Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 711 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference arose before the High Court of Sindh following the death of one member of a Division Bench that had previously allowed a criminal appeal and acquitted the accused via a signed short order, with detailed reasons to be recorded later. An application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed praying for a rehearing of the appeal on the ground that no reasoned judgment had been delivered. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A to rehear an appeal decided by a short order where detailed reasons could not subsequently be recorded, and whether the surviving Judge could record the reasons. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that finality attached to the signed short order, which was validly passed with jurisdiction after hearing both sides and followed by a release writ. Consequently, the Court held it could neither review the acquittal nor rehear the appeal, but the surviving Judge could write his individual reasons to assist appellate review.
Questions settled- Can the High Court invoke its inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to rehear a criminal appeal decided by a signed short order after the demise of one of the bench members before detailed reasons were recorded?
- Does finality attach to a signed short order of acquittal passed by a Division Bench in a criminal appeal where the parties were afforded a hearing?
- Can a surviving Judge of a Division Bench record reasons in support of an earlier short order when the other member of the Bench has ceased to be a Judge before detailed reasons were recorded?
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 876 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain and 4 Others vs Mir Haji Ghulam Muhammad and 21981 CLC 1400 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghazi and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 354 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- Fiaji Ahmed and 2 Others vs R. G. Sehwani Cooperative Housing1981 CLC 897 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan vs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and Another1981 CLC 847 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court appeal arose from a suit filed by the Government of Pakistan against the National Bank of Pakistan and M/s. Dabistan Limited for the recovery of a loan advanced for film production, which was guaranteed by the Bank. The core legal question was whether the guarantee provided by the Bank stood discharged because the Government, as the creditor, granted extensions of time for repayment to the principal debtor without obtaining the surety's consent. The Court held that the guarantee was indeed discharged. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found that the Government had unilaterally extended the repayment deadlines without the Bank's agreement, despite the Bank's contention that such extensions were unauthorized. Applying the principle enshrined in Section 135 of the Contract Act 1872, the Court affirmed that a contract between a creditor and a principal debtor to give time for payment discharges the surety unless the surety assents to such an arrangement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision that the Bank’s liability under the guarantee had ceased.
Questions settled- Does a creditor's unilateral extension of time for repayment to a principal debtor discharge the surety's liability under a guarantee?
- Is a surety discharged from liability if the creditor grants time to the principal debtor without the surety's consent?
- Can a guarantee be enforced against a surety if the underlying contract terms regarding repayment time are varied without the surety's assent?
- Fazlur Rehman Alias Wadika vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 725 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim vs Muhammad Usman1981 CLC 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
- Fazal Haque vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
- Fazal Bakhsh and 4 Other vs Abdul Aziz and Another1981 PLD Karachi 443 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
- Fazal Ahmed and Another vs Muhammad Abdul Shakoor1981 CLC 793 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of the Additional District Judge upholding the dismissal of the appellant landlord's ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the respondent committed an actionable default in the payment of rent under the relevant rent restriction statute, given the absence of a written agreement and the landlord's established practice of accepting irregular lump-sum payments. The court held that where no definite agreement is proved and the landlord routinely accepts irregular rent payments without protest, the tenant cannot be penalized with ejectment, and the lower forums rightly exercised their discretion in favor of the tenant. The key principles laid down are that a landlord's acceptance of irregular or lump-sum rent without objection waives strict compliance regarding monthly payment timelines, and an ejectment application filed prematurely before the expiration of the statutory grace period for payment is unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant can be held to be a defaulter in rent payments when the landlord habitually accepts irregular lump-sum payments without objection?
- Does the absence of a written rent agreement affect the landlord's claim that rent was payable in advance?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the mode of rent collection?
- Farah Deeba vs The Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, Karachi and Another1981 CLC 1552 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fahim Ansari vs Kalim Qamar Shaikh1981 PLD Karachi 231 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- Esso Pakistan Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Another vs Esso Pakistan1981 PLC 116 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-17Read full judgment →
- Employees' Union, Jamia, Karachi vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind1981 PLC 403 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitution petitions challenged the cancellation of trade union registrations and the dismissal of employees, raising the core legal question of whether the University of Karachi and the Board of Intermediate Education, Karachi, constitute an "industry" as defined under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court held that these educational institutions do not qualify as industries. The ratio of the decision is that while the statutory definition of "industry" includes "service," this term must be interpreted in the context of organized, systematic economic activity aimed at providing "material service" through the cooperation of employer and employee. The Court determined that education is a public duty rather than a commercial or material service. Consequently, the activities of the University and the Board, being fundamentally non-commercial and non-material in nature, fall outside the scope of the Ordinance. The Court further established that the incidental or ancillary duties performed by employees do not alter the essential character of the institution, and therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, are inapplicable to these bodies.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, encompass educational institutions like universities?
- What constitutes 'material service' for the purpose of determining whether an organization is an industry under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Are the employees of the Board of Intermediate Education, Karachi, subject to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the performance of incidental or ancillary duties by employees change the character of an institution for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Eiso vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
- Eastern Industrial Agencies Ltd. Appellant vs Sir E. H. Jaffer & Sons Ltd.1981 CLC 601 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-01Read full judgment →
- DR. Zahid Hussain vs Syed Wahajul Hasan Rizvi1981 CLC 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- DR. Sakina Tapal vs Mst. Rashida Bano1981 CLC 656 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-17Read full judgment →
- DR. Ra Zia Wahid vs Shah Din and 6 Others1981 CLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- DR. Muhammad Saghir Yahya and Another vs Siddiq and 6 Others1981 CLC 513 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
- DR. Begum Razi Khalili vs Abdul Ghafoor1981 CLC 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-31Read full judgment →
- DR. Abdul Rehman vs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and Another1981 CLC 740 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad and Another vs Mst. Satan and Other1981 PLD Karachi 339 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a certificated Letters Patent Appeal arising from a second appeal concerning agricultural land in District Sukkur. The original plaintiff, Hussain Bakhsh, filed a suit for a declaration that he was the real owner of the suit properties and that the entries in the Revenue Records standing in the name of his grandson, Dost Muhammad (appellant), were benami. The trial court decreed the suit, but the District Judge in first appeal reversed the judgment, holding that Hussain Bakhsh had purchased the land for the benefit of his grandson. On second appeal, a learned Single Judge restored the trial court decree, holding that the transaction was benami and that the English principle of advancement did not apply. In the present appeal, the High Court evaluated the evidence of intention, including witness depositions, and held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the heavy onus of proving the benami character of the transaction. The court concluded that the evidence pointed to an intention to benefit the grandson and that the statutory presumption attached to the revenue records under the Sind Land Revenue Code further supported the appellant's ownership. The appeal was accordingly accepted, setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge.
Questions settled- Upon whom lies the onus probandi to establish the benami character of a transaction where property stands in the name of another?
- Can a plaintiff succeed in a declaration of ownership based on the weakness of the defendant's case?
- What is the evidentiary value of entries in the Record of Rights and Register of Mutation under the Sind Land Revenue Code, 1879?
- How is the true intention determined in a transaction where consideration is provided by one person and property stands in the name of a minor?
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi vs Sind Labour1981 PLC (C. S,) 542 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dhani Bux vs Mst. Mahmoodunnisa.1981 PLD Karachi 650 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- Dada Ltd vs Madersa Muzharul Uloom Association1981 CLC 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
- Cotton Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd, vs Sheikh Sultan Trust, Karachi1981 CLC 623 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Chief Engineer, Building Department, Provincial P. W. D. Government of Sind vs Messrs Pak National Constuction Company1981 PLD Karachi 553 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal was filed against a Single Judge's decision dismissing objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The appellant, a government department, contended that the sole arbitrator's appointment was invalid because he was not a departmental Superintending Engineer as required by the arbitration agreement. The respondent argued that the appellant had actively participated in the arbitration proceedings, filed a written statement, and consented to a joint application under Section 28 of the Act for extension of time, thereby waiving any objections. The High Court observed that while the arbitrator initially lacked the specified qualifications, the appellant's subsequent unconditional participation and consent to the extension of time constituted clear acquiescence and waiver. The Court held that a party cannot take a chance on a favorable award and later challenge the arbitrator's qualification. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the principles of estoppel and waiver apply to cure defects in an arbitrator's appointment.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the qualification of an arbitrator after actively participating in the proceedings and consenting to an extension of time?
- Whether the principles of waiver and estoppel apply to cure an irregularity or defect in the appointment of an arbitrator?
- Does a government department's participation in arbitration proceedings without protest bind it under the rule of estoppel?
- Chhotey Khan vs Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar and Another1981 CLC 989 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
- Board of Trustees of Port of Karachi vs Messrs National1981 PLD Karachi 377 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-12Read full judgment →
- Bilal Jamil vs Alazam Ltd. and Another1981 CLC 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-30Read full judgment →
- Bhola vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
- Bashir and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 403 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Muhammad Hussain and Another1981 PLD Karachi 798 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
- Bangladesh Shipping Corporation, Karachi vs S. S. "Nedon"1981 PLD Karachi 663 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
- Bangladesh Shipping Corporation, Dacca-,Plaintiff vs S. S. "Nendn"1981 PLD Karachi 419 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
- Bangladesh Shipping Corporation vs M. V. `Nedon' and Another1981 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This admiralty appeal challenged an order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' application under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for damages filed in rem against a ship. The core legal question concerned whether an intervening party claiming to be the owner of the arrested vessel can enter an appearance and file a written statement without formally being impleaded as a defendant or seeking prior court permission. The court held that in an admiralty action in rem, the action is primarily against the res (the ship), and the owners or persons interested in the vessel are entitled to appear and defend at any time before judgment without formally being named in the initial writ. The key principle laid down is that the practice in admiralty actions in rem allows owners and interested parties to intervene and defend the action to protect their interests, and their appearance does not require prior formal joinder, while rendering them personally liable for any resulting decree.
Questions settled- Can a person claiming to be the owner of an arrested vessel enter an appearance and file a written statement in an admiralty action in rem without being formally impleaded as a defendant?
- Does the appearance of a ship's Master preclude the actual owner from subsequently entering an appearance and defending the suit?
- What is the legal effect of an owner or interested person entering an appearance in an admiralty action in rem?
- Bakht Ali and Another vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1269 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Bakhir and 3 Other vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 490 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-27Read full judgment →
- Bahadur vs Muhammad Shoaib and 9 Other1981 PLD Karachi 788 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
- Badshah Khan vs Province of Sind and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 952 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Badruddin vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 767 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-07Read full judgment →
- Badruddin H. Mavani vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food1981 CLC 339 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding a contract for the export of rice between the appellants and the Government of Pakistan. The original contract mandated packing in double gunny bags, but the appellants requested shipment in single bags to align with their Letter of Credit terms. Following shipment, the appellants claimed the value of the unused second bags. An arbitrator rejected the claim, finding the appellants had voluntarily surrendered the requirement for double bags without reservation. The High Court confirmed the award, and the appellants appealed. The core legal question was whether the appellants had waived their right to the second bags through their conduct. The Court held that the appellants' request for single bags and subsequent acceptance of the shipment without reservation constituted a waiver of their right to the second bags. Relying on the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the Court affirmed that the appellants' conduct was inconsistent with their original claim. The judgment establishes that waiver can be inferred from conduct and that an arbitrator's findings, absent misconduct, are generally binding.
Questions settled- Can a party waive a contractual right through conduct or implied acquiescence?
- Does the acceptance of goods in a state inconsistent with the seller's ownership rights constitute acceptance under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
- Under what circumstances will a court interfere with an arbitrator's award?
- Bacho Alias Abdul Jabbar vs The State1981 P Cr. L J299 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-11Read full judgment →
- Babar Aziz vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 947 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- Azizullah vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, convicting the appellant, an Afghan national, under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, for alleged smuggling of 28 silver slabs found in his baggage at Karachi Airport. The appellant pleaded he was a bona fide transit passenger travelling to Afghanistan with a valid import permit. The High Court considered whether the statutory burden of proof under Section 156(2) of the Customs Act shifted to the accused despite the Customs Officer's failure to serve written grounds under Section 171, and whether the offence of smuggling was established. The Court held that Section 171 is mandatory, rendering the arrest and seizure illegal for lack of written notice. Consequently, because the goods were not lawfully seized under the Act, the reverse burden of proof under Section 156(2) did not shift to the appellant. The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding that the prosecution failed to prove an intentional act of smuggling.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 mandatory regarding the requirement to provide written grounds of arrest and seizure?
- Does the statutory burden of proof under Section 156(2) of the Customs Act 1969 shift to the accused if the initial seizure of goods was carried out illegally?
- Can an Afghan national carrying prohibited goods in transit over Pakistani territory be convicted of smuggling where a bona fide transit permit is presented and a declaration is made under the Customs Act 1969?
- Azizuddin vs Habib Bank Ltd. and Another1981 CLC 852 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
- Azad Bin Haider vs Adam Khan1981 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order passed by a Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which directed the tenant to vacate premises based on the landlord's retirement. The core legal question was whether Section 14, which mandates summary eviction, excludes the Rent Controller's duty to hold an inquiry and provide the tenant an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that while Section 14 is summary in nature and excludes the specific procedure of Section 19, it does not expressly bar an inquiry or the right to a hearing. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, are presumed to be incorporated into every law unless explicitly excluded by the legislature. Consequently, the Rent Controller must conduct an inquiry and hear the parties, particularly when disputed questions of fact—such as the landlord's occupation of other properties or the physical indivisibility of the demised premises—are raised. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a proper inquiry.
Questions settled- Does Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 exclude the requirement for a Rent Controller to hold an inquiry and hear the tenant?
- Are the principles of natural justice applicable to summary proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a Rent Controller order the bifurcation of demised premises without conducting an inquiry into the factual nature of the tenancy?
- Ayoob and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 706 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-01Read full judgment →
- Avalene Silk, Mills vs Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 7 Other1981 PLD 4 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
- Avalene Silk Mills vs Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 7 Others,1981 PLC 4 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an appellate decision of the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi, which had granted gratuity to respondent workers. The core legal question was whether a right to gratuity, created under a time-bound collective agreement that subsequently expired and was replaced by new agreements omitting gratuity, survived and could be claimed by the workers. The Sindh High Court held that the settlement providing gratuity was binding only for its specified one-year term under the relevant statute and automatically lapsed upon expiry, becoming discharged and substituted by subsequent agreements that did not concede gratuity. The Court laid down the principle that a contractual benefit or facility established under a time-limited settlement does not survive past the expiration of that agreement when subsequent settlements between the parties omit such a provision.
Questions settled- Does a right to gratuity provided under a time-bound collective agreement survive after the expiry of that agreement when subsequent agreements omit the provision?
- Whether an agreement fixing a period of time lapses automatically after that period under Section 40(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Attaur Rahman and Others vs Adam Ali and Others1981 CLC 1747 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-15Read full judgment →
- Atlas Travels Ltd. vs National Commercial Bank Ltd. and Another1981 CLC 880 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
- Asif Jah SIDDIQUt vs Sind Government and 2 Others1981 PLC (C. S.) 816 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-25Read full judgment →
- Ashraf Ali vs Bank of India Ltd. and 2 Others1981 CLC 1582 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- Ashraf Ali Jalali and Another vs Nanakram and Others1981 CLC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-13Read full judgment →
- Armed Din Anjam vs Ismail and Another1981 CLC 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1968-01-14Read full judgment →
- Anwar Aijaz vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 321 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-19Read full judgment →
- Ansar & Co. vs Syed Jalilur Rehman Etc.1981 CLC 1186 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
- Anjum Rehmat and Another vs Shaikh Gulam Sadiq1981 CLC 276 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning an immovable property in Karachi, alongside an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question centered on whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction despite contentions regarding the lack of signatures of one plaintiff on a subsequent formal agreement and allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and inadequacy of consideration. The court held that the receipt executed on 25th July 1979 sufficiently spelled out the terms of the agreement and that questions of validity and enforceability required recording evidence at trial, while noting that the breach of a contract for immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by monetary compensation. The key principle laid down is that temporary injunctions in specific performance suits regarding immovable property may be granted where a prima facie agreement is shown and the balance of convenience favors preserving the property, subject to appropriate conditions regarding the deposit of balance consideration.
Questions settled- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale when one of the co-plaintiffs has not signed the subsequent formal agreement?
- Does the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property admit of adequate relief through monetary compensation under the Specific Relief Act?
- Can complex questions regarding fraud, misrepresentation, and adequacy of consideration be decided at the interlocutory stage of an application for temporary injunction?
- Amir Ali vs Mrs. Alima Ahmad1981 PLD Karachi 150 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlord under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, alleging default in monthly rent from April 1970 to February 1971. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, finding no willful default as the landlord routinely accepted accumulated rent. The First Appellate Court reversed this and ordered eviction. The High Court considered whether the expired tenancy agreement governed rent timelines, whether eviction could be granted on unpleaded grounds, and whether the Rent Controller properly exercised discretion under Section 13(2)(i). The High Court held that upon expiration of a fixed-term lease, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant governed by statutory time limits under Section 13(2)(i) rather than expired lease clauses. The court further held that ejectment cannot be ordered on unpleaded grounds and that where a landlord historically accepts accumulated rent without protest, omission to explicitly plead 'practice' is not fatal if factual payment details are pleaded. Restoring the Rent Controller's order, the High Court held that default was not deliberate and the appellate court erred in overturning the Rent Controller's valid exercise of discretion.
Questions settled- Do the terms and conditions of an expired lease agreement continue to govern the time for payment of rent once the tenant becomes a statutory tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a Rent Controller exercise discretion to refuse an ejectment order under Section 13(2) where non-payment of rent does not constitute a deliberate or willful default?
- Is a tenant precluded from establishing a practice of paying accumulated rent if the legal term 'practice' was not explicitly pleaded in the written statement, provided full factual particulars of the payments were stated?
- Can an appellate court grant an ejectment application on grounds of default different from or not pleaded in the landlord's original application?
- Must a landlord who historically accepted accumulated rent give prior notice to the tenant before strictly enforcing statutory rent deadlines?
- Amarlal and Another vs Moulvi Muhammad Saeed1981 CLC 705 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
- Alvia Tabligh Trust and 8 Others vs Mujeeburrahman Alvi and 71981 CLC 151 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- Altaf Hussain vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 525 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Altaf Gauhar vs Wajid Shamsul Hasan and Another1981 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated defamation suits filed by a former government servant against the editors and publishers of two newspapers regarding libellous news items alleging the plaintiff drafted the "Six Points" of the Awami League and abused his official position. The core legal questions involved the court's territorial jurisdiction, whether the publications constituted defamation, the validity of the defenses of "fair comment" and "privilege," and the assessment of damages. The court held that the publications were defamatory and that the defendants failed to establish the truth of their allegations (justification). The court rejected the defense of "fair comment," noting that the statements were factual allegations rather than comments, and dismissed the claim of special press privilege, affirming that journalists possess no greater privilege than ordinary citizens. The court established that editors and publishers are jointly and severally liable for defamatory content and that general damages are recoverable even without proof of special damages, particularly where the defendants' conduct during trial warrants an award of aggravated damages.
Questions settled- Does a journalist or newspaper publisher enjoy a special privilege in defamation cases beyond that of an ordinary citizen?
- Can a defense of 'fair comment' be sustained when the published material consists of factual allegations rather than criticism?
- Are editors and publishers jointly and severally liable for the publication of defamatory material in a newspaper?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to general damages in a defamation suit if they fail to prove special damages?
- Allauddin vs Muhammad Siddique and Another1981 P Cr. L J 213 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-27Read full judgment →
- Allahdad vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-15Read full judgment →
- Allah Wasayo vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 453 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- Allah Rakha and 2 Others vs Abdul Qadoos and Another1981 P Cr. L J 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-03Read full judgment →
- Allah Dad vs The Board of Revenue, Sind and 5 Other1981 PLD Karachi 73 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the District Judge dismissing an application for the restoration of an appeal that had been dismissed for non-prosecution. The core legal question revolves around whether sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance due to a mistaken date and the evidentiary value of an un-controverted affidavit. The Sindh High Court held that where an appellant supports an application for restoration with a statement on oath by way of affidavit, and the opposite party fails to file a counter-affidavit or demand cross-examination of the deponent, the statement stands unchallenged and must be accepted. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Order XVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, requiring ministerial officers to hand over signed slips specifying adjourned dates when the presiding officer is absent, finding that non-compliance constituted sufficient cause to set aside the dismissal. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the matter remanded for a decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an affidavit sworn in support of an application for restoration loses its probative value if the opposite party fails to file a counter-affidavit or demand cross-examination?
- Does the failure of a ministerial officer to comply with the mandatory requirement of issuing a signed date slip under Order XVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 constitute sufficient cause to set aside a dismissal for default?
- Can an un-controverted statement on oath regarding a bona fide mistake in noting a hearing date be rejected without being tested in cross-examination?
- Allah Bachayo vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others, .1981 PLC 277 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-20Read full judgment →
- Ali Shah vs The State and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 296 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad vs Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court1981 PLC 113 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →
- Ali Muhammad Khan (Represented by His Heirs) vs Riazuddin Khera/1981 PLD Karachi 170 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property. The appellant, a P.T.O. holder, contested the agreement, alleging it was a loan transaction and that the contract lacked mutuality as it was not signed by both parties. The core legal questions concerned the validity of unsigned agreements, whether such agreements violate public policy regarding property alienation, and the court's discretion in granting specific performance amidst claims of inadequate consideration. The High Court held that the agreement was valid, noting that oral agreements are enforceable and that signing by both parties is not a strict requirement. The court further held that an agreement to sell property contingent on future rights does not violate public policy or create an immediate interest in the property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Finally, the court affirmed that specific performance is discretionary, but inadequacy of consideration must be assessed at the time of the contract, not based on subsequent market appreciation. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is a written contract for the sale of immovable property invalid if it is not signed by both parties?
- Does an agreement to sell property by a P.T.O. holder violate public policy or statutory restrictions on alienation?
- Should the adequacy of consideration for specific performance be determined at the time of the contract or based on subsequent market appreciation?
- Does an agreement to sell immovable property create an interest in the property itself under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Ali Hassan and 2 Others vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-27Read full judgment →
- Akbar vs Anwer Ali1981 CLC 754 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
- Akbar Ali vs Zoaib Ali and 5 Others1981 CLC 592 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- Ajmer Trading Co., Karachi vs Film Exhibitors Ltd1981 CLC 583 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-08Read full judgment →
- Aijaz Ali vs The StateP.L.D. 1981 Karachi 484 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Ahmed vs Haji Zafar Ahmad1981 CLC 1685 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- Ahmed Saeed vs Muhammad Sharif1981 CLC 254 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
- Adloo and 3 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 105 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-28Read full judgment →
- Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. vs R. B. Industries Ltd and Another1981 CLC 923 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
- Abul Kalam vs Bashir Ahamd Rana and Another1981 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- Aboo and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 185 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-24Read full judgment →
- Abid Rashid vs Abdul Shamini and Another1981 CLC 550 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from an ex parte decree passed against the applicant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The trial court had proceeded ex parte based on a bailiff's report alleging refusal of service under Order V, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The applicant challenged the decree, asserting he was not duly served and that the trial court failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. The core legal question was whether the ex parte decree was sustainable given the failure to follow the mandatory procedure for substituted service and whether the application to set aside the decree was time-barred. The Court held that the ex parte decree must be set aside because the serving officer failed to file an affidavit and the court failed to examine him on oath, as mandated by Order V, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court clarified that limitation for setting aside an ex parte decree runs from the date of knowledge, not the date of execution.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a court to examine the serving officer on oath or require an affidavit regarding the refusal of service invalidate an ex parte decree?
- Does the limitation period for an application to set aside an ex parte decree commence from the date of the decree's execution or the date of the defendant's knowledge?
- Is strict compliance with Order V, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory for valid service of summons?
- Abid Hussain vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 Others ,1981 PLC 955 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-19Read full judgment →
- Abdullah vs Khatija Usman1981 CLC 1732 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Wajid vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Settlement Commissioner & II Additional District1981 PLD Karachi 413 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Saeed Khan vs Mst. Saeeda Khanum1981 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Saeed Khan and Another vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 572 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-22Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Mst. Fatima Bai1981 CLC 1083 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges an ejectment order passed under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerns whether the service of the statutory notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab) Act, 1958, was legally established when the tenant denied receiving the notice and disputed the signature on the acknowledgment receipt. The High Court held that the lower courts erred in law by relying on a subjective comparison of signatures and statutory presumptions under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, without proper evidentiary appraisal. The ratio decidendi is that where a tenant denies the service of notice and the authenticity of the signature, the presumption of service is rebutted, requiring the landlord to prove service through other means, such as examining the postman. The court laid down the principle that it is unsatisfactory and dangerous for a judge to decide the genuineness of a signature solely by personal comparison without expert advice or proper procedure, especially in cases of conflicting testimony.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's denial of the receipt of a statutory notice and the signature on the acknowledgment receipt rebut the presumption of service under the Evidence Act, 1872?
- Is it legally permissible for a court to determine the genuineness of a signature solely by personal comparison without expert advice or proper procedure?
- Can a court rely on the presumption of service under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, when the party has explicitly denied the service of notice?
- Abdul Razzak and Another vs The State and Another1981 PLC 829 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razak Alias Vikio and 2 Other vs The State and Another1981 P Cr. L J 866 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1131 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid Khan vs The State----Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qudus and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 946 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →