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.
- Rehm Atullah vs Fateh Muhammad1980 CLC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- Raja Sahib Khan vs Ch Niaz Ahmed and Another1980 P Cr. L J 762 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
- Rahim Khan and 3 OTHERSs vs Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Sind, Karachi1980 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- Raheb and 3 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 336 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
- Qamar Din (through His Legal. Heirs) vs Messrs Sungreen & Co. Ltd., Karachi1980 PLD Karachi 317 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit, initiated by the original plaintiff and continued by his legal heirs, sought the eviction of the defendant from leased premises, along with arrears of rent and mesne profits. The core legal questions revolved around the Civil Court's jurisdiction to order eviction under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and the plaintiffs' entitlement to rent and mesne profits after the property was declared evacuee property. The Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to pass an ejectment decree for premises covered by the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. It further ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to arrears of rent or mesne profits, as the property had been declared evacuee property, vesting in the Custodian from 1st March 1947, and payments were due to the Custodian. The principle was affirmed that a tenant's estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act ceases when the landlord's title is extinguished by a paramount title, such as a declaration by the Custodian.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to order the ejectment of a tenant from premises covered by the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Are plaintiffs entitled to arrears of rent and mesne profits if the property is declared evacuee property and vests in the Custodian?
- Does the estoppel against a tenant denying the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act cease upon the landlord's title being extinguished by a paramount title?
- Are accretions to evacuee property also deemed evacuee property?
- Can a plea regarding property being evacuee be raised through an application or considered if new facts emerge during proceedings, even if not initially in the written statement?
- Province of West Pakistan vs Pir Muhammad and 2 Others1980 CLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- Province of West Pakistan vs Pir Mohammad and 2 Others1980 CLC 339 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- Province of West Pakistan through Vicechairman, P. W. R., Lahore and 2 Others vs Amir Ahmed1980 CLC 421 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-09Read full judgment →
- Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan, Karachi vs P. & 0. and B. I.1980 PLD Karachi 412 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
- Pir Sultan Ahmed vs Haji Abdul Hameed and Another1980 PLD Karachi 294 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- Pioneer Steel Mills Lm., Lahore vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan1980 CLC 1734 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-23Read full judgment →
- Peninsular & Oriental Steam Nevigation Co. vs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd., Karachi and 2 Others1980 CLC 1972 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal challenges the dismissal of an appeal as time-barred by the First Appellate Court. The core legal question concerns the computation of the time requisite for obtaining certified copies of a judgment under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908, specifically when delays arise from the Copying Agency's failure to adhere to the Sind Civil Courts Rules. The Court held that the appeal was filed within time, setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the matter for decision on merits. The Court established that where the Copying Agency is negligent in performing its duties—such as failing to communicate estimated costs or failing to post a list of ready copies on the notice board—the applicant cannot be penalized for the resulting delay. Consequently, the entire period from the date of the application for certified copies until the date of their actual delivery must be excluded from the computation of the limitation period, as the delay is attributable to the office's default rather than the applicant's negligence.
Questions settled- Does the failure of the Copying Agency to notify an applicant of the readiness of certified copies allow for the exclusion of the entire period until delivery under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Is the time spent waiting for the Copying Agency to estimate costs and prepare copies considered time requisite under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can an appellant be penalized for delays in obtaining certified copies when the Copying Agency fails to comply with the notice requirements prescribed by the Sind Civil Courts Rules?
- Parvez Aslam Mian Muhammad Aslam vs Synthetic Chemical Co. Ltd., Karachi and Another1980 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant company from implementing a special resolution passed at an extraordinary general meeting for the company's winding up. The plaintiff, a minority shareholder, contended that the resolution was ultra vires the Economic Reforms Order 1972, contrary to public policy, and illegal because the meeting was held on a declared public holiday and pendente lite. The Court held that a company's preamble cannot control its substantive provisions, that holding a meeting on a public holiday is not prohibited by law or inherently mala fide, and that the doctrine of public policy cannot be arbitrarily extended. The Court further noted that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss, as the company's shares were already worthless due to continuous losses. The application was dismissed, holding that courts will not interfere in internal corporate management absent fraud, illegality, or ultra vires acts.
Questions settled- Can a company hold an extraordinary general meeting on a day declared as a public holiday?
- Does the preamble of a statute control or restrict its substantive operative provisions?
- Can a court interfere in the internal management of a company on the ground that a special resolution is oppressive to minority shareholders?
- Whether the doctrine of public policy can be extended by courts to cover corporate resolutions not previously recognized under the law?
- Papu Butani vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 771 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-07Read full judgment →
- Pakistan through Secretary. Ministry of Fuel, Power and Natural1980 PLD Karachi 105 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-21Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railway Board vs Abdul Wahabkhan1980 PLC (C. S.) 312 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-22Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Investment Ltd. vs Pakistan and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 275 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit seeking recovery of money, declaration, and injunction regarding the levy and recovery of central excise duty on services provided by a hotel and restaurant under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal questions involve whether the imposition of excise duty on hotel and restaurant services via amendments introduced by the Finance Ordinance, 1970 is ultra vires the Constitution, and whether a subsequent purchaser of a running hotel concern is liable to pay the outstanding excise duty arrears incurred by the previous management. The court held that the term 'duties of excise' in the constitutional provisions is flexible and wide enough to cover taxation on services, making the Finance Ordinance, 1970 intra vires. Furthermore, the court held that the purchaser of a running business with all its assets and liabilities, having also voluntarily furnished a bank guarantee for the arrears, is bound to pay the outstanding dues. The suit was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the levy of excise duty on services rendered by hotels and restaurants under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is ultra vires of the Constitution?
- Whether a subsequent purchaser of a hotel business is liable to pay outstanding arrears of central excise duty incurred by the previous management?
- Is a bank guarantee furnished by the transferee of a business for the payment of tax arrears legally enforceable?
- Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, Kar. vs Commissioner41 TAX 44 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs Mehboob Industries Ltd., Karachi and 10 Others1980 CLC 249 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff, Pakistan Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd., brought a suit under Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of an outstanding loan granted in foreign currency (Deutsche Marks) to the defendants. Following the devaluation of the Pakistani Rupee, the plaintiff amended its plaint to substantially increase the claimed amount, arguing that the conversion of the foreign currency debt into Pakistani Rupees should be calculated at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of actual payment. The defendants contended that the conversion rate must be based on the exchange rate on the dates the instalments fell due or when the entire loan was recalled. The Sindh High Court examined domestic and foreign precedents, rejecting the American 'date of action' rule in favor of the established 'maturity date' rule. The Court held that where a debt is payable in foreign currency, it must be converted into local currency at the rate of exchange prevailing when the debt became due. Since the plaintiff had exercised its option to recall the entire loan prior to devaluation, the entire debt became due at that time, and subsequent devaluation could not enhance the defendants' liability.
Questions settled- At what rate of exchange should a debt expressed in foreign currency be converted into Pakistani Rupees for the purpose of a recovery suit?
- Does the subsequent devaluation of the local currency affect the liability of a debtor if the entire loan was recalled before such devaluation occurred?
- Whether the rate of exchange for converting a foreign currency debt is determined as of the date of actual payment or the date the debt became due?
- Pakistan Engineering Company Ltd., Karachi vs The Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No, v, Karachi and 6 Others1980 CLC 508 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-21Read full judgment →
- Nusrat Jehan Begum vs Karachi Municipal Corporation and 2 OthersPLD 1980 Karachi, 146 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-25Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad vs Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sind1980 CLC 1258 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-07Read full judgment →
- Noor Au vs Settlement Commissioner and 2 Others1980 CLC 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-16Read full judgment →
- Nizamuddin vs Nasir Uddin1980 CLC 831 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-07Read full judgment →
- Nek Muhammad vs The Home Secretary, Government of Sind, Karachi1980 P Cr. L J 141 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
- Nazim vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi and Another1980 CLC 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impugns an order of the Additional District Judge granting conditional leave to defend a summary suit filed by a bank for the recovery of money based on a promissory note, hypothecation agreement, and subsequent letters of instalment. The core legal question was whether the defendant had disclosed a plausible defence or raised substantial questions of fact and law entitling him to unconditional leave to defend the summary suit. The Sindh High Court held that where a defendant raises substantial triable issues regarding variation of the terms of the promissory note and potential absolution from liability, leave to defend ought to be granted, modifying the trial court's order of furnishing cash security to instead accept the defendant's written undertaking not to dispose of specific properties pending the suit. The key principle laid down is that where a defendant discloses a plausible defence involving triable issues of fact or law in a summary suit, leave to defend should be granted, and stringent security conditions can be substituted with appropriate property undertakings.
Questions settled- Whether a defendant in a summary suit is entitled to unconditional leave to defend when raising a plausible defence involving substantial questions of fact or law?
- Can a revisional court modify an order requiring cash security for leave to defend to an undertaking regarding immovable properties?
- Does the acceptance of a letter of instalments and hypothecation vary the basic character of a demand promissory note in summary proceedings?
- Nazim vs Messrs Habib Bank Lid. and Another1980 CLC 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
- National Commercial Bank Ltd. Karachi DecreeHolder vs Nazir Ahmed1980 CLC 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed under Section 47 and Order XXI, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging execution proceedings against the estate of a deceased defendant. The core legal question was whether a decree obtained against a deceased Muslim defendant is valid and executable when only some, rather than all, legal heirs were brought on record during the suit. The Court held that the estate was substantially represented by the heirs who were impleaded, and the decree remained valid. The Court reasoned that the religious duty of Muslim heirs to discharge the deceased's debts from the estate supports the view that representation by one or more heirs is sufficient. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Law Reform Ordinance, 1972, amended the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to clarify that the non-joinder of legal heirs is of no legal consequence. Consequently, the objections were dismissed, and the execution proceedings were ordered to continue, affirming that the estate was properly represented and the decree was not defeated by the absence of all heirs.
Questions settled- Can a decree against a deceased Muslim defendant be executed if only some legal heirs were brought on record?
- Does the non-joinder of all legal heirs of a deceased defendant render a decree invalid?
- Is the doctrine of substantial representation applicable to the estate of a deceased Muslim defendant?
- National Bank of Pa Kistan vs Messrs Bright Leather Works and 31980 CLC 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- N. Reemes and 2 Others vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 126 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed under sections 435, 439, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order and notice issued under section 112 of the same Code by the Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Zulfiqarabad, Karachi, arising out of proceedings initiated under sections 107 and 117. The core legal question was whether the initiation of proceedings and issuance of a notice under section 112 were justified where the underlying complaint merely alleged commercial pressure and potential labor disputes without any imputation of the use of force or threat of force by the applicants. The court held that the complaint was an abuse of process aimed at pressurizing the applicants regarding a commercial contract, as no allegations of force or breach of the peace attributable to the applicants existed. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and notices. The key principle laid down is that preventive proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be invoked on vague apprehensions of labor disputes absent specific allegations of overt acts involving force or imminent breach of the peace by the persons proceeded against.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained in the absence of any allegation of force or threat of force by the persons proceeded against?
- Can an order and notice under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be set aside when the underlying complaint is malafide and intended to exert commercial pressure?
- Whether a dispute over a commercial contract involving potential labor trouble constitutes sufficient ground for initiating security proceedings?
- N. M. Najmi vs Jooma and 6 Others1980 CLC 629 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-17Read full judgment →
- Mxt. Kari Mat/ vs Majnoon and 2 Others1980 CLC 66 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed and Other vs Deputy Director, Food, Karachi Region, Karachi1980 PLC (C. S.) 98 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
- Musawaat' Ltd., Karachi vs Secretary Government of Sind, Home1980 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
- Mukhtar Ahmed Farooqi vs Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd., Karachi1980 CLC 337 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zahid vs Government of Sind and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 301 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yasin and 2 Others vs Bashir Ahmed Siddiqui and Another1980 P Cr. L J 629 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob vs Faqir Muhammad alias Faqiro and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 424 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yamin vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 613 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yamin vs Mashroofullah Khan1980 CLC 848 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an eviction order passed against the appellant-tenant for alleged default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the appellant committed a willful default in paying rent for the period of 23rd April 1972 to 22nd May 1972, given that he had filed an application to deposit rent in court before the statutory deadline, which was granted on 22nd July 1972, with the actual deposit occurring on 24th July 1972 due to an intervening Sunday. The High Court held that the appellant had not committed a default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as the rent was deposited immediately following the court's permission and the holiday. Furthermore, the Court established that even if a technical default occurred, it was not willful, as the tenant had demonstrated a clear intention to pay by filing the application well before the deadline. The Court emphasized that Rent Controllers possess the discretion to refuse ejectment where the default is not willful, and failure to consider this discretion constitutes a legal error by lower courts.
Questions settled- Whether a delay in depositing rent caused by an intervening public holiday constitutes a willful default under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to refuse an eviction order if the default in rent payment is found to be non-willful?
- Can a tenant be held in default for rent payment if they have filed an application to deposit rent in court before the expiry of the statutory period?
- Muhammad Yameen Khan vs Settlement Commissioner, Sindh at1980 CLC 580 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ya Koos vs Muhammad Ishaque1980 CLC 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the applicant's suit for possession and mesne profits and decreeing the respondent's cross-suit for a declaration regarding the right of possession in a disputed property. The parties, being real brothers, disputed the title and possession of a plot and the structure built thereon. The trial and appellate courts found that while the applicant was the initial allottee, the construction was raised jointly by the family members, and the allotment was not held exclusively in the applicant's own right. The core legal question addressed is whether a court can grant an altered relief of possession after demolition of structures not pleaded in the plaint, and whether the respondent was entitled to a declaration of possession. The Sindh High Court held that courts cannot grant relief on a cause of action lacking foundation in the pleadings or inconsistent with the plaintiff's case, and upheld the respondent's right to possession based on joint construction. The key principle laid down is that altered or general relief under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be granted if it introduces a new case inconsistent with the pleadings or prejudices the opposing party.
Questions settled- Can a court grant relief to a plaintiff on a ground or cause of action not pleaded in the plaint?
- Whether an altered relief can be granted if it is inconsistent with the plaintiff's original pleadings and prejudices the defendant?
- Is a party entitled to a declaration of a right to possession of immovable property under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 when joint contribution to construction is established?
- Muhammad vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad TUFAIL/Accused vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1206 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique and Another vs Gul Majeed and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 78 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for damages was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885, by parents seeking compensation for the death of their son, who died following a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the defendant. The core legal questions concerned the liability of the driver and the owner, the liability of the insurance company regarding a driver holding only a learner’s license, and the appropriate quantum of damages. The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable, finding sufficient evidence of rash driving. Regarding the insurance company, the court ruled that it remained liable because it failed to produce the policy or prove it had reserved the right to exclude liability for drivers lacking a regular license. The court further held that there is no rigid formula for calculating compensation; rather, damages must be assessed based on the specific facts of each case, including the deceased's expected life span and the financial dependency of the claimants. The court awarded Rs. 15,600 with interest.
Questions settled- Is an insurance company liable to indemnify an insured if the driver held only a learner's license at the time of the accident?
- Does the burden of proof lie on the insurance company to show that the policy excluded liability for drivers without a regular license?
- Is a statement made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death admissible in evidence?
- What is the appropriate method for calculating compensation in a fatal accident claim under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1885?
- Muhammad Siddiq vs The State Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 769 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sharif and 2 Others vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind and 2 Others1980 CLC 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shah vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleh vs Kadir Bux and 10 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleh and Another vs Maher Shah and 3 Others1980 CLC 662 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises from concurrent orders of the lower courts granting a temporary injunction to respondent Maher Ali Shah, protecting his possession over agricultural land originally allotted to him as a landless Hari. The land was later re-granted to the applicants by the Member, Board of Revenue, through an ex parte order. The applicants contended that civil court jurisdiction was barred under section 36 of the Colonization of the Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912, and section 172(1) of the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967. The High Court held that despite these bars, civil courts retain jurisdiction to examine whether a revenue authority acted in compliance with the law, particularly when an order is alleged to have been passed in violation of natural justice by not granting an opportunity of being heard under section 164 of the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967, or where an order is vitiated by fraud under section 44 of the Evidence Act. Finding no material irregularity in the concurrent findings regarding possession, the revision application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred to question orders passed by revenue authorities under the Colonization of the Government Land (Punjab) Act, 1912 and the Sind Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Can a civil court examine a revenue order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of being heard?
- Is a civil court competent to review an order of a revenue officer alleged to have been obtained by fraud under section 44 of the Evidence Act?
- Are concurrent findings of fact regarding possession by lower courts sufficient to warrant the issuance of a temporary injunction in a suit challenging a revenue order?
- Muhammad Saleem vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 779 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleem vs Deputy Collector of Custom (Preventive), Karachi and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ramzan and 2 Others vs Abdul Ghani and 4 oTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two constitutional petitions challenging an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the entitlement to open roof space situated above several shops. The core legal question was whether the roof space should be transferred to the shop owners or to the respondents who occupied a room on that roof. The Court held that the Settlement Commissioner correctly determined that the respondents were in actual occupation of the roof area, evidenced by long-standing unauthorized constructions dating back to 1957. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that the petitioners failed to establish their own possession or use of the roof. The key principle laid down is that in property settlement disputes, actual possession is the decisive factor for determining the extent of the transfer, and a claim of constructive possession cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence proving actual control or use of the property by the claimant. The Court also clarified that clerical errors in property transfer deeds, such as incorrect survey numbers, may be corrected without altering the substantive rights of the parties.
Questions settled- Can a Permanent Transfer Deed be amended to correct clerical errors regarding survey numbers?
- Is actual possession the decisive factor in determining the extent of property transfer under settlement laws?
- Can a claim of constructive possession be sustained without evidence of actual control over the property?
- Muhammad Rahim vs Muhammad Bux and 4 Others1980 P Cr. L I 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafique Khan vs The Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sukkur and 2 Others1980 CLC 359 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 318 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mushtaq vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Mithal vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 397 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Juman and Another vs Mst. Aqlan and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 108 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises out of concurrent orders passed by the lower courts refusing to grant a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance, declaration, and permanent injunction filed by the applicants regarding agricultural land. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants established a prima facie case of possession and entitlement to interim relief based on an unregistered lease agreement as against a subsequent registered lease deed. The Sindh High Court held that the subordinate courts exercised their discretion on sound principles based on the material on record and were justified in refusing the temporary injunction. The court laid down the principle that inspection of a site by a court is not a substitute for evidence, and that the limited revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is meant primarily for correcting jurisdictional errors rather than discretionary decisions unless exercised arbitrarily.
Questions settled- Can a court rely on a local inspection as a substitute for evidence to determine possession of agricultural land?
- Whether an unregistered lease agreement can take effect against a registered document under section 50 of the Registration Act without proof of taking possession in part performance?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in revision with the discretionary orders of subordinate courts regarding temporary injunctions?
- Muhammad Ismail vs Summary Military Court, Mirpurkhas and Another1980 PLD Karachi 47 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs Hidayatullah and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 87 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Messrs Ahmad Chemical Company, Karachi1980 CLC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Abdul Rashid and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 990 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Inam Khan and 24 Others vs Province of Sind through Secretary, Department of Agrigulture, Livestock and Fisheries and 4 Others1980 PLD Karachi 264 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hami Dudd I N vs Feroz Ahmed and Another1980 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Habibuddin Fazil vs Muhammad Rafeeq1980 CLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq Ali Khan vs Government of Sind through Secretary, Health and Social Welfare Department and Another1980 PLD Karachi 193 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Essa vs Summary Military Court, Thatta and Another1980 P Cr. L J 550 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Bhai and Another vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamabad and Another1980 PLD Karachi 166 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of three consolidated constitutional petitions filed by convicts serving sentences of transportation for life, addressing the computation of their sentences in light of earned remissions and subsequent legal amendments. The core legal questions involved whether amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and subsequent government policies regarding minimum substantive sentences have retrospective effect, and how ordinary and special remissions should be calculated under the West Pakistan Prisons (Remission of Sentences) Rules, 1965. The court held that the 1972 amendments and later policy decisions cannot be applied retrospectively to disadvantage convicts whose cases are governed by pre-amendment law and the 1965 Rules, where transportation for life is reckoned as 20 years and maximum ordinary remissions are capped at 4 years, excluding special remissions under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that substantive rights of convicts regarding sentence duration and computation of remissions crystalize at the time of conviction and cannot be curtailed by subsequent retrospective statutory amendments or inconsistent executive policy decisions.
Questions settled- Whether the amendments introduced by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 to section 57 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 have retrospective effect on sentences awarded prior to their enactment?
- How are ordinary and special remissions to be calculated for a life convict under the West Pakistan Prisons (Remission of Sentences) Rules, 1965?
- Can an executive policy decision override or implicitly amend statutory rules framed under the Prisons Act, 1894?
- When is a life convict entitled to be released forthwith based on actual substantive sentence and earned remissions?
- Muhammad Bashir vs Vensimal and 4 Others1980 PLD Karachi 409 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellant landlord against the respondent statutory tenants seeking possession of a house at Hyderabad for personal use. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the lower appellate court reversed the order on the grounds that the appellant failed to disclose his address and demanded a higher rent, inferring mala fides. The core legal question is whether a landlord residing in a house belonging to their son or having previously vacated rented premises is barred under rent restriction laws from seeking eviction for personal use. The Sindh High Court held that occupation of accommodation belonging to a son by courtesy does not constitute a residential building owned by the landlord for the purposes of the statute, and that the restriction regarding previously vacated buildings does not extend to rented premises. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the eviction order with a four-month grace period.
Questions settled- Does the occupation of a house belonging to a son by courtesy constitute ownership or possession of a residential building by the landlord under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Whether the requirement that a landlord has not vacated a building without sufficient cause extends to previously vacated rented premises?
- Can a landlord obtain possession of premises for personal use when residing in accommodation provided by a family member?
- Muhammad Bashir Butt vs M. v. Taheri1980 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This admiralty matter concerns competing claims over the sale proceeds of an arrested vessel, specifically between decree-holders holding claims for crew wages and necessaries, and the Karachi Port Trust claiming priority for port dues and mooring charges under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. The core legal questions involve whether the Karachi Port Trust has priority over maritime liens of masters and crews, and whether enhanced mooring charges under a subsequent notification could be applied retrospectively. The court held that the Karachi Port Trust's statutory power to distrain, arrest, and sell the vessel for dues falls outside the ordinary rules of priority and stands paramount to maritime liens, including seamen's wages. However, the court also held that subordinate legislation enhancing mooring charges cannot be applied retrospectively to affect rates during periods falling within the initial months governed by lower scheduled rates, interpreting ambiguous fiscal provisions in favour of the subject. The court accordingly adjusted the payable amounts out of the remaining sale proceeds.
Questions settled- Whether the Karachi Port Trust is entitled to priority on account of mooring charges or port dues over the claim under the decrees passed in favour of the master and crews and the decree passed on account of necessaries supplied to the vessel?
- Whether the claim by the Karachi Port Trust on account of mooring charges under an enhanced notification is according to law when applied retrospectively?
- Can an authority exercising delegated rule-making powers affect vested rights or create new liabilities retrospectively in the absence of explicit statutory authority?
- Muhammad Ayoob vs Muhammad Aslam Shah and Another1980 P Cr. L J 760 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Asif Sultan and Another vs Nasir Jaffer and Another1980 P Cr. L J 395 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashraf Alias Taoo vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 94 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashiq vs The Martial Law Administrator, Zone1980 P Cr. L J 97 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner's sister and eight others by a Summary Military Court under Sections 3, 6, and 10 of the West Pakistan Suppression of Prostitution Ordinance 1961. The petitioner contended that the transfer of the case from an ordinary criminal court to the Military Court was unlawful, that the police investigation violated Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding non-cognizable offences, and that the fine imposed exceeded the statutory maximum under the Ordinance.
The High Court held that under Martial Law Order No. 4 (as reconstituted by M.L.O. 37), Summary Military Courts have jurisdiction to try any offence under any law and can take cognizance on a police report or information without requiring a Magistrate's sanction. Furthermore, an illegality in investigation does not invalidate a trial or strip a court of jurisdiction under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless it causes grave miscarriage of justice. However, while Military Courts generally possess broad sentencing powers under M.L.O. 4, they cannot exceed the maximum statutory fine prescribed by the substantive special law under which the accused is charged.
Questions settled- Does an illegality or lack of statutory sanction during police investigation deprive a trial court of jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a Summary Military Court take cognizance of a non-cognizable offence without prior sanction from a Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a Military Court bound by the maximum sentence of fine prescribed in the special substantive law under which an accused is tried?
- Muhammad Anwer and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 59 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amin vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Alam Khoso vs Divisional Committee, Sukkur Division, Sukkur and 3 Others1980 PLC (C. S.) 97 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akhtar vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 103 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed against the judgments of the trial and appellate courts convicting the applicant under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing the death of a boy by a motor accident and sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether driving at a high speed on an uncongested road, ipso facto, constitutes a rash or negligent act under section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court accepted the revision, holding that high speed alone does not amount to rashness or negligence without conclusive evidence showing a failure to drive with due care and caution, or that the driver omitted to take action to avoid the accident. The court laid down the principle that the prosecution must conclusively establish a rash or negligent act by direct evidence, and that high speed per se does not prove criminal liability where the evidence shows an absence of traffic and proper vehicular control.
Questions settled- Does high speed alone amount to rashness or negligence under Section 304-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What must the prosecution establish to secure a conviction for causing death by a rash or negligent act?
- Can an error of judgment in driving serve as a valid defense against a charge of rash and negligent driving?
- Muhammad Akhtar Ansari vs The State and 3 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ahmad vs MRS. Qamar Anwar Sheikh1980 CLC 664 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of default in rent. The core legal questions involved whether a tenant remains liable to eviction for a past default despite subsequent payment and acceptance of arrears, and whether the landlord's conduct constituted a waiver of the right of ejectment. The Sindh High Court held that once a default in payment of rent is committed within the statutory period, the tenant is liable to eviction notwithstanding subsequent payment of arrears, unless the landlord has waived the right. However, on the facts of the case, the Court held that the landlord's prolonged silence, subsequent acceptance of arrears and ongoing rent for an extended period without initiating proceedings amounted to an intentional relinquishment of the right to eject, establishing a valid defense of waiver. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order set aside.
Questions settled- Does a tenant remain liable to ejectment for a past default in rent if the arrears are subsequently paid and accepted by the landlord?
- Does acceptance of rent by a landlord after a default automatically constitute a waiver of the right to seek ejectment?
- What circumstances are sufficient to establish a landlord's waiver of the right to eject a tenant for non-payment of rent?
- Mst. Zahida Khatoon Begum vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad and Another1980 CLC 1640 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Shrin Bai and Another vs Mst. Kulsoom Bai and 5 Others1980 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an order by the Civil Judge dismissing the plaintiffs' application to withdraw a suit and granting the defendants' application for transposition of parties. The core legal question was whether the court could exercise its discretion under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to transpose parties in a suit for accounts, thereby preventing the plaintiffs from withdrawing the suit. The High Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion. The ratio established that the paramount consideration for transposition is the effectual determination of the rights of the parties and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation. Since both parties in the suit were seeking accounts from one another, the transposition did not alter the nature or character of the suit. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiffs' withdrawal application was rightly rejected to ensure a full and final adjudication of the dispute, particularly where the withdrawal appeared motivated by ulterior considerations.
Questions settled- Can a court transpose parties in a suit under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to avoid multiplicity of litigation?
- Does the transposition of parties in a suit for accounts alter the nature of the suit?
- Can a court reject a plaintiff's application to withdraw a suit if it is necessary to allow a transposition of parties for the effectual determination of the dispute?
- Is the power of the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, limited to cases where the lower court has acted with material irregularity?
- Mst. Sayyada Khatoon vs Mansoor Ali Kapasi and 3 Others1980 CLC 1909 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sayeda Aziz Khatoon and 9 Others vs Additional District Judge1980 CLC 363 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sarwat Kazmi vs State Life Insurance Corporation1980 CLC 1779 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sakina Begum vs Muhammad Yousuf and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 289 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qamarzamni and Another vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 586 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs VTH Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi and 31980 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan Begum vs DR. Abdus Samad and 2 Others1980 CLC 2104 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Nasim Bano and 2 Others vs Muhammad Ismail and Another1980 P Cr. L J 1189 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Motibai vs Abbas Bhoy Moosaji1980 CLC 305 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mai Dhayani vs The Home Secretary, Government of Sind, Karachi1980 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Haseena alias Munni and 3 Others vs Muhammad Ismail and Another1980 P Cr. L J 118 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Gul Zarin vs The State and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst Noor Jehan vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 332 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-20Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Hiam Tabbara vs Directorgeneral, Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi and Another1980 PLD Karachi 44 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
- MRS. Dianat Fatima and 8 omERss vs Mir Abbas Khan and 2 oTHERs1980 PLD Karachi 271 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- MRS. Ali Ahmad Ansari and 3 Others vs The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and 2 Others1980 CLC 161 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- MRS, Vasli Bai and 3 Others vs Jamshed Aderji Dubash and Another1980 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-21Read full judgment →