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.

• Machhi and 4 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 575 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-14Read full judgment →
• M. M. Malik vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 157 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-20Read full judgment →
• M. M. Kazai vs Aero Travels, Karachi1981 CLC 1425 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
• M. A. Latif FARUQUI/Defendant vs National Bank of Pakistan/1981 PLD Karachi 645 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-28
  ex parte decreesufficient causeCode of Civil Procedurelegal representationappellate jurisdictionsetting aside decreeprofessional negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Inter-Court Appeal challenges a Single Judge’s order dismissing an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether the appellant established "sufficient cause" for the non-appearance of his counsel at the hearing. The Court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause, affirming the lower court's refusal to set aside the decree. The Court reasoned that the appellant’s counsel had a professional duty to verify hearing dates through the Weekly Cause List and daily cause lists, and the excuse regarding non-membership in the High Court Bar Association was invalid. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when multiple advocates represent a party, each must satisfactorily explain their absence. The key principle laid down is that "sufficient cause" is not susceptible to a rigid definition and must be determined based on the specific facts of each case, but a party cannot rely on their counsel's negligence or lack of diligence to excuse absence when reasonable precautions were not taken to ascertain the hearing date.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a lawyer to check the Weekly Cause List constitute 'sufficient cause' to set aside an ex parte decree?
  • Is a party entitled to have an ex parte decree set aside if their counsel was negligent in failing to appear?
  • When multiple advocates represent a party, must each advocate provide a satisfactory explanation for their absence to set aside an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Loung vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 478 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
• Limo Khan and Another vs Member, Federal Land Commission and 31981 PLD Karachi 114 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-16
  land reformsagreement of salepart performancebeneficial interestsuo motu revisioncrucial datebona fide transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order of the Member, Federal Land Commission, which declared a sale of agricultural land void under paragraph 29 of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (MLR 115). The petitioners had entered into a registered agreement of sale with the landholder prior to the crucial date of December 20, 1971, paid part of the consideration, and obtained possession, but the formal registered sale deed was executed after that date. The Federal Land Commission declared the transaction void solely because the sale deed was executed post-crucial date. The High Court of Sindh held that paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulation contemplates not only completed transfers but also transactions creating any right or interest in land. An agreement of sale accompanied by delivery of possession creates a beneficial interest and valuable rights under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Consequently, such transactions can be scrutinized and confirmed as bona fide, and the impugned order was declared to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement of sale executed before the crucial date under the Land Reforms Regulation 1972, where possession was delivered but the formal sale deed was registered after that date, can be protected as a bona fide transaction?
  • Does an agreement of sale accompanied by delivery of possession create a sufficient 'right or interest' in land to be cognizable under paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation 1972?
  • Can the Land Commission authorities declare a transaction void solely on the ground that the formal registered sale deed was executed after the crucial date, ignoring the de facto transfer of possession and payment of consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquatabad Super Co-Operative Market Ltd. vs The Mayor of Karachi1981 PLD Karachi 613 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-23Read full judgment →
• Lashkari and 4 Other vs The StatePLD 1981 Karachi I · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Sind Barrage, Hyderabad vs Kamber1981 CLC 556 · Sindh High Court
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuegarden landvaluation of treescapitalization methodcompulsory acquisition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over compensation for land acquired by the government for a channel project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation based on agricultural land rates, ignoring the existence of fruit-bearing mango trees. The respondent, the landowner, challenged this award, asserting the land was garden land and seeking higher compensation. The District Court enhanced the compensation, valuing the land as garden land and calculating the value of the mango trees based on capitalized net income. On appeal, the Sindh High Court affirmed the decision. The Court held that garden land must be valued according to its specific potential and nature, not as ordinary agricultural land. It endorsed the capitalization method, valuing fruit-bearing trees at twenty years' annual rental. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while compensation must be adequate, it is subject to the statutory cap under Section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, preventing awards exceeding the claimant's initial demand. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the principle that compensation must fully reimburse the loss for expropriated property.

  Questions settled

  • Whether garden land can be valued as agricultural land for the purpose of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • What is the appropriate method for valuing fruit-bearing trees on acquired land?
  • Does the statutory limit in Section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 prevent a court from awarding compensation exceeding the amount claimed by the interested person?
  • Does the definition of 'land' under Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 include standing trees?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Bux and 4 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 768 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-05Read full judgment →
• Khusro Alam Hydri vs Mst. Iqbal Begum1981 CLC 347 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-11
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantagreement to sellpart performancedefault in payment of renttransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts maintaining an order of ejectment against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application, which was contested by the appellant on the plea that he had entered into a contract of sale for the premises with the respondent and continued in possession in part performance thereof pursuant to section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, thereby terminating the landlord-tenant relationship. The core legal question is whether the mere execution of a contract for sale of rented premises between a landlord and tenant ipso facto terminates the tenancy and absolves the tenant from paying rent without an express stipulation to that effect in the agreement. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that unless the agreement to sell explicitly stipulates that the tenancy is terminated and possession is converted into that of a transferee under part performance, the relationship of landlord and tenant continues, and the tenant remains liable to pay rent. The key principle laid down is that section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 does not bar the ejectment of a tenant who commits wilful default in rent payments under special rent restriction laws merely because an agreement to sell exists, unless possession is proven to be held specifically in part performance as a transferee rather than as a tenant holding over.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the liability of a tenant who enters into a contract for sale of the property in his tenancy ceases ipso facto without any stipulation in the contract to that effect?
  • Does the execution of an agreement to sell between a landlord and tenant terminate the relationship of landlord and tenant automatically?
  • Can section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 be invoked to bar ejectment for non-payment of rent when the agreement is silent on the cessation of tenancy?
  • Whether a tenant continuing in possession under an agreement to sell without an express exemption from rent liability is deemed a tenant holding over?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Appellant vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 778 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
• Khan Akil Khan vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 601 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
• Khamiso vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 898 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-28Read full judgment →
• Khamiso and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
• Khamiso and Another vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman and Other vs Government of Pakistan and Other1981 PLD Karachi 750 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-23
  service tribunalexclusive jurisdictionouster of jurisdictioncivil servant retirementconstitutional petitionterms and conditions of servicejudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before a Full Bench of the Sindh High Court to determine whether constitutional petitions challenging civil servant retirement orders under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, are barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over such matters, thereby ousting the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court held that Article 212, read with the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Service Tribunal regarding the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the High Court’s jurisdiction is ousted in such matters, regardless of whether the impugned orders are alleged to be mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice, as the Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate all such questions of law and fact. The key principle laid down is that the ouster of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 212 is absolute once a matter falls within the Service Tribunal's ambit, and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not limited by procedural requirements or the nature of the alleged illegality.

  Questions settled

  • Are petitions challenging retirement orders under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to adjudicate allegations that a retirement order is mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice?
  • Does the requirement of a 90-day waiting period for departmental representation under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, prevent the ouster of the High Court's jurisdiction?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal limited to orders passed by legally competent departmental authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazi Abdul Majid vs Hyderabad Municipal Committee, Hyderabad1981 CLC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• Kauro vs The State----1981 P Cr. L J 872 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
• Karam vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 816 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-26Read full judgment →
• Karachi Tools & Hardware Mart vs National Motors Ltd., Karachi1981 CLC 913 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-21Read full judgment →
• Karachi Gas Company Ltd., Karachi vs Hasham IssaqPLD 1981. Karachi 197 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (14.Eod.) vs Director_Collector (Taxes), Excise &Taxation, Karachi and Another,1981 PLC 396 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-26Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd vs With Rent Controller, Karachi. and Another1981 PLD Karachi 660 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kando vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 372 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
• Kamall Ddin vs The State Respondent1981 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
• Kamal and Another vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-22Read full judgment →
• Kadir Bux vs The State-Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 793 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-27Read full judgment →
• Kabir Ali vs The Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and 4 Others1981 CLC 918 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
• Jumo vs Province of West Pakistan and 3 Others1981 CLC 586 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
• Jumo and 3 Others vs THB State-1981 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan vs Province of Sind and 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-04
  fire-arms licencemartial law ordernatural justiceaudi alteram partemconstitutional petitioncancellation of licenceshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order passed by the District Magistrate, Sukkur, cancelling the petitioner's fire-arms licence under Martial Law Order No. 64 on the ground that the petitioner was an undesirable person. The core legal questions were whether an order under Martial Law Order No. 64 requires prior notice and an opportunity of hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and whether a prior notice issued under a different statute could satisfy this requirement. The Sindh High Court held that the principle of audi alteram partem is an implied requirement in every statute or Martial Law Order adversely affecting a person's rights unless expressly excluded, and that the impugned cancellation without a show-cause notice and hearing specific to the Martial Law Order was illegal and without lawful authority. The court laid down the principle that administrative powers affecting rights must be exercised fairly, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard even if the governing instrument is silent, unless exclusion is express.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles of natural justice and the right of hearing are applicable to an order passed under Martial Law Order No. 64?
  • Can a show-cause notice issued under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 be used to justify an action taken under Martial Law Order No. 64?
  • Is an administrative order cancelling a fire-arms licence without affording an opportunity of hearing considered to be without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan vs Mehar Ali and 3 OTHERs1981 CLC 260 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
• Jeevanbai Nadirshaw Golwalla (Represented by Legal. Heirs) vs Darab1981 CLC 503 · Sindh High Court
  inheritanceadverse possessionlimitationtrustcoal mines leaseParsi law of intestate successionpartnership deed
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff Jeevanbai against the defendants seeking a declaration, rendition of accounts, and a permanent injunction regarding leasehold rights in two coal mines at Quetta and Mach originally owned by their predecessor who died intestate in 1934 under Parsi law. The core legal question was whether the deceased's two sons managed the mines in trust for all legal heirs or as exclusive owners, and whether the suit was barred by limitation and acquiescence. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the sons held the mines in trust, finding instead that the sons had exclusively managed and appropriated the income from the mines openly to the exclusion of other heirs since 1934, and that the plaintiff's original claim was lost through adverse title, lapse of time, and acquiescence upon accepting a limited life interest under a subsequent will and partnership deed. The court laid down that exclusion from joint property coupled with continuous exercise of hostile title for over the statutory limitation period bars an inheritance-based claim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the management of ancestral property by co-heirs constitutes a trust for all legal heirs or an exclusive business to the exclusion of others?
  • What is the applicable period of limitation for a suit claiming a share in joint family property upon exclusion?
  • What is the effect of accepting a limited life interest under a will and a subsequent partnership deed on an original claim of inheritance?
  • Whether a suit for administration is hit by Section 212 of the Succession Act without obtaining letters of administration?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Akhtar Butt vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 379 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-26Read full judgment →
• Jaro vs The State-Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 682 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-08
  Sind Crimes Control Actnon-bailable warrantspolice reporthabitual offenderconstitutional petitioncognizance of offenceprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Tribunal, Khairpur, issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner based on a police report filed under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal could take cognizance of a report filed by an officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector, whether the issuance of non-bailable warrants was justified without recorded reasons, and whether the report met the statutory requirements for specificity regarding alleged acts. The Court held that the order was passed without lawful authority. It established that under the Act, a Tribunal cannot take cognizance of a report unless filed by an officer of at least Sub-Inspector rank. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the issuance of non-bailable warrants requires specific reasons demonstrating that the alleged acts cannot be prevented otherwise. Finally, it held that a police report must contain specific particulars of the acts, including time and place, and that merely citing pending criminal cases is insufficient to establish habitual criminality or justify proceedings under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Tribunal take cognizance of a report under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 if filed by a police officer below the rank of Sub-Inspector?
  • Is a mere list of pending criminal cases sufficient to establish that a person is a habitual offender under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975?
  • What are the essential requirements for a police report submitted under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975?
  • Does the issuance of non-bailable warrants under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 require the recording of specific reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamilur Rahman Khan vs Mst. Sara Begum1981 PLD Karachi 26 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-18
  bona fide requirementrented premisespersonal useevictionconcurrent findings of factsecond appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a second appeal against the concurrent findings of two lower courts ordering the eviction of a tenant from residential premises on the ground of the landlady's bona fide personal requirement for her son. The core legal question was whether the statutory requirement that a landlord or their child must not be occupying another suitable residential building extends to include rented premises currently occupied by the child. The appellant argued that the landlady's son's occupation of rented premises necessitated a finding on the suitability of that accommodation before eviction could be ordered. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory phrase 'another residential building' refers exclusively to premises owned by the landlord, not rented accommodation. The Court affirmed that the question of bona fide requirement is a finding of fact, which cannot be reviewed in second appeal absent misreading of evidence or procedural error. The key principle laid down is that in eviction proceedings for personal use, the suitability of alternative accommodation occupied by a landlord or their child is irrelevant if that accommodation is rented rather than owned.

  Questions settled

  • Does the statutory requirement that a landlord or their child not occupy another suitable residential building include rented premises?
  • Can a High Court in second appeal review concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide requirement?
  • Does the term 'another residential building' in the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 extend to cover rented premises occupied by a landlord or their child?
  Read full judgment →
• Jameel Yousaf Siddiqui vs A. H. Khan and Another1981 CLC 858 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-15Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Ali Amd Another vs Sind Road Transport Corporation and Another1981 CLC 1106 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Israr Ahmad vs President, Summary Military Court, Sanghar and 61981 PLD Karachi 47 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs The State-Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 507 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ishaque vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 649 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-27Read full judgment →
• Ishaq vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 841 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-15Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 Others1981 CLC 111 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-08
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityunconditional withdrawalres judicataprofessional misconductPakistan Medical Councildisciplinary enquiryprocedural violation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged a decision of the Pakistan Medical Council restoring the registration of a medical practitioner (respondent No. 3) and dropping disciplinary proceedings against her following a complaint of professional misconduct lodged by the petitioner. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that an earlier constitutional petition on the same cause of action had been unconditionally withdrawn. On the preliminary issue, the High Court held that the unconditional withdrawal of a prior constitutional petition before hearing on merits does not bar a subsequent petition on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. On the merits, the Court observed that the Council failed to adhere to the mandatory statutory procedure under Regulation 37 of the Pakistan Registration of Medical and Dental Practitioners Regulation 1966, which required giving the complainant an opportunity to state his case and produce evidence. Consequently, the High Court declared the Council's order to be without lawful authority and remanded the matter for fresh determination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unconditional withdrawal of a constitutional petition prior to hearing on merits bar the filing of a second petition on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a statutory body bound to follow the mandatory enquiry procedure prescribed by its governing regulations when adjudicating allegations of professional misconduct?
  • Can a decision of a professional regulatory body be sustained if it fails to afford a complainant the opportunity to produce evidence and cross-examine witnesses as required by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali and 2 Other vs Muhammad Umar1981 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needdefault in rentnotice of transferlegal heirssecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by a landlady under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds of default and personal bona fide need. Both lower courts dismissed the application. During the pendency of the second appeal, the landlady passed away, and her legal heirs were substituted. The High Court addressed two main questions: first, whether the personal requirement of the deceased landlady could be claimed by her legal heirs; and second, whether the tenant committed a default in rent payment given that the notice of ownership transfer under Section 13-A of the Ordinance was returned unserved. The High Court held that the personal requirement of a deceased landlord does not automatically devolve upon legal heirs, who must establish their own independent needs in fresh proceedings. Additionally, the court ruled that under Section 13-A, actual service of notice is essential to establish default, and a postal return of 'addressee not found' cannot be equated with service or refusal. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the personal and bona fide requirement of a deceased landlord automatically devolve upon their legal heirs during the pendency of an appeal?
  • Is the mere posting of a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 sufficient to establish default if the notice is returned unserved?
  • Can a postal endorsement of 'addressee not found' be treated as equivalent to 'refused' for the purpose of proving service of notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed vs Shafi Muhammad 5 Others1981 CLC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-25
  election disputeinvalid votesballot papervoter intentionconstitutional petitionelection tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Election Tribunal unseating the petitioner from a local council membership and declaring the first respondent as the returned candidate. The core legal question revolves around the validity of five disputed ballot papers that initially bore a stamp mark on the petitioner's symbol as well as extra stamp marks on redundant symbols, leading the Tribunal to reject them as invalid. The High Court held that the mere presence of an extra mark does not render a ballot paper ipso facto invalid if the unambiguous intention of the voter to vote for a particular candidate can be ascertained from the ballot paper. The ratio decidendi is that statutory election provisions should not be interpreted to disenfranchise voters where their clear intent is manifest and no uncertainty exists as to their choice. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the petitioner was restored to his seat.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an extra mark on a ballot paper render it ipso facto invalid under the election rules?
  • Whether a ballot paper should be counted if the unambiguous intention of the voter to vote for a specific candidate is clearly ascertainable?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of an Election Tribunal where no alternative statutory remedy is available?
  Read full judgment →
• Interhom Ltd., Karachi vs Major Nisar Ahmed Khan (Retd.)1981 CLC 981 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-26
  second appealsale deedancestral propertylegal necessitysale considerationremandadditional evidenceOrder XLI Rule 27 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises out of a civil dispute challenging the judgments and decrees of the lower courts concerning the validity and consideration of a sale deed (Exh. D-1) involving ancestral property. The primary legal question before the High Court was whether the lower courts erred in concluding that the sale transaction was an act of good management for legal necessity without properly examining and reconciling the payment of the agreed sale consideration. The High Court observed that there were clear discrepancies between the recitals in the sale deed and the oral testimony of the witness regarding amounts paid as earnest money, cash paid before the Registrar, and the value/particulars of the transferred mortgagee rights, causing the actual proven sum to fall short of the agreed Rs. 22,000 consideration. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts and remanded the case to the Senior Civil Judge to allow the respondents an opportunity to produce revenue record documents under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to establish the identity of the land and determine the bona fides of the transaction and payment of consideration afresh.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finding of legal necessity and valid alienation be sustained if the payment of the stipulated sale consideration has not been properly reconciled or established by the trial court?
  • Whether an appellate court may remand a matter under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to permit additional documentary evidence when the identity of property comprising part of the sale consideration is in dispute?
  • Can the judgment and decree of lower courts be set aside on second appeal where both courts failed to apply their minds to discrepancies in the proof of consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• In Re:Office Reference in Respect of Civil Courts (Sind Amendment)1981 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court
  original civil jurisdictionpecuniary jurisdictionDistrict CourtHigh Court original sidecivil courts amendmentconcurrent jurisdictionlowest grade court
  Summary & questions settled

  This office reference, considered by a Full Bench of the Sindh High Court, arose from the promulgation of the Civil Courts (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1970, which amended Article 4 of the Karachi Courts Order, 1956 and section 24 of the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judge, Additional District Judge, and First Class Civil Judge from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 50,000. The core legal question was whether these amendments affected the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court in suits valued between Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 50,000, and whether section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to the original side of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court continues to have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain and try suits where the subject-matter exceeds Rs. 25,000, and that section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not apply to the original side of the High Court as it is a rule of procedure rather than of jurisdiction and does not oust the powers of higher courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the amendments made by the Civil Courts (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1970 affected the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court in suits valued between Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 50,000?
  • Does section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply to suits instituted on the original side of the High Court?
  • Whether section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ousts the jurisdiction of courts of a higher grade?
  Read full judgment →
• In Re: Messrs Quetta Cold Storage & Ice Plant Company Ltd vs Not1981 PLD Karachi 447 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-20Read full judgment →
• In re : Francis John Joseph Pereira vs Not1981 CLC 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1967-05-21Read full judgment →
• Imran vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and Another .S1981 PLD Karachi 620 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-11Read full judgment →
• Imran Ravji vs Secretary, Ministry of Health and Another1981 CLC 1487 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
• Imdadullah and 12 Others vs The State and Another----1981 P Cr. L J 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
• Imam & Imam vs The Karachi Municipal Corporation, Karachi1981 CLC 744 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ilyas vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 83 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-30Read full judgment →
• Ilyas Hussain vs Haji Shahabuddin and 2 Others1981 CLC 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
• Illahi Bux vs S. Yousufali & Sons Ltd., Karachi1981 CLC 1132 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
• Idan vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 784 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Ismail vs Brig. (Retd.) S. H. A. Gardezi1981 PLD Karachi 622 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-06
  summary evictionnatural justicerent controllercross-examinationaffidavit evidenceSind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979landlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Rent Controller's order directing the appellant's eviction under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, without conducting an inquiry. The core legal question was whether the summary nature of Section 14 proceedings excludes the requirement for the Rent Controller to hold an inquiry or allow the tenant to defend against the landlord's claims. The Court held that the Rent Controller's order was legally flawed for failing to provide the tenant an opportunity to be heard. The ratio established is that principles of natural justice are not excluded in Section 14 proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 19(4) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which permits evidence by affidavit and cross-examination, applies to all cases under the Ordinance, including those under Section 14. Therefore, when a tenant disputes the landlord's allegations, the Rent Controller must hold an inquiry, allow the tenant to present a defense, and permit cross-examination of the landlord. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a proper inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the summary nature of proceedings under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 exclude the application of principles of natural justice?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to hold an inquiry and allow cross-examination in proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does Section 19(4) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 apply to proceedings filed under Section 14 of the same Ordinance?
  • Can a Rent Controller pass an eviction order under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 without providing the tenant an opportunity to rebut the landlord's allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Ibadurrahman vs The Karachi Development Authority and Another1981 CLC 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ibad & Company vs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others1981 CLC 106 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
• Hyder Khan vs Syed Muhammad Nazeer1981 CLC 160 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-30Read full judgment →
• Hussain and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 915 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
• His Holiness DR. Sybdna Muhammad Burhanud Din Saheb vs Messers1981 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
• Hashim vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 23 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
• Hashim and Another vs Muhammad Asghar and Another1981 P Cr. L J 692 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-08Read full judgment →
• Haroon Akhtar and 5 Others vs Mst. Khatoon Hadi1981 CLC 1104 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
• Hakim vs Karam Khan and Another1981 CLC 1303 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali and Another __ vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1981 CLC 225 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali and Another vs Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)1981 CLC 1539 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Suleman vs Board of Revenue, Sind and 3 Others1981 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ishaq vs Amir Muhammad Khan1981 PLD Karachi 498 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Mohabbat and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1190 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Majid vs Haji Imamuddin1981 CLC 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-08
  First Rent Appealpersonal bona fide requirementejectmentSindh Rented Premises Ordinanceprerogative of landlordenhancement of rentfresh cause of actionfinancial capacity
  Summary & questions settled

  First Rent Appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 against an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The landlord sought ejectment of a shop to establish a cloth business for his educated, unemployed son. The tenant resisted eviction arguing lack of bona fide requirement, past rent increases, previous failed eviction proceedings involving another son, past criminal litigation under Section 145 Cr.P.C., lack of proof of financial capability, and the landlord's re-letting of an unrelated cabin. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the eviction order. It held that previous litigation regarding a different son does not bar a fresh cause of action for another child. A landlord has the prerogative to choose suitable accommodation among available shops. Moreover, demand for higher rent in the past does not negate bona fide need if proved independently, and the landlord is not required to affirmatively prove availability of business funds unless explicitly challenged in the written statement.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previously dismissed ejectment petition filed for one son bar a subsequent ejectment petition grounded on the personal requirement of another son?
  • Is a landlord legally required to produce affirmative evidence of sufficient capital or funds to commence a business when establishing personal bona fide requirement if the tenant did not raise such an objection in the written statement?
  • Does a historical increase in rent or prior demand for enhanced rent defeat an independently established bona fide requirement for personal use?
  • Does the landlord retain the prerogative to choose which particular shop among multiple units is suitable for his or his child's business needs?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji M. Zakaria & Co. vs The Province of Sind1981 CLC 615 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-04Read full judgment →
• Haji Lal Bux vs The State Etc.1981 P Cr. L J 1265 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Habib vs Haji Muhammad and Another1981 CLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Hussain and 3 Others vs Ramchand and 6 Others1981 CLC 825 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Choudhry Abdul Rehman (Through' His Legal Heirs) vs Settlement Commissioner and 6 Others1981 CLC 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad Saeed vs Mst. Hashmi Begum and 7 OTHERs1981 CLC 551 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul GHANI/Tenant vs Makhan BANO/Landlord1981 CLC 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-07Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Ismail and 2 Others vs Gulzar Ahmad1981 CLC 116 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-22Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Fazalurrahman (through His 7 Heirs) vs Additional Settlement1981 CLC 1136 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hafiz Abdul Muqtadir and Another vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum and 4 Others1981 CLC 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-25Read full judgment →
• Hafeezuddin vs Muhammad SulemanPLD 1981- Karachi 500 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Khan (Represented through Legal Heirs) Petitioner vs Maqbool Ahmad1981 CLC 761 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gulzar Muhammad vs The State and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 973 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
• Guloo vs The State----1981 P Cr. L J 857 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
• Gulla Alias Gul Hassan vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-24Read full judgment →
• Gul vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 393 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-01Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan and Another vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 616 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd Karachi vs Starko Ltd. Karachi1981 CLC 1667 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-07
  arbitration agreementfactory selection contractKarachi Cotton Associationcontract registrationnovation of contractdomestic tribunalarbitration award
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over a cotton supply contract between Gul Ahmed Textile Mills and Starko Ltd., referred to arbitration under the Karachi Cotton Association (KCA) Bye-laws. The core legal questions were whether an arbitration agreement existed despite the contract not being on the prescribed official form, whether contract registration with the KCA was a condition precedent for arbitration, and whether a subsequent alleged settlement superseded the original contract, thereby nullifying the arbitration clause. The Court held that the contract, which incorporated KCA rules by reference, constituted a valid arbitration agreement despite the form deviation. It further held that registration prior to the appointment of arbitrators satisfied the Bye-laws, and that the alleged settlement was merely a claim under the original contract, not a novation. Consequently, the arbitration clause remained effective. The key principles laid down are that domestic tribunals are not bound by strict technical rules of evidence, and that an arbitration clause survives unless a subsequent agreement explicitly replaces the original contract.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract that incorporates association rules by reference constitute a valid arbitration agreement even if not executed on the association's official form?
  • Is the registration of a contract with the Karachi Cotton Association a condition precedent for invoking arbitration under its Bye-laws?
  • Does an alleged settlement of a dispute arising from a contract necessarily operate as a novation that extinguishes the original arbitration clause?
  • Are arbitrators acting as a domestic tribunal bound by the strict technical rules of evidence and procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Lro., Karachi vs Haji Umer Beg & SONs1981 CLC 806 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-19Read full judgment →
• Group Captain (Retired) Shafi Ahmed and 6 Others vs Officer on1981 CLC 751 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs Deputy Commissioner, Karachi and 10 Others1981 CLC 1148 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan and 21981 PLD Karachi 107 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Raza vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 834 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul Unar vs Government of Sind and Another , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 604 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Zakaria and Another1981 P Cr. L J 369 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →