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.

• Rehmat Ali vs Jummo and Another1978 PLD Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-17Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 190 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-25Read full judgment →
• Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and Another1978 PLC 183 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-02Read full judgment →
• Rashid Rayon Mills. Karachi vs Amin Yusuf Nizami (through His Heirs)1978 PLD Karachi 82 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-09Read full judgment →
• Rap Malook Hussain vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 378 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-30Read full judgment →
• Ramzan and Another vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 598 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-04Read full judgment →
• Rajo vs Muhammad Qassim and Andther1978 P Cr. L J 706 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-20
  criminal revisionsecond revision petitionland disputeSection 145 CrPCinherent powersquashment of proceedingsLaw Reforms
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision petition filed against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, which upheld an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding a land dispute. The petitioner challenged the S.D.M.'s order, which had allocated the Zamindari share of the produce to the respondent pending a civil court decision. The core legal question was whether a second revision application is maintainable in the High Court after a revision petition has already been decided by the Court of Session under the Law Reforms Ordinance. The Court held that, following the Law Reforms, a second revision application is not maintainable against an order passed by a Sessions Judge under Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 could not be invoked to quash proceedings that had already concluded. The principle laid down is that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a second revision petition against an order of the Sessions Court passed in its revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second revision application maintainable in the High Court against an order passed by a Sessions Judge under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to quash proceedings that have already concluded?
  • Does the use of incorrect phraseology by a Magistrate in an order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the jurisdiction of the court if the material on record justifies the action?
  Read full judgment →
• Raisuddin Shamsi vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone _C_, Karachi and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 84 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-29Read full judgment →
• Raham Ali and 3 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 822 · Sindh High Court · 1974-11-11Read full judgment →
• Rah Mat Ali vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 612 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-28Read full judgment →
• R Eli Mat Mase Eh vs The State and Another1978 P Cr. L J 651 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-27Read full judgment →
• Pirdino and 2 Others vs Tee State Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 345 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
• Pierre Yves Jean vs The State Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 633 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-16Read full judgment →
• Piaremian vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 369 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-25
  murder convictionocular testimonyrecovery of weaponconfirmatory evidencecriminal appealdeath sentence referenceappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction for murder and illegal possession of a weapon, alongside a reference for the confirmation of a death sentence. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, while his co-accused were acquitted. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s conviction could be sustained based on ocular testimony that the trial court had already rejected regarding the co-accused, and whether the recovery of the weapon constituted valid confirmatory evidence. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. It reasoned that the ocular testimony, having been found unreliable for the co-accused, lacked the credibility to support a conviction against the appellant without independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of the weapon was not voluntary, as it occurred after three days of continuous interrogation, raising significant doubts about the integrity of the investigation. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, establishing that evidence rejected for co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction without strong, independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony that was previously rejected by the trial court regarding co-accused?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon admissible as confirmatory evidence if it is obtained after prolonged interrogation?
  • Does the lack of independent witnesses in a public place undermine the credibility of prosecution eye-witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Phillips Electrical Industries of Pakistan Ltd. vs Director1978 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• Pherozeali vs Commissioner of Income Tax (West), Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 765 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-21Read full judgment →
• Pathan vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-11Read full judgment →
• Paryal and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 380 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan vs Messrs Ameejee Valeejee & Sons and Another1978 PLD Karachi 244 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Director of Storage & Inspection (F20mqraibs), Ministry Op Agriculture & Works, Goverment of Pakistan, Karachi vs Messrs Chaudhry Brother Ltd., Lahore1978 PLD Karachi 362 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell Petrol Pumps Employees' Union, Karachi vs Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. through Its Director and 4 Other1978 PLD Karachi 279 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-01Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd., Karachi and 3 Other vs Sind Labour Court1978 PLD Karachi 109 · Sindh High Court
  unfair labour practiceindependent contractoremployer workman relationshipjurisdiction of labour courtessential servicesquashing of proceedingsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the initiation of proceedings before the Sindh Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.) against a petrol marketing company and its officers, initiated via a complaint under Sections 15 and 53(1-A) filed by a worker whose services were terminated by an independent contractor operating one of the company's petrol pumps. The core legal questions addressed were whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the company and the contractor's worker for the purposes of unfair labour practice charges, and whether the Labour Court retained jurisdiction when the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 applied to the industry. The Sindh High Court held that under the clear terms of the contract, the worker was employed by the independent contractor, not the company, excluding any unfair labour practice liability under Section 15 of the I.R.O. Furthermore, as the petroleum industry was covered by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, its overriding provisions under Section 7-A ousted the Labour Court's jurisdiction regarding termination of service and related threats. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the Labour Court proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee of an independent contractor engaged to manage a petrol pump constitute a workman of the petroleum marketing company under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act 1952 oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court regarding termination of employment?
  • Can a Labour Court entertain a complaint of unfair labour practice referred by the National Industrial Relations Commission without a complaint by the Registrar of Trade Unions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ohulam Kadir and 2 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 316 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-10Read full judgment →
• Official Assignee of the High Court of West Pakistan. Karachi Bench, Karachi vs Muhammad Hussain and 28 Other1978 PLD Karachi 27 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-09
  evacuee propertyadverse possessionlimitationofficial assigneecustodian of evacuee propertymesne profitscollateral challengesuit for possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit involves a claim for possession and mesne profits by the Official Assignee regarding an evacuee property plot, originally purchased by the deceased Dr. Muhammad Ishaque and confirmed by the Custodian. The defendants, various occupants of the plot, contested the suit by challenging the validity of the sale transaction, asserting adverse possession, and claiming protection under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The court addressed whether the suit was maintainable, whether the defendants were protected tenants, and whether the claim was barred by limitation or adverse possession. The court held that the defendants could not collaterally challenge the Custodian's confirmation order due to the statutory bar under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949. Furthermore, the court determined that the suit was based on title, making Article 144 of the Limitation Act applicable rather than Article 142. As the defendants failed to establish adverse possession for the requisite twelve-year period, and because possession of evacuee property cannot be adverse against the Custodian, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's title and right to possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant in a suit for possession collaterally challenge the validity of a sale transaction confirmed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property?
  • Does Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act apply to a suit for possession based on title?
  • Can occupants claiming tenancy through trespassers invoke the protection of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Does the occupation of evacuee property constitute adverse possession against the Custodian?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 656 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Khan and 5 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 647 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed vs LT: Col. Abbas Ali Khan. President, Special Military1978 PLD Karachi 777 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-20Read full judgment →
• Nawaz Ali and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 216 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-19Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan. Karachi vs Dawood Yousuf Mithani and 21978 PLD Karachi 42 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muttaqi Hussain Rizvi vs Province of Sind and Another1978 PLD Karachi 703 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-09
  suo motu revisionreversionService Tribunalrejection of plaintpromotion eligibilityvested rightcivil servantjurisdiction bar
  Summary & questions settled

  Suo motu civil revision before the Sindh High Court examining whether a civil suit challenging a civil servant's reversion and seeking promotion to Grade 17 was maintainable before the civil court. The respondent had been reverted from Sub-Divisional Officer to Sub-Engineer pursuant to a departmental inquiry and had filed a civil suit for a declaration and injunction. The High Court held that the order of reversion arose directly from disciplinary proceedings under the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, falling squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under the Sind Service Tribunals Act 1973, and civil court jurisdiction was expressly barred by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court further ruled that while promotion itself is not a vested right that can be enforced through courts, the right to be considered for promotion when eligible is a vested right. Because the respondent did not possess the required degree and was ineligible, his claim was untenable. The revision was allowed and the plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in matters challenging a civil servant's reversion resulting from a departmental inquiry?
  • Whether a civil servant has a vested right to promotion to a higher post or grade that can be enforced by a civil suit or writ petition?
  • Whether an eligible civil servant possesses a vested right to be considered for promotion enforceable through the courts when excluded from the Service Tribunal's jurisdiction?
  • Does the word 'eligible' in Section 9 of the Sind Civil Servants Act 1973 mean entitled to promotion as of right?
  Read full judgment →
• Mustafa R. C. C. Pipe Works vs If#$ Commissioner of Income TaxPLD 1978 Karmil! 483 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• Mussrs Gulzar Cinema Etc vs Government of Pakistan and 4 Other1978 PLD Karachi 500 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-24Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed vs Mrs. Mumtaz Zohra Rizvi1978 PLD Karachi 188 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-22
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementgood faithsecond appealconcurrent findingslandlord and tenantmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second appeal arising from concurrent judgments of the lower courts ordering the ejectment of the appellant-tenant from premises owned by the respondent-landlady on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under the West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings regarding the landlady's good faith could be vitiated by her past conduct of enhancing the rent prior to initiating eviction proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact were properly reached, as the tenant failed to establish that the rent increases were extorted under compulsion or that the demand for possession lacked honesty. The Court laid down the principle that in personal requirement cases, once the landlord proves the reasonableness of their need, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove dishonesty or mala fides, and the mere fact of a past rent increase, without evidence of an outstanding demand for further enhancement or coercion, does not negate the good faith of the claim. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a four-month grace period granted to the tenant to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement can be interfered with in a second appeal?
  • What constitutes 'good faith' under the West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in the context of seeking eviction for personal use?
  • Does a past enhancement of rent by the landlord prior to instituting eviction proceedings necessarily establish mala fides and defeat a claim of personal requirement?
  • Upon whom lies the onus to prove the lack of good faith or dishonesty of purpose when a landlord seeks eviction on the ground of personal need?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Bakhsh vs Fida Hussain and Another1978 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mums Mob Mushtaq Ahmad vs Commissioner of Income Tax1978 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
• Mujibunnisa Begum and 4 Other vs Additional District Judge and Settlement Commissioner, Sanghar and 6 Other1978 PLD Karachi 979 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 812 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-14
  quashment of proceedingscognizable offencenon-cognizable offencequalified power of arrestillegal investigationpassport offenceFederal Investigation Agency
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 4(1)(b) of the Passports Act 1974. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner travelled to Dubai from Pakistan without a valid passport and was subsequently deported and arrested. The petitioner contended that because Section 7 of the Passports Act 1974 grants only a qualified power of arrest to officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, the offence is non-cognizable. Consequently, the investigation conducted by the Federal Investigation Agency without a Magistrate's permission under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was a nullity. The High Court of Sindh held that a qualified power of arrest excludes general powers of arrest and does not render an offence cognizable. The inclusion of the Passports Act 1974 in the Schedule of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 does not convert non-cognizable offences into cognizable ones. Since the investigation was conducted without the requisite permission, it was a nullity, and the resulting police report could not be treated as a valid complaint. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a qualified power of arrest granted to specific police officers under a special statute render an otherwise non-cognizable offence cognizable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the inclusion of a special statute in the Schedule of the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974 automatically convert non-cognizable offences under that statute into cognizable ones?
  • Can an investigation conducted into a non-cognizable offence without the permission of a Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 form a valid basis for prosecution?
  • Can a police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a non-cognizable case investigated without authorization be treated as a valid complaint under Section 4(1)(h) of the Code?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqoob vs Suleman1978 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs The State and Another1978 P Cr. L J 76 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 100 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and Another vs Additional Commissioner, Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 546 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Seem Khan vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 284 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rahim vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 21978 PLC 194 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad NAYEEMConvict vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 641 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nasim Agha and Anothers vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 579 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-06
  judicial confessionvoluntariness of confessionpolice custodyidentification paradechance witnesscriminal appealbomb blastprocedural safeguards
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the convictions of the appellants by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for a bomb blast at the Karachi General Post Office. The core legal questions concerned the voluntariness of judicial confessions recorded after an eleven-day period of police custody and the reliability of identification evidence provided by a chance witness. The High Court held that the convictions could not be sustained. The Court ruled that judicial confessions recorded after significant, unexplained delays in police custody, coupled with the Magistrate's failure to adhere to mandatory procedural safeguards—such as informing the accused they would not be returned to police custody and failing to examine them for signs of maltreatment—render such confessions involuntary and inadmissible. Furthermore, the Court established that identification evidence provided by a chance witness, particularly when conducted after a long delay and under circumstances where visibility was poor, lacks evidentiary value. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants due to insufficient, unreliable evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay between an accused's arrest and the recording of a judicial confession render the confession involuntary?
  • Is a judicial confession admissible if the Magistrate fails to inform the accused that they will not be returned to police custody?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of identification evidence provided by a chance witness after a long delay?
  • What are the consequences of a Magistrate failing to examine an accused for signs of physical maltreatment before recording a confession?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mohsin Haidry and Ottterss vs Government of Sind1978 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 2 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 892 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kazim and 3 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 210 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamil vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 725 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State Opponent1978 PLD Karachi 295 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-25
  murderinsanity plealegal insanityburden of proofcriminal liabilityocular testimonymens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who pleaded insanity, was entitled to the protection of Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby negating criminal liability. The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt through consistent ocular testimony. Regarding the plea of insanity, the Court held that the appellant failed to prove that at the time of the offense, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was wrong or contrary to law. The Court emphasized that legal insanity under Section 84 differs from medical insanity; mere eccentricity, lack of motive, or impulsive behavior does not suffice. The burden of proof rests on the accused to establish legal insanity at the precise time of the commission of the offense. The appellant's attempt to flee after the act demonstrated his cognitive awareness of the wrongfulness of his conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of motive for a crime automatically entitle an accused to the defense of insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What is the distinction between medical insanity and legal insanity for the purposes of criminal liability in Pakistan?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when an accused raises a plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an attempt to flee the scene of a crime relevant in determining whether an accused possessed the requisite cognitive faculties to understand the wrongfulness of their act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Hidayatullah and 2 Others1978 P Cr. L J 724 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Haji Muhammad & Sons1978 PLD Karachi 926 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-04
  rent restrictionevictionfunctus officioexecution proceedingsdefault in rent paymentpenal clausestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal concerns the legality of an eviction order passed in execution proceedings. The Rent Controller had dismissed the landlord's eviction application on merits, finding no default by the tenant. However, the Controller simultaneously directed the tenant to pay the difference in rent by a specific date, failing which the tenant would be liable for eviction. Upon the tenant's failure to pay, the successor Rent Controller ordered eviction in execution. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller, after dismissing an eviction application on merits, retains jurisdiction to impose a penal clause resulting in eviction for non-compliance with a payment direction. The Court held that once the main eviction application was dismissed, the Rent Controller became functus officio regarding the eviction claim. The Court established that a direction to pay rent arrears, where the statute does not explicitly prescribe the consequence of non-compliance, is directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, failure to pay such arrears provides a fresh cause of action for a new eviction proceeding but does not authorize automatic eviction through execution of the original dismissed application.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller order the eviction of a tenant in execution proceedings after dismissing the main eviction application on merits?
  • Does the failure to pay rent arrears as directed by a Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 automatically result in eviction?
  • Is a direction by a Rent Controller to pay rent arrears, where the statute specifies no consequence for non-compliance, mandatory or directory?
  • Does a Rent Controller become functus officio after dismissing an eviction application on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq vs Abdul Haque and Another1978 PLD Karachi 898 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-30
  ex parte orderstriking off defenceservice of noticerelationship of landlord and tenantconditional stay orderdefault in rentrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from rent proceedings initiated by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant, Muhammad Ishaq, on the grounds of non-payment of rent and personal requirement. The core legal questions involve the validity of an ex parte rent order and an order striking off the defence passed without service of notice to the appellant or his counsel, the competence of an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte order, and the consequences of a breach of a conditional stay order granted by the appellate court. The Sindh High Court held that passing an ex parte rent order and striking off the defence without notice or proper opportunity of hearing are illegal and void. The Court established that an order refusing to set aside an ex parte order is appealable, and that failure to comply with a condition of a stay order granted during appeal merely vacates the stay rather than warranting the striking off of the tenant's defence under rent laws. The appeal was allowed and the ejectment application remanded for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ex parte rent order and a subsequent order striking off the defence are sustainable when passed without service of notice to the tenant or his counsel?
  • Does an order refusing to set aside an ex parte order of eviction approximate the nature of an eviction order and thereby become appealable?
  • Whether a tenant's failure to comply with a condition attached to a stay order granted by an appellate court results in the striking off of his defence under rent laws or merely vacates the stay?
  • Is a party entitled to notice when a case is transferred suo motu to a transferee court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad IBRAHIM/Accused vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 700 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 868 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State and 4 Others1978 P Cr. L J 837 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Atiq vs THB State1978 P Cr. L J 375 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf and 7 Other vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aqil vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1978 PLD Karachi 649 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-29
  industrial disputeworkman definitionwrit jurisdictionlabour courtstanding ordersdiscretionary reliefindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reversed a Labour Court's decision granting reinstatement to the petitioner. The petitioner, an Incharge of a Printing Section, sought relief under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, claiming status as a "workman" entitled to protections under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core questions were whether the petitioner qualified as a "workman" and whether an order under Section 34 constituted an appealable "award" or a non-appealable "decision." The Court held that the petitioner, engaged in supervisory duties, was not a "workman" under the Standing Orders Ordinance. Furthermore, it ruled that an order under Section 34 is a "decision," not an "award," as it enforces pre-existing rights rather than adjudicating an industrial dispute. Although the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to set aside the order, as doing so would perpetuate an illegal reinstatement. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and will not be used to restore an order that is substantively unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person employed in a supervisory capacity a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does an order passed by a Labour Court under Section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, constitute an 'award' or a 'decision'?
  • Can a High Court refuse to set aside an order passed without jurisdiction if doing so would perpetuate an injustice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 302 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amin and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 200 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram vs Attaullah Khan Rana and Another1978 PLD Karachi 727 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Butt vs Government of Pakistan and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-12
  natural justicedepartmental inquirybiasright to cross-examinationmisconductservice lawIndustrial Relations Ordinanceadequate alternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a railway servant, challenged his removal from service, alleging bias in the inquiry committee and a lack of evidence to support the charges of misconduct. The core legal questions were whether the inquiry was vitiated by the alleged bias of a committee member and whether the denial of the right to cross-examine key witnesses violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court held that the inquiry was fundamentally flawed. The court ruled that an unrepudiated allegation of bias against an inquiry officer, coupled with the reliance on ex parte reports without examining the complainant or witnesses, constituted a clear violation of natural justice. The court emphasized that the burden of proving misconduct lies with the administration, and findings cannot be based on hearsay evidence where the accused is denied the opportunity to cross-examine. Consequently, the court set aside the removal order, rejecting the respondents' argument that the petitioner should have pursued an alternate remedy under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as the violation of natural justice warranted immediate judicial intervention.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unrepudiated allegation of bias against a member of an inquiry committee vitiate the findings of that committee?
  • Is a departmental inquiry valid if it relies on ex parte reports without providing the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant or witnesses?
  • Can a petitioner bypass the remedy under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 when the grievance involves a violation of the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Butt and 2 Other vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan1978 PLD Karachi 90 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-12
  compulsory retirementcivil servantworkmanRailway employeesstatutory interpretationjurisdictionprocedural fairness
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the compulsory retirement of Railway employees. The core legal question was whether the Civil Servants Act, 1973, applied to these employees, thereby authorizing their compulsory retirement, or if their status as "workmen" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, excluded them from that Act's purview. The Court held that the Civil Servants Act, 1973, explicitly excludes persons defined as workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the Factories Act, 1934, from the definition of "civil servants." Consequently, the impugned retirement orders issued under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, were without jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined that even if the Railway Administration possessed independent authority to retire employees under the Railway Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1964, the failure to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements—specifically the report by an appropriate authority and a hearing by a committee—rendered the action legally unsustainable. The principle established is that an authority cannot rely on a statute inapplicable to the class of employees, nor can it bypass mandatory procedural safeguards when exercising administrative powers.

  Questions settled

  • Are Railway employees who qualify as 'workmen' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, excluded from the definition of 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Can an administrative authority justify a compulsory retirement order by citing an inapplicable statute?
  • Does the failure to follow mandatory procedural requirements, such as committee hearings, invalidate a compulsory retirement order issued under the Railway Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdul Majid and 3 Other vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1978 PLD Karachi 931 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Hajiani vs Al Hilal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and 21978 PLD Karachi 848 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-22
  statutory noticerejection of plaintKarachi Development Authorityelectric sub-stationcivil revisiondeclaratory injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges the dismissal of a suit for a declaratory injunction, where the trial court rejected the plaint for want of the mandatory one-month notice required under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. The plaintiff sought to restrain the construction of an electric sub-station, arguing that such construction was not a function of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) and thus did not trigger the notice requirement. The court held that the KDA possesses the authority to provide for lighting and electricity supply within its development schemes under Article 29 of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. Consequently, the construction of an electric sub-station, even if executed by a third party under a No-Objection Certificate from the KDA, constitutes an act done under the authority or direction of the KDA. The court affirmed that the suit was barred by the failure to serve the statutory notice required by Article 131, as the act in question fell within the purview of the KDA's powers.

  Questions settled

  • Is the construction of an electric sub-station a function falling within the powers of the Karachi Development Authority under the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957?
  • Does the requirement of notice under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, apply to acts performed by third parties under a No-Objection Certificate issued by the Authority?
  • Can a suit be maintained against the Karachi Development Authority or those acting under its authority without the expiration of one month from the delivery of a written notice as prescribed by Article 131?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Motibai Roman Irani and 3 Other vs Abbasbhoy Moosaji (through His Legal Rfpresen Tatives )1978 PLD Karachi 851 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khatija Bai vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 395 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jameela vs Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 224 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Roshan D. Minwalla vs The Karachi Development Authority, Karachi and Another1978 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-22Read full judgment →
• MRS. Daphne Joseph vs Malik Eric Roshan Khan1978 PLD Karachi 336 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-18
  Divorce Act 1869West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964Christian divorceterritorial jurisdictionFamily Courts Rulesprovincial and central law inconsistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge, Karachi, dismissing a divorce petition filed by a Christian wife under section 10 of the Divorce Act of 1869 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant contended that jurisdiction was available under the proviso to rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, arguing that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, applied to Christians as well as Muslims and served as a procedural statute. The core legal question was whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, overrides or supersedes the provisions of the central Divorce Act of 1869 regarding Christian marriages and divorces. The Sindh High Court held that while the Family Courts Act is not exclusively applicable to Muslims, it cannot curtail or exclude the exhaustive provisions of the central Divorce Act of 1869, which specifically governs persons professing the Christian religion. Furthermore, under Article 134 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962, a provincial law cannot be inconsistent with a central law. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, applies exclusively to Muslims or includes persons professing the Christian religion?
  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, exclude the application of the central Divorce Act of 1869 to Christians?
  • How does Article 134 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962 apply in case of an inconsistency between a provincial law and a central law?
  Read full judgment →
• Motherwell Bridge Contracting & Trading Co. Ltd. vs Riaz Ali Khan Etc.1978 PLD Karachi 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1966-03-16
  appointment of receiverarbitration agreementprima facie casejoint venturecreditor rightsdiscretionary powerstatus quo ante
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three applications for the appointment of a receiver under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed in the context of a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The plaintiff and defendants sought the appointment of specific individuals as receivers to wind up joint venture affairs, while creditors filed a separate application alleging collusion between the parties to defeat creditor claims and requesting an independent receiver. The core legal question was whether the court should appoint a receiver under the circumstances, particularly where the parties insisted on their own nominees and failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of wastage or necessity. The Court held that the appointment of a receiver is an extraordinary remedy requiring the demonstration of a prima facie case and that it is 'just and convenient' to do so. The Court emphasized that a receiver must be disinterested and independent. Finding that the parties failed to establish a prima facie case or necessity, and noting the lack of allegations of wastage, the Court dismissed all applications.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court bound to appoint a receiver of the parties' choice if they reach an agreement?
  • Does the appointment of a receiver require a showing of a prima facie case and wastage of property?
  • Can a court appoint a receiver suo motu or upon the application of a third party interested in the suit property?
  • Is the appointment of a receiver considered the harshest remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mot. Shaheda and 2 Other vs Imamuddin1978 PLD Karachi 472 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
• Moosa Hassan Amlani vs Government of Pakistan Ahd 4 Other1978 PLD Karachi 883 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mom Zamindar Corporation Lto., Karachi vs QM Muhammad Taqi1978 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohammadre-Rolling Mills. Karachi and 3 Other vs Shamsuddin and 21978 PLD Karachi 356 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Umar vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sind1978 PLD Karachi 282 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Saleem Abdull Ah Nazkani and Another s vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 625 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-08Read full judgment →
• Miss Mehrun Nissa Baloch vs Appellate Committee, Karachi and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 214 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-15
  Permanent Residence CertificatePRCSind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971medical college admissionquota systemdistrict quotadomicile certificateconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the cancellation of their Permanent Residence Certificates (PRCs) for Thatta District by the Appellate Committee under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. The petitioners contended that satisfying the criteria of Rule 6 (being born in Sindh with a father domiciled in Sindh) automatically entitled them to a PRC for Thatta District, particularly as their fathers held domicile certificates specifying Thatta District. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It held that Rule 6 merely sets out pre-conditions for eligibility and does not automatically entitle an applicant to a PRC for a specific district. Under Rules 2, 4, and 5, the District Magistrate and Appellate Committee must independently determine as a factual matter whether the applicant is a permanent resident of that specific district. Furthermore, a domicile certificate under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 pertains to Pakistan as a whole, and any local district mentioned therein is merely evidentiary, not conclusive.

  Questions settled

  • Does meeting the general eligibility criteria of Rule 6 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971 automatically entitle an applicant to a Permanent Residence Certificate for a specific district?
  • Does a domicile certificate issued under Section 17 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 conclusively establish an applicant's permanent residence in a specific district for medical college admissions?
  • Can the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution interfere with factual findings made by an Appellate Committee regarding permanent residence status under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules 1971?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Majida Tabassum vs Government of Sind and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 222 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-10Read full judgment →
• Miss Fozia Nasir vs Principal and Chairman, Selection Board for1978 PLD Karachi 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-05Read full judgment →
• Miss F. Dubash vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and Another1978 PLC 551 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-14Read full judgment →
• Miss Anis Kubra And Another vs Province of Sind and Other1978 PLD Karachi 556 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Iqbal vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 264 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-13Read full judgment →
• Miral vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 161 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06
  quashment of proceedingspreventive detentionhabitual offendersurety bondabuse of processpolice witnessesevidence of general repute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed under Sections 435, 439, and 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of preventive proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dadu. The applicant was remanded to custody following an order under Section 112 without a separate emergency order under Section 117(3), on vague police allegations, with proceedings remaining pending for nearly three years without examining a single witness. The High Court considered whether proceedings under Section 110 could be sustained where the police report lacks specific instances, where the person proceeded against was remanded without compliance with Section 117(3), and where the statutory period in the Section 112 order had expired. The High Court allowed the revision and quashed the proceedings, holding that a person under Chapter VIII is not an accused and cannot be remanded without a reasoned order under Section 117(3), that general police allegations without independent local witnesses cannot justify proceedings, and that no proceedings can continue after the expiry of the period specified in the Section 112 order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person proceeded against under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be remanded to custody without an order recording reasons under Section 117(3)?
  • Are vague and stereotyped allegations in a police report without specific instances sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can evidence of general repute in proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be established solely by the testimony of police officers without local witnesses?
  • Can proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 continue after the expiry of the time period specified in the preliminary order passed under Section 112?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Haji Ghulam Murtaza Khan Talpur and Another vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad1978 PLD Karachi 919 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mir Ghulam Abbas Khan Talpur vs The State Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 125 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zakaria Bros., Karachi vs Messrs Hashwani Sales & Service S.1978 PLD Karachi 581 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Valika Textile Mills Ltd. vs Chairman, Ist Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 952 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Umer Khan vs Chief Engineer, Roads & Buildings1978 PLD Karachi 658 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tanweer Textile Mills Ltd., Sanghar vs Ghulam Sarwar and 21978 PLD Karachi 842 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Standard Printing Presss vs Sind Employees' Social Security1978 PLD Karachi 945 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-10
  social securitystatutory tribunalappellate jurisdictionvires of notificationconstitutional jurisdictionequal protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 arose from a challenge to a Gazette Notification applying the Ordinance to the appellant's printing press establishment. The appellant contended that the notification was discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution and ultra vires Section 1(3) of the Ordinance, arguing that the law could only be applied to entire classes of establishments rather than individual units. The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Social Security Court to determine the vires of the notification. The High Court held that statutory tribunals of limited jurisdiction, such as the Social Security Institution and the Social Security Court, must function strictly within their allotted statutory spheres and lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional questions or the validity of notifications. Since an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, the High Court's appellate jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Ordinance is subject to the same limitations. Consequently, the constitutional and vires challenges could not be decided in this appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a statutory tribunal of limited jurisdiction have the power to adjudicate the constitutional validity or vires of a government notification?
  • Is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under a special statute limited by the same jurisdictional boundaries that govern the original statutory forum?
  • Does the word 'classes' in Section 1(3) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965 restrict the government from applying the Ordinance to individual establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Samina Ltd., Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Islamabad1978 PLD Karachi 818 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Paper Corporation MN Karachi-- Petitioner vs The1978 PLD Karachi 437 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Paper Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs The Provincial1978 PLC 562 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 441 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Ismail & Co. Ltd. vs Karachi Port Trust, KarachiPLD 1978 Karachi E92 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mercantile Fire & General Insurance Co., of Pakistan Ltd..1978 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-14
  foreign jurisdiction clausebill of ladingstay of proceedingsarbitration agreementshort landing of cargoburden of proofcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for recovery of damages for short-landed cargo filed against a foreign shipping company and its local agents. The core legal question was whether the court should stay the proceedings in favor of a foreign jurisdiction clause contained in the Bill of Lading, which mandated that disputes be resolved in the carrier's principal place of business. The court held that it possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed the application for a stay. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court established that foreign jurisdiction clauses do not automatically oust municipal court jurisdiction. The burden of proof lies upon the party seeking to enforce such a clause to demonstrate that it is just and equitable to bind the parties to that forum. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the defendants had waived their right to seek a stay by filing a written statement prior to making the application, violating the procedural requirements of the Arbitration Act 1940. Consequently, the court proceeded with the suit, prioritizing the convenience of parties and witnesses.

  Questions settled

  • Does a foreign jurisdiction clause in a Bill of Lading automatically oust the jurisdiction of municipal courts?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to justify staying proceedings in favor of a foreign jurisdiction clause?
  • Does the filing of a written statement before applying for a stay of proceedings preclude a defendant from invoking an arbitration clause under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →