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.

• Haji Punhoon vs Haji Abdul Wahid1980 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Muhammad vs Muhammad Ishaque and Another1980 CLC 61 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad vs Officer on Special Duty II, Federal Land Commission1980 CLC 2186 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Taqi vs Sher Muhammad1980 CLC 231 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Lal Bux vs Mistry Allahdad1980 CLC 984 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-05
  personal bona fide useejectmentsecond appealcomposite premiseslandlord and tenanturban rent restrictionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment order under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, concerning a residential and shop property. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of personal bona fide use and damage to the property, asserting that his current joint family accommodation in Qambar was extremely congested and insufficient for his large family. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the landlord had not explained how he would manage living in Larkana while doing business in Qambar, and that his adult son was not dependent on him. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the evidence and held that the appellate court misread the evidence and relied on extraneous considerations. The court ruled that the statutory provisions permit a landlord to seek eviction for his own occupation or that of his children without requiring proof of child dependency or showing that the premises are in the same urban area as the landlord's current residence. The High Court restored the Rent Controller's ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 require that a child for whom a premises is sought must be financially dependent on the landlord?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction for personal use when the disputed premises are situated in a different urban area from where the landlord currently resides?
  • How should composite premises consisting of residential and commercial parts be treated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Whether strict standards of pleadings applicable to normal civil courts apply to rent proceedings before a Rent Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Imam Ali Shah vs Wadero Kabool and Another1980 CLC 759 · Sindh High Court · 1968-08-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Hashim & Co., Karachi vs Indus Insurance Co. Ltd.1980 CLC 773 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Hasham & Co., Karachi vs The Indus Assurance Co. Ltd.1980 CLC 1775(2) · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Ali Muhammad Solangi vs Tribunal/S. D. M., Naz1mabad, Karachi1980 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court
  Sind Crimes Control Actcognizance of offencepolice reportmandatory particularsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the cognizance taken by a Tribunal constituted under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, upon a complaint under section 14 of the said Act, on the ground that the police report disregarded the mandatory requirements of sections 4, 5, and 6 by lacking specific particulars regarding the time and place of the alleged acts. The core legal question was whether a mere list of pending cases and vague allegations in a police report satisfies the statutory requirement for particulars under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The High Court held that a mere list of cases cannot substitute for the mandatory statement of particulars required by section 6 of the Act, and cognizance taken without complying with these requirements cannot be sustained. The key principle laid down is that strict compliance with the statutory particulars is mandatory for initiating proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, and a vague police report containing only a list of past cases is legally insufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Does a mere list of pending cases in a police report satisfy the requirements of section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  • Can cognizance taken by a Tribunal under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 be sustained in the absence of compliance with section 6?
  • Are vague allegations and a list of past cases sufficient particulars under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah vs Presiding Officer, Summary Military COURTNo, 9, Karachi1980 PLD Karachi 498 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haider Ali Rajab Ali & Company vs Commissioner Oe Income Tax41 TAX 158 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-18Read full judgment →
• Hafizullah and 2 Others vs Muhammad Munir Hussain Butt and Another1980 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
• Hafi Mujtaba Khan vs Muhammad Umer1980 CLC 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
• Hadi Bux and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 787 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-14Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and 7 Others vs The State and Anothers Opponents1980 P Cr. L J 1264 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-09Read full judgment →
• Habib Ullah vs Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Sanghar1980 PLD Karachi 400 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-24Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Ghazanfarullah Khan and Another1980 CLC 694 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-19Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Lm., Karachi vs Mohni Corporation, Karachi and 8 Others1980 PLD Karachi 308 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The State Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 89 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan and ANOTHER/Opponents vs Hamidullah and Another1980 CLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-07Read full judgment →
• Group Capt. A. M. Morad vs Messrs B. R. Herman & Mohatta Ltd., Karachi and 10 Others1980 CLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-27Read full judgment →
• Golden Plastics Ltd. vs Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulamullah Shah and 5 Others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal1980 PLD Karachi 122 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Yasin and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 974 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Malik vs Shlwat Hussain Rizvi and Another1980 P Cr. L J 486 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Ahmad Hussain and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 446 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 343 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza Khan and 2 Others vs Abdul Rehman and 4 Others1980 P Cr. L J 594 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others vs Additional Deputy1980 CLC 2103 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Habib vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 754 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali alias Ghulam Qadir vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
• Ghazi and 3 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-17Read full judgment →
• G. M. E. Patel vs Tajamul Hussain1980 CLC 443 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-08Read full judgment →
• Flight LT. Anwarul Hasan Siddiqui vs Family Judge, Court No, III, Karachi and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-16
  deferred dowerdissolution of marriageex parte decreeSoldiers Litigation Actfamily court jurisdictionconstitutional petitionwritten statement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Family Court and the appellate court, which resulted in an ex parte decree for the dissolution of marriage and payment of deferred dower against the petitioner, a military officer. The core legal questions involved whether the proceedings should have been stayed under the Soldiers Litigation Act, 1925, despite the petitioner being represented by an advocate, and whether a Family Court can simultaneously entertain and decree claims for dissolution of marriage and deferred dower. The Sindh High Court held that the Soldiers Litigation Act does not apply when a party is duly represented by an advocate empowered to plead and act. Furthermore, the Court held that a claim for deferred dower can be validly joined with a suit for dissolution of marriage, and the decree for dower properly matures upon the granting of the dissolution decree, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. The petition was dismissed on the basis that the Family Court acted within its lawful jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of section 6 of the Soldiers Litigation Act 1925 require the suspension of proceedings against a soldier who is represented by a duly authorized advocate?
  • Can a claim for deferred dower be instituted simultaneously with a suit for dissolution of marriage in the Family Court?
  • Whether a Family Court has jurisdiction to pass a decree for deferred dower concurrently with the granting of a decree for dissolution of marriage?
  • Does the failure to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ferozur Rahman Batla vs The State Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 663 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan vs Bibi Shahzadi and 5 Others1980 CLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
• Fazalur Rehman vs M Uhammad SiDDIQUE1980 CLC 492 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-15Read full judgment →
• Farooq vs Messrs Eastern Banking Corporation Ltd., Karachi. and Another1980 PLD Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-10
  wrongful dishonour of chequedamages for dishonourbanker's lientrader vs non-trader damagessufficiency of fundsnegotiable instruments
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the sole proprietor of Yasmeen Plastic Industries against a bank (subsequently taken over by the National Bank of Pakistan under Ordinance No. 30 of 1973) claiming damages of Rs. 1,00,000 for the alleged wrongful dishonour of a cheque despite sufficient funds. The core legal questions revolved around whether the plaintiff's cheque was wrongfully dishonoured due to insufficient funds or justifiable bank retention, whether a banker's lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act applied, and the measure of damages applicable for the dishonour of a customer's cheque under Section 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove sufficient funds in the account at the time of presentation, that the bank's return of the cheque was justified, and that the bank had no valid lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act over the credit balance. The Court laid down that under Section 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a trader is entitled to substantial damages without proof of actual special loss for wrongful dishonour, whereas a non-trader must plead and prove special damages to recover more than nominal damages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a bank is justified in returning a cheque when the drawer's account lacks sufficient funds to cover the same?
  • Does a banker have a lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 over a customer's credit balance for unreturned bank guarantees?
  • Can a trader recover substantial damages for the wrongful dishonour of a cheque without pleading and proving actual special loss?
  • Whether the legal principles governing the award of damages for dishonour of cheques under Section 31 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 align with English common law?
  Read full judgment →
• Farmeeda Jahan Begum vs Varindamal1980 CLC 604 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-20
  ejectmentdefault in rentbona fide personal requirementconcurrent findingssecond appealtenant eviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from concurrent decisions of the lower courts dismissing the appellant landlord's ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the grounds of default in rent, bona fide personal requirement, and damage to the building. The core legal questions involved whether the failure to continue paying advance yearly rent constituted default and whether the appellant established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises under the relevant rent restriction law. The High Court held that the tenancy agreement stipulated advance yearly rent only for the first two years, after which monthly payment applied, hence no default occurred; furthermore, the appellant's claim of personal requirement was uncorroborated, inconsistent with pleadings, and motivated by mala fides arising from disputes over unauthorized construction. The court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset in second appeal merely because a different view of the evidence is possible. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to pay subsequent rent on a yearly advance basis amount to a default in rent when the agreement stipulates advance payment only for the initial period?
  • Can a landlord claim bona fide personal requirement on grounds not pleaded in the original ejectment application?
  • Is a landlord occupying another residential building required to prove that such building is unsuitable for their needs to obtain possession for personal use?
  • Under what circumstances can a court in a second appeal interfere with concurrent findings of fact rendered by the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad Malik and Another vs MRS. Maqsooda Malik and Another1980 PLD Karachi 430 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-12Read full judgment →
• Esso Pakistan Fertilizer Company Ltd. Karachi through Its Director1980 CLC 84 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Elahi Malik vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 186 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-19Read full judgment →
• Eastern Bank Ltd. vs The Excise & Taxation Officer, Karachi and 21980 CLC 1959 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• DR. Athar Ali Siddiqi vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sind and 41980 CLC 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-10Read full judgment →
• Dhani Bux vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1087 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-13Read full judgment →
• Devraj vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30
  culpable homicidegrievous hurtlathi blowjudicial confessionapprehension at spotaltercationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the appellant struck the deceased with a lathi on the head following an altercation, resulting in the deceased's death. The core legal question was whether the act constituted murder or a lesser offence, given the absence of prior enmity and the nature of the assault. The Court held that while the ocular and circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's apprehension at the scene, conclusively proved his involvement, the circumstances—specifically that the fatal injury was a single blow inflicted during a sudden altercation—negated the requisite intent for murder. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The judgment reaffirms that where a single blow is struck in the heat of an altercation without premeditation, the offence typically falls under causing grievous hurt rather than murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single lathi blow inflicted during a sudden altercation without premeditation constitute murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What are the mandatory procedural requirements for a Magistrate to record a valid judicial confession under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an identification parade necessary when an accused is apprehended at the scene of the crime by eyewitnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Daya vs Muhammad Saleem and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1263 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
• Dawood vs Husein Ebrahim Foundation and 9 Others1980 CLC 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
• Dawood vs Abdul Ghani1980 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• Conforce Ltd., Lahore vs Pakistan through Sebretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 443 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi vs Moosa Omar & Co. Ltd.41 TAX 19 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs S. A. Rehman42 TAX 147 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (East), Karachi vs Azam41 TAX 154 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs R. C. Chapman41 TAX 73 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-31Read full judgment →
• Commissiomer, Income Tax, Karachi vs A. Razak H. K, Dada41 TAX 10 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-18Read full judgment →
• Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan, Lahore vs Mst. Nooran1980 CLC 378 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-18
  wakf propertylimitation periodofficial gazettepublic wakfburial rightsstatutory interpretationwakf-ul-aulad
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a dispute regarding the assumption of control over wakf properties by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf under the West Pakistan Wakf Properties Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions concerned whether a petition filed under Section 7 of the Ordinance was time-barred, and whether certain residential houses and burial privileges within the shrine complex constituted private property or public wakf. The Court held that the petition was time-barred because the statutory period for filing a challenge commences from the date of the notification published in the official Gazette, as defined by the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956, rather than from the date of personal knowledge. Furthermore, the Court ruled that once property is determined to be a public wakf, it cannot be partially excluded based on claims of private inheritance or exclusive burial rights. The judgment affirms that in a public wakf graveyard, no individual can claim exclusive or preferential burial rights, as such rights must be subject to common necessity and available space. Consequently, the lower court's order allowing the exclusion of houses and burial privileges was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for a petition under Section 7 of the West Pakistan Wakf Properties Ordinance 1959 run from the date of the official Gazette notification or from the date of personal knowledge?
  • Can a petitioner claim private inheritance rights over property after abandoning a plea of Wakf-ul-Aulad?
  • Is it legally permissible to claim exclusive or preferential burial rights in a graveyard that has been declared a public wakf?
  • Does the definition of 'notification' under the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 1956 require publication in the official Gazette?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhury Abdul Aziz vs District Magistrate, Sukkur1980 PLD Karachi 333 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-28Read full judgment →
• Da Wood vs Abdul Ghani1980 CLC 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-29Read full judgment →
• Castrol Ltd., Karachi vs Karachi Tyre & Rubber Company and 2 Others1980 CLC 1312 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
• Carlito M. Dalac vs M. v. 'Asian Queen' through Its Master_Captain, Karachi and Another1980 CLC 80 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
• Bux Ali and 2 Others vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 626 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
• Butani Papy Udharam vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 242 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-15Read full judgment →
• Butani Papu Udharam vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 49 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-22
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powersCustoms Act 1969Special JudgeSection 561-A CrPCSection 265-K CrPCsmugglingpremature application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) for alleged smuggling offences under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings before a Special Judge, given the specific statutory framework of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not expressly barred by the Customs Act, 1969, and remains co-extensive with the trial court's power to acquit under Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, the Court established the principle that while this jurisdiction exists, it should not be exercised prematurely. Parties must first exhaust remedies available within the trial court, particularly where factual disputes regarding the accused's intent or status require the recording of evidence. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature, directing the trial court to proceed with the case.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending before a Special Judge constituted under the Customs Act 1969?
  • Are the powers of a trial court under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 co-extensive with the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings before a trial court has recorded evidence on disputed factual matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Bengal Oil Mills Ltd. vs Hussaini Company Karachi1980 CLC 1153 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
• Before Syed Sajjad Ali Shah?J Mir Masih vs Muhammad Saeed and 31980 PLD Karachi 572 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 391 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-10Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs Sughra and oTHERS1980 PLD Karachi 223 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-11
  second appealevictionpersonal bona fide useburden of prooftenant evictionrent controllerbona fide requirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 was filed by the tenant against an appellate court order directing his eviction on the ground of personal bona fide use. The respondents/landlords had sought eviction alleging that four unemployed brothers wished to start their own business in the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on finding that none of the unemployed brothers testified and that the landlords failed to prove genuine requirement. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision, holding that a statement on oath by the landlord shifted a heavy burden onto the tenant to disprove good faith. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellate court's order and restoring the Rent Controller's dismissal. The Court held that the onus rests on the landlord to affirmatively prove bona fide requirement under Section 13 of the Ordinance, and this heavy burden cannot be discharged by bare and bald statements without specifying the intended business or establishing financial capacity to start it.

  Questions settled

  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish personal bona fide requirement of rented premises under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Whether a bare statement on oath that landlords are unemployed and wish to start an unspecified business is sufficient to establish personal bona fide requirement?
  • Does a landlord's claim of personal use shift the burden onto the tenant to disprove good faith without the landlord first proving capacity and specific intent to start a business?
  Read full judgment →
• Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd.DecreeHolder vs Ozzir ZUBY/Judgmentdebtor1980 CLC 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
• Bakshu vs Muhammad Ramzan1980 CLC 210 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
• Bahadur and 4 Others vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 146 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
• B. R. Harman & Mohatta Ltd. vs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1980 CLC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-10
  arbitration agreementcondition precedentrestraint of legal proceedingssuit under section 20maintainability of suitarbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a direction for the defendants to file the arbitration agreement in court and refer the dispute to arbitration. The defendant objected that the suit was not maintainable because a condition precedent in the arbitration agreement—requiring the dispute to be first referred to the Board of Directors of the purchasers—had not been fulfilled. The plaintiff contended that this condition precedent was void under section 28 of the Contract Act as an agreement in restraint of legal proceedings. The court held that the agreement did not prohibit recourse to a court of law or arbitration, but merely established a condition precedent requiring prior resort to the Board of Directors, which is legally permissible and does not fall within the mischief of section 28. Since the plaintiff admitted failing to fulfill this condition precedent, the court concluded that the suit was premature and not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed it while clarifying that the plaintiff was not precluded from filing a fresh suit after fulfilling the condition precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration clause requiring disputes to be referred to a Board of Directors as a condition precedent violates section 28 of the Contract Act?
  • Is a suit filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 maintainable without fulfilling a contractual condition precedent?
  • Does an agreement making the decision of a Board of Directors a condition precedent to arbitration or legal action amount to a total restraint of legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz UN Nissa vs Mohammad Yasin1980 P Cr. L J 790 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmed vs P. R. C. Appellate Committee, Karachi and Another1980 PLD Karachi 568 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ark Navigation Company of Pakistan Ltd. and Another vs Esso1980 CLC 57 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad vs Fazal Din and Another1980 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
• Allauddin and 3 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 151 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
• Allahdino vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-29Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino vs Chief Martial Law Administrator and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 184 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1117 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-04Read full judgment →
• All Muhammad V. Akhund, Umar Din vs Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 418 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• Ali vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 303 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher Khoso vs Deputy Commissioner & Settlement Commissioner1980 CLC 2084 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 280 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan vs Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad and 3 Others1980 PLD Karachi 189 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-14
  land reformsbona fide purchaseralienation of landMartial Law Regulation 115agricultural landvalidation of transfersuo motu jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner and the Federal Land Commission, which had set aside an earlier order validating the petitioner's purchase of agricultural land. The petitioner had entered into an agreement to purchase land acquired by the vendor under Martial Law Regulation 89/91. The core legal question was whether the alienation was valid under Martial Law Regulation 115, notwithstanding the absence of prior permission from the Collector. The Court held that the initial order by the Land Commissioner, Sind, which validated the transaction as a bona fide sale, was correct. It ruled that the lack of prior Collector permission did not invalidate the transaction, as Federal Land Commission instructions explicitly allowed for the confirmation of genuine sale agreements. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Paragraph 7 of Martial Law Regulation 115 encompasses transactions creating rights or interests in land, not merely completed registered sale deeds. Consequently, the impugned orders setting aside the validation were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of prior permission from the Collector under the scheme of Martial Law Regulation 89/91 invalidate a sale agreement?
  • Can a transaction creating a right or interest in land be approved under Paragraph 7 of Martial Law Regulation 115 even if a formal sale deed was not executed at the time?
  • Are instructions issued by the Federal Land Commission regarding the scrutiny of land transfers binding on the Land Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul Shah and Another vs The State Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 507 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Gul and 3 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1190 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 791 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs Habibullan and ANorma1980 PLD Karachi 244 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs Tribunal and Subdivisional Magistrate, Shikar Pur and 21980 P Cr. L J 76 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs Deputy Martial Law Administrator, Sector 2, Hyderabad1980 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad Panhwar and Anothers vs Vicechancellor, University of Sind1980 PLD Karachi 490 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-05Read full judgment →
• Al1 Hassan vs Abdul Qadeer1980 CLC 912 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-03
  ejectmentdefault in rentimplied agreementlandlord and tenantjudicial discretionsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant on the ground of default in rent payment for eight months. The Rent Controller found the tenant guilty of wilful default and ordered ejectment. However, the first appellate court set aside this order, holding that past instances of accepting lump sum rent established an implied agreement permitting periodical payments, justifying the exercise of discretion in the tenant's favour. Upon further appeal, the High Court examined the past receipts and held that they merely demonstrated past indulgences by the landlord rather than an implied agreement, which was neither pleaded nor supported by the evidence. The High Court ruled that an indulgence by a landlord does not create a right or equity to its continuance, nor does the acceptance of rent in lump sum on past occasions automatically entitle a tenant to judicial discretion. Consequently, the appellate judgment was set aside and the ejectment order restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of rent in lump sum on past occasions by a landlord establish an implied agreement for periodical payments?
  • Can a plea regarding an implied agreement for rent payment be raised for the first time at the appellate stage without being pleaded or supported by evidence?
  • Does an indulgence shown by a landlord in accepting delayed rent create a right or equity for the tenant to demand its continuance?
  Read full judgment →
• Al-Hilal Agencies Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, Karachi and Another41 TAX 40 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmed vs Karachi Port Trust and Others1980 CLC 1873 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-16
  civil revisiontemporary injunctionrejection of plaintcause of actionjurisdiction of civil courtunauthorized encroachmentbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit for permanent and temporary injunction filed by the petitioner against the Karachi Port Trust (K.P.T.) regarding a building allegedly vesting in the Evacuee Property Trust Board, where the petitioner claimed to be a tenant. The trial court dismissed the suit and refused temporary injunction based on a statutory notice bar under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. The appellate court maintained the dismissal on different grounds, finding no cause of action and holding that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under the Land Control (Karachi Division) Act, 1952. The core legal questions involved whether a plaint could be dismissed or rejected on factual findings derived from affidavits without recording evidence, and whether the jurisdictional bar under the Land Control Act was properly attracted. The Sindh High Court held that a suit disclosing a prima facie cause of action cannot be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without recording evidence on disputed questions of fact. The Court laid down the principle that factual controversies regarding unauthorized occupation and statutory bars to jurisdiction must be determined through proper framing of issues and recording of evidence, rather than summary dismissal on affidavits, and balanced public interest in infrastructure projects against private possessory rights regarding temporary injunctions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit can be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on disputed questions of fact without recording evidence?
  • Can an appellate court uphold the dismissal of a suit on entirely new factual grounds not established by evidence on the record?
  • Whether a civil court's jurisdiction is validly barred under the Land Control (Karachi Division) Act, 1952 without proof that the impugned action was taken under its provisions?
  • How is the balance of convenience to be weighed when an injunction is sought against public works of national and strategic importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Tareen vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 969 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-02Read full judgment →
• Ajeeb vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-29Read full judgment →
• Aizaz Nazir vs Chairman, Summary Military Court, Sukkur and 21980 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-14Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar and 4 Others1980 P Cr. L J 72 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-19Read full judgment →