal under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Additional Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain a revision against such an acquittal, as the proper remedy for the complainant was an application for leave to appeal under Section 417(2). Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. The key principle laid down is that where a statute provides a specific remedy of appeal for an order of acquittal, a revision petition is not a competent substitute, and appellate courts must adhere to the prescribed statutory hierarchy of remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Is a criminal revision competent against an order of acquittal passed under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to entertain a revision against an acquittal order in a direct complaint case?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for a complainant aggrieved by an acquittal under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed vs Muneruddin1982 CLC 1940 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Jameel Ahmed vs Mun9eruddin1982 CLC 1940 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence vs Messrs1982 CLC 495 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali vs Usman1982 CLC 1389 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-01Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Sharif and Another vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 21982 CLC 1143 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 236 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-25Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messers Larkana Textile1982 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-12Read full judgment →
• Khaista Khan vs Ghulam Fatima1982 CLC 2188 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
• In re: Office Reference vs N/A1982 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-23
  judicial finalityoperative judgmentfunctus officioshort orderoral pronouncementrehearing of casessigning of judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns office references regarding the status of cases heard by judges who ceased to hold office before finalizing their judgments. The core legal questions were whether an orally announced decision without a signed order constitutes a valid judgment, and whether a short order signed by a judge who later ceases to hold office is operative, and if so, whether reasons can be recorded subsequently. The Court held that an oral decision without a signed order is not a valid, operative judgment in law, and such cases must be reheard. Conversely, cases where short orders were recorded and signed are fully operative and disposed of. The Court established that a judgment must be in writing, signed, and delivered to be effective. While a judge who has ceased to hold office cannot record reasons, if a member of the original bench remains a sitting judge, they may record their individual reasons for the decision, which will serve as minutes of their opinion for potential appellate review, though they do not constitute the judgment of the bench.

  Questions settled

  • Is an orally announced decision without a signed order a valid and operative judgment?
  • Does a short order signed by a judge who subsequently ceases to hold office constitute a final disposal of a case?
  • Can a judge who remains in office record reasons for a decision made by a bench that included a judge who has since ceased to hold office?
  • Is a court competent to reconsider an orally pronounced order before it has been signed and sealed?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran and 2 Other vs Mst. Qamar Sultan Begum and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 908 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• Ilyas Ahmad and Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 1336 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• Illahi Bux and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-29Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmad vs Muhammad Younus Khan1982 CLC 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31
  summary suitpromissory noteleave to defendsuretynegotiable instrumentcode of civil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 based on a promissory note. The appellant contended that the original promissory note was not filed with the plaint, the document was a bond rather than a promissory note, the trial court failed to give reasons, and the rejection of the surety was unjustified. The High Court held that producing the original at presentation and filing a photostat copy constitutes sufficient compliance with Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the instrument qualifies as a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, a reasoned judgment is not required under Order XX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when allegations are deemed admitted due to failure to furnish conditional leave-to-defend surety, and local immovable property is a valid requirement for sureties in execution. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether filing a photostat copy of a promissory note along with the plaint while producing the original at presentation constitutes sufficient compliance with Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does an instrument containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a sum of money by a fixed date qualify as a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 despite attestation by witnesses?
  • Is a trial court obligated to write a detailed reasoned judgment under Order XX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a defendant fails to fulfill the condition for leave to defend under Order XXXVII?
  • Can a court reject a surety for failing to own immovable property within the local jurisdiction of the court where the suit is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Ideal Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs Haji Usman and 2 Others1982 CLC 2191 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ideal Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs Haji Usman and 2 Other1982 CLC 2191 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ibraheem Khan vs Amina Bai1982 CLC 133 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
• Hussain vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 288 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-27Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation vs Messrs Shahenshah Jehangir1982 CLC 103 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-15Read full judgment →
• Hoti vs The State-Opponent1982 P Cr. L J 763 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• Hotel Metropole Ltd. vs Government of Sind and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 810 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-22
  stamp dutypublic officeimpounding of instrumentsultra vires notificationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a private limited company operating a hotel, challenging a notification issued by the Government of Sind under subsection (3) of section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1899, which declared all commercial concerns, companies registered under the Companies Act, and various other bodies to be public offices for the purpose of impounding unstamped instruments. The core legal question was whether the Government possesses the authority under section 33(3) to issue a blanket notification encompassing private commercial entities and companies as public offices in the absence of any genuine doubt regarding a specific office. The Sindh High Court held that the power to determine public offices in cases of doubt presupposes an office having the semblance of a public department wherein the public is directly interested in its functions, and a private limited company cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered a public office. Consequently, the Court ruled the notification to be ultra vires to the extent that it included private limited companies as public offices. The key principle established is that section 33(3) of the Stamp Act requires a specific case of doubt regarding the public nature of a particular office and cannot be used to issue a sweeping, general declaration converting private commercial entities into public offices.

  Questions settled

  • Can the collecting Government issue a general notification under section 33(3) of the Stamp Act 1899 declaring all commercial concerns and private companies to be public offices?
  • What constitutes a public office for the purpose of examining and impounding instruments under section 33 of the Stamp Act 1899?
  • Does the power of the Government under section 33(3) of the Stamp Act 1899 to determine public offices require the pre-existence of doubt regarding a particular office?
  Read full judgment →
• Hiddu Alias Hidayatullah vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
• Hatim Ali and 2 Others vs Additional, Settlement Commissioner (Land)1982 CLC 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
• Hatim Ali and 2 Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)1982 CLC 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-20Read full judgment →
• Hassan vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 323 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
• Hashim Bhai vs Muhammad Farooq1982 CLC 2 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-29Read full judgment →
• Hasan Abid vs Habibullah and Another1982 CLC 172. · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
• Haroon and 2 Others vs Umar1982 CLC 1244 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
• Hari Chand vs The Province of Sind and 3 Other .1982 PLD Karachi 814 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• Hanifjee & Sons, Hyderabad vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (West)45 TAX 258 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hakima and 5 Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and 21982 CLC 571 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
• Hakim Saleem Aimed and 8 Others vs Government of Sindh and 3 Other1982 CLC 269 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-14
  rejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionfraud and misrepresentationmala fide ordersdisplaced persons actres judicataestoppel of tenantlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an appellate court order that reversed the trial court's rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a civil suit challenging settlement authorities' orders on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and mala fides is barred under Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958, and whether questions of limitation, res judicata, and estoppel can warrant the rejection of a plaint at the threshold stage. The Sindh High Court held that notwithstanding statutory bars on civil court jurisdiction, orders procured through fraud, misrepresentation, or mala fides remain open to civil court scrutiny, and that defenses such as limitation based on knowledge, res judicata, and estoppel cannot be resolved at the Order VII, Rule 11 stage without trial. The court affirmed the appellate order, establishing that a plaint containing specific allegations of fraud and mala fides discloses a cause of action and is not liable to summary rejection.

  Questions settled

  • Does the bar on civil court jurisdiction under Sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 extend to orders passed fraudulently, through misrepresentation, or mala fidely?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by examining the merits of the defendant's pleas and defenses such as res judicata or estoppel?
  • What is the starting point of limitation under Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908 when setting aside a transaction or decree obtained by fraud?
  • Whether the civil court is precluded from examining acts of special tribunals when such acts are alleged to be illegal or mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali vs Superintendent, Central Prison, Karachi and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 170 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-18Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali and Others vs Syed Imam Ali Ahmad Qadri and Others1982 CLC 946 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-18Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali and Others vs Syed Imam Ali Ahmad Qadri and Other1982 CLC 946 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Suleman vs Haji Amin Shakoor Tumbi and Another1982 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Suleman vs Haji Amin S14akoor Tumbi and Another1982 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Suleman Ali Muhammad (Represented by His Legal Heirs) vs AhmedPLD 1982 Karachi l I l · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-29Read full judgment →