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.

• Anwar S. Muhammad Ali vs Abdullah S. Mohomed Ali and 4 Other1973 PLD Karachi 615 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ansar Ahmad vs Karachi Development Authority through Its1973 PLD Karachi 302 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-13Read full judgment →
• Amirzada and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 211 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ameen Tareen vs The State Opponent1973 PLD Karachi 648 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-14Read full judgment →
• Allah Din vs Raja Ahmed Ali and 3 Others---Respondent1973 P Cr. L J 563 · Sindh High Court · 1972-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State1973 PLD Karachi 427 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-29Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 8 Other vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and 21973 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Mahmood vs The State1973 PCr.LJ 913 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain Khan vs The Secretary to the Government of Pakistan1973 PLD Karachi 718 · Sindh High Court · 1973-06-18Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 601 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Corporation vs Messrs the International Food Grain and Oil1973 PLD Karachi 361 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-16
  breach of warrantydiminution of priceSale of Goodssub-salemeasure of damagesLetters Patent Appealrecovery of price
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for the recovery of Rs. 37,898-3-3, representing the unpaid balance for rice supplied to the defendants. The defendants contended that the rice was of inferior quality and did not conform to the specifications required by the Government of Pakistan, for whom the rice was ultimately purchased, leading to rejection and price deductions. The High Court analyzed the terms of the oral contract, the quality of the goods, and the applicability of the Sale of Goods Act. The Court held that the plaintiffs were aware of the sub-sale to the Government and had agreed to supply rice conforming to Government specifications. Consequently, the supply of inferior rice constituted a breach of warranty. The Court ruled that under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act, the buyer is entitled to set up a breach of warranty in diminution of the price even without filing a counter-claim. Applying Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872, the Court calculated the diminution of price based on the actual loss of profit suffered by the defendants and decreed the suit in part.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a buyer who has accepted goods can set up a breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price as a defense in a suit for recovery of the price?
  • Does the rule of caveat emptor apply when a buyer places an order for supply and trusts the judgment of the seller for a specific known purpose?
  • What is the measure of damages or diminution of price under Section 73 of the Contract Act 1872 when the seller has knowledge of an intended sub-sale by the buyer?
  • Can a buyer plead diminution of price under Section 59 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 without filing a formal counter-claim or cross-suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam and 3 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 831 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-21Read full judgment →
• Aboo Noor Muhammad vs General Iron & Steel Works Ltd., Karachi S1973 PLD Karachi 234 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-09
  temporary injunctionspecific performancecommercial contractbalance of convenienceprima facie caseirreparable lossrescission of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from disposing of a quantity of M.S. scrap iron, effectively seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of goods. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and a balance of convenience in their favor to justify the grant of a temporary injunction. The Court held that the application for a temporary injunction should be declined. The ratio decidendi is that where a plaintiff claims damages in the alternative, specific performance is not the appropriate remedy, and the plaintiff fails to demonstrate irreparable loss. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in commercial contracts, the failure to perform within the stipulated time, coupled with the acceptance of a returned deposit, suggests the contract was treated as rescinded. The key principles laid down are that a temporary injunction will not be granted if the plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy in damages, if the balance of convenience favors the defendant, and if the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a temporary injunction be granted when the plaintiff has an alternative claim for damages?
  • Does the acceptance of a returned deposit after the expiry of a contract period indicate that the contract was mutually rescinded?
  • Is a temporary injunction appropriate when it would effectively decide the entire suit in favor of the plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdus Salam and 2 Other vs Crown Radio Corporation, Karachi1973 PLD Karachi 24 · Sindh High Court · 1972-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Qureshi vs Chief Judge, Small Causes Court &1973 PLD Karachi 294 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak and 3 Others vs State Bank of Pakistan through Its1973 P Cr. L J 884 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasool and 6 vs Province of Sind through the Secretary, Forest Department, Government Op Sind, Karachi and 20 Other Opponents1973 PLD Karachi 606 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman and 4 Other vs Iftikhar Ahmed1973 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 887 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabar and Another vs Ahmad Jan1973 PLD Karachi 289 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-20
  trademark infringementinterim injunctionunwary purchaser testpassing offregistered trade markbalance of convenienceprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous appeal challenged an interim injunction granted by the District Judge, restraining the appellants from infringing the respondent's registered trademark, "Koh-i-Noor Beedi No. 505." The core legal question concerned whether the appellants' use of a similar mark, "Kooh-i-Soor Biti No. 506," constituted infringement and warranted injunctive relief. The Court held that the respondent established a strong prima facie case, as the wrappers were identical in design, color scheme, and name, creating a high probability of deceiving unwary purchasers. The Court affirmed that the "unwary purchaser" test remains the standard for determining infringement. Furthermore, the Court ruled that when a strong prima facie case of infringement is established, the balance of convenience argument—claiming potential financial ruin for the infringer—cannot prevail, as a party cannot benefit from their own fraud. Additionally, the Court clarified that the mere pendency of a trademark registration application by the appellants does not preclude the registered proprietor from enforcing their exclusive rights under the law. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim injunction was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'unwary purchaser' test remain the valid criterion for determining trademark infringement?
  • Can a defendant rely on the balance of convenience to defeat an injunction when a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement is established?
  • Does the pendency of a trademark registration application by an alleged infringer bar the registered proprietor from seeking an injunction against infringement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haque vs The State and ANOTHERs1973 P Cr. L J 945 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan vs The District Magistrate, Larkana and 2 Other1973 PLD Karachi 344 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-30
  preventive detentionmaintenance of public orderwrit jurisdictionalternative remedyvague groundspast conductmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the preventive detention of a detenu under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960. The petitioner argued that the detention was invalid due to the non-service of the original detention order, the vagueness of the grounds of detention, and alleged malice in fact. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the non-service of the physical order does not invalidate detention if the detenu is apprised of the authority under which they are held. The Court ruled that while preventive detention cannot be punitive, a detenu's past conduct is a valid basis for inferring a reasonable probability of future prejudicial activity. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the grounds of detention were sufficiently factual to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. Crucially, the Court held that the statutory option to make a representation to the government under Section 3(6-a) of the Ordinance does not constitute an "adequate" alternative remedy to bar constitutional writ jurisdiction, as the provision does not impose a mandatory duty on the government to consider it.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-service of a physical copy of a detention order invalidate the detention if the detenu is apprised of the authority under which they are held?
  • Can the past conduct of a person be legally used as the basis for a detaining authority's satisfaction to order preventive detention?
  • Does the statutory right to make a representation to the government constitute an adequate alternative remedy so as to bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction under the Constitution?
  • What is the test for determining whether the grounds of detention communicated to a detenu are sufficiently definite to satisfy statutory requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan Jatoi vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-25
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailharassmentjurisdictionsessions courtreasonable groundsmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed by a Member of the National Assembly seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was subsequently treated as a murder case. The applicant contended that the prosecution was part of a series of politically motivated actions intended to harass him, pointing to his prior successive arrests and detentions. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the High Court should not bypass the Court of Session, that the application was premature, and that judicial confessions of co-accused and strong motive existed. The High Court observed that while it normally requires applicants to approach the Court of Session first, special circumstances existed here as the police had surrounded the High Court to prevent the applicant's entry. Finding that the material currently available did not constitute reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty of a non-bailable capital offence, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, reserving the State's right to apply for cancellation if fresh evidence of tampering or abscondance emerged.

  Questions settled

  • Under what exceptional circumstances can the High Court directly entertain an application for pre-arrest bail without the applicant first approaching the Court of Session?
  • What standard of proof or material must be present for a court to find 'reasonable grounds' to deny bail in offences punishable with death or transportation?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the police attempt to block an applicant's physical access to the court premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Jatoi vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 514 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Ghulam Kadir Memon and Another1973 P Cr. L J 809 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafiz and Another vs Muzaffar Karim1973 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez Khan vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 797 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghayoor Khan and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 119 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Khan vs Messrs Pakistan Cables Ltd., Karachi and 2 Others1973 PLC 16 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Khan vs Messrs Pakistan Cables Ltd., Karachi and 2 Other1973 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiquar Ali vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 756 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-04Read full judgment →
• Wasi Ahmad Rizvi vs Government of Pakistan and 3 Other1972 PLD Karachi 589 · Sindh High Court · 1972-06-02Read full judgment →
• Tolomal and 6 Other vs Deputy Commissioner and Additional1972 PLD Karachi 116 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-24Read full judgment →
• The State vs Rashid Ahmed1972 PLD Karachi 51 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-26Read full judgment →
• The State vs Pario1972 P Cr. L J 915 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nakulram and Anotmut1972 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-11Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hassan And 5 Others1972 P Cr. L J 107 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mahmood Khan And Another1972 P Cr. L J 240 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-26Read full judgment →
• The State vs Imamuddin And 4 Others1972 P Cr. L J 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Darshan Lal and Another1972 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-22Read full judgment →
• The State vs Bashir Ahmad And Another1972 P Cr. L J 561 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• The State vs Amir Ali And Another1972 P Cr. L J 429 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-09Read full judgment →
• The Provincial Industrial Development Corporation vs Messrs Sh.1972 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-24Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi-Applicant vs Messrs1972 PTD 366 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Massxs Platinum Jubilee1972 PLD Karachi 331 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tanzeem-E-Mulazamin Baldiyaand 2 Others vs Government of West1972 PLC 91 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabir Ali vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 826 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Nizamuddin vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 678 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-24
  interim custodysupardginamarevision applicationownership disputecase propertycriminal procedurediscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application arises from a dispute over the interim custody of a taxi (supardginama) pending criminal proceedings. The petitioner, claiming ownership of the vehicle, challenged a Magistrate's order that had granted possession to the complainant, respondent No. 2, who had alleged theft. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate exercised proper discretion under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in awarding custody to a complainant who lacked an ostensible claim to the property, while the petitioner produced documentation supporting his registered ownership. The High Court held that the Magistrate's order was unjustified as the complainant had no legal claim to the vehicle, whereas the petitioner provided evidence of ownership, including registration and permit documents. The Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that interim custody should generally follow legal title unless compelling reasons exist otherwise. The principle laid down is that while interim custody of case property is discretionary, it must be exercised judiciously, favoring the party with the prima facie superior legal title, while simultaneously safeguarding the interests of other potential claimants through adequate security bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Magistrate have the discretion to grant interim custody of case property to a complainant who lacks an ostensible claim of ownership?
  • Is the registered owner of a vehicle entitled to interim possession of the vehicle pending the outcome of criminal proceedings?
  • Can a court impose a bank guarantee as a condition for granting interim custody of property to a claimant?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Najmul Kibria vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 635 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 435 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sultan Textile Mills (Karachi) Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad Yousuf1972 PLD Karachi 226 · Sindh High Court
  Arbitration Actappointment of arbitratorpublic policySection 23 Contract Actillegal contractLetters Patent Appealtechnical consultancy agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal was filed against a Single Bench order appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940. The dispute arose from a consultancy agreement under which the respondent provided professional and technical assistance to obtain government sanction and cancel an adverse transfer order for a textile processing plant. The appellant resisted arbitration, contending that the agreement was void under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872 for being opposed to public policy, alleging it was meant to influence government officials for monetary gain. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appointment of the arbitrator. The Court held that the contract was ex facie valid in law and that illegality cannot be presumed merely because an agent has status, skill, or influence to liaise with government departments. Whether a contract or its performance violates public policy is a mixed question of law and fact requiring concrete proof of illegal performance, which the appellant failed to establish.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement engaging a technical consultant to obtain government approvals and sanctions is void as opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Whether illegality in the performance of an ex facie valid contract can be presumed merely from the status or influence of an agent without factual proof?
  • Is the question of whether a contract or its performance violates public policy a pure question of law or a mixed question of law and fact?
  • Can a court declare a contract void on the ground of public policy in the absence of necessary pleadings and evidence when the contract is not illegal on its face?
  Read full judgment →
• State Dil Murad And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 154 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-10Read full judgment →
• Sir E. H. Jaffer & Sons Ltd. vs Messrs Alijoo1972 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-11Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali Khan and Another vs Settlement Commissioner, Karachi1972 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-14Read full judgment →
• Shahid Khalil vs Mum Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1972 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1963-11-27Read full judgment →
• Shahenshah Shahalam Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd, Karachi and Another vs House Building Finance Corporation1972 PLD Karachi 178 · Sindh High Court
  Letters Patent appealHouse Building Finance Corporationloan recallbreach of contractnovationwaiverestoppelcommercial indulgence
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing five suits filed by cooperative housing societies against the House Building Finance Corporation. The appellant societies had obtained loans from the respondent Corporation for constructing flats, but committed fundamental breaches by failing to purchase land as agreed until loan portions were received, delaying construction, and diverting loan funds to private business purposes. Consequently, the Corporation recalled the loans under Section 29 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952. The appellants argued that a subsequent letter from the Corporation's General Manager amounted to a novation of the contract, or alternatively that the Corporation had waived the breaches. The court held that the letter did not constitute a novation and was unauthorized and spurious, having been issued without board approval by an official who later joined the appellants' employment. The court further held that waiver and estoppel were neither raised at trial nor established by the evidence, as the Corporation's delay in enforcing its rights constituted mere commercial indulgence rather than an abandonment of rights. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unauthorized letter issued by an employee of a statutory corporation can effect a novation of a loan contract without the approval of the Board of Directors?
  • Can a plea of waiver and estoppel be raised for the first time in appellate proceedings when it is a mixed question of fact and law not agitated at trial?
  • Do mere acts of indulgence by a creditor in commercial agreements amount to a waiver of legal rights or establish an estoppel?
  • Whether the diversion of housing construction loan funds to private business purposes justifies the recall of the loan by the House Building Finance Corporation?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahan And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 85 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali Khan and 2 Other vs Peer Bux G. Mahar1972 PLD Karachi 220 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-27
  ejectmentwilful defaultRent Controller discretionlump sum rent acceptancestatutory tenancysecond appealhabitual acceptance of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under Section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 arose from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed under Section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance against the respondent tenant. The appellants contended that the respondent committed default in paying rent and argued that the statutory provision does not require 'wilful default', meaning the Rent Controller lacked discretion to refuse an eviction order once non-payment within the statutory period was established. The Sindh High Court examined Section 13(2)(i) and held that the word 'may' intentionally vests the Rent Controller with judicial discretion to refuse ejectment even where default is established, provided good grounds exist to prevent grave hardship. The Court affirmed the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts that the landlords were in the habit of periodically accepting arrears of rent in lump sum. Consequently, the High Court held that the lower courts' discretion in refusing eviction was exercised judicially and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the word 'may' in Section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 confer judicial discretion on the Rent Controller to refuse an eviction order even after non-payment of rent is established?
  • Is habitual acceptance of accumulated rent in lump sum by a landlord a valid ground for exercising discretion against ordering the ejectment of a tenant for default?
  • Does Section 13(2)(i) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 make an eviction order mandatory upon proof of non-payment of rent within the statutory period?
  Read full judgment →
• Saindad And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1233 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-27Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Abdul Hanna N vs Assistant Director, Immigration and1972 PLD Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-11Read full judgment →
• Sadruddin Alias Sadroo vs Abdul Khaliq And Another1972 P Cr. L J 278 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-21Read full judgment →
• Sabir Masih vs The State1972 PCr. L J 1186 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-30Read full judgment →
• Ranjho And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. LJ 768 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-11Read full judgment →
• Rahimullah vs District Judge and Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and Another1972 PLD Karachi 60 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-06Read full judgment →
• R.Photo vs Muhammad Khan and 6 Other1972 PLD Karachi 360 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan through the Secretary, Irrigation, Communication & Works Department, Lahore and 2 Other vs Allah Ditta1972 PLD Karachi 8 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-04
  suit for accountsarbitrary valuationcourt feesburden of proofcontractor claimextra workcivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the First Class Sub-Judge, Hyderabad, which decreed the respondent-contractor's suit for recovery of money for extra and additional work done under a contract. The core legal questions involved whether a plaintiff can arbitrarily value a claim for accounts and whether an agent or a contracting party can maintain a suit for accounts against a principal or employer when the exact sum claimed is known. The Sindh High Court held that a plaintiff cannot arbitrarily value a claim for accounts or declaratory relief, and that a suit for accounts is an equitable remedy not available on a purely contractual relationship unless a special fiduciary relationship like agency exists, and even then, only in exceptional circumstances where the exact sum is unknown. Since the respondent was fully aware of the details of his claim and failed to produce primary documentary evidence such as account books, vouchers, or receipts to prove the extra expenditure, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment, dismissed the respondent's suit, and allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff value a claim for accounts or declaratory relief arbitrarily for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction?
  • When is a suit for accounts maintainable between contracting parties or between an agent and a principal?
  • Does a failure by a party to produce primary documentary evidence such as account books and vouchers warrant an adverse inference against that party?
  • Can an agent maintain a suit for accounts against their principal when the exact sum claimed is fully known to the agent?
  Read full judgment →
• Popular Industries Commercial Agencies, Khairpur vs Khairpur Textile1972 PLD Karachi 617 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-17Read full judgment →
• Pirano vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 165 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-23
  criminal appealunlicensed armsconvictionexamination of accusedarms ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 13-E of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment for possession of an unlicensed gun. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained when the prosecution failed to demand the production of a licence and omitted to put incriminating questions regarding the absence of a licence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that keeping a gun is not an offence by itself unless the person in possession fails to produce a licence upon demand, and that any circumstance weighing with the court for determining guilt must be put to the accused for an explanation. The court laid down the principle that failure to question the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the lack of a licence vitiates the conviction, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the mere possession of a gun an offence under the law without proof of the absence of a licence?
  • Whether failure to question the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the lack of a licence renders a conviction unsustainable?
  • Must the prosecution demand the production of a licence before a person can be penalized for possessing an unlicensed weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Abdul Hamid vs Nabi Baksh And 9 Others1972 P Cr. L J 865 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Patricia Anne Patel vs Gerald Cowling Patel1972 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-11
  dissolution of marriageDivorce Act 1869confirmation of decreeprincipal civil Court of original jurisdictionDistrict Court Karachipecuniary jurisdictionadulterydesertion
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference before the High Court of Sindh concerned the confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 17 of the Divorce Act 1869, granted to a Christian wife by the Additional District Judge, Karachi. A preliminary jurisdictional question arose regarding whether the District Court of Karachi possessed competence as the 'principal civil Court of original jurisdiction' under Section 3 of the Divorce Act 1869, given its limited pecuniary jurisdiction under local enactments. Analyzing the legislative history of the Sind Courts Act 1926, the Karachi Courts Order 1956, and the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance 1962, the High Court held that within the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction (and for matters incapable of pecuniary valuation, such as a plain divorce petition), the District Court of Karachi functions as the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction. On the merits, finding uncontradicted evidence of desertion and adultery without collusion, the High Court confirmed the decree dissolving the marriage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the District Court of Karachi constitute the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction for entertaining divorce petitions under Section 10 of the Divorce Act 1869 despite limits on its pecuniary jurisdiction?
  • Can an omission in a statute designating a court as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction be resolved by literal construction and examining statutory context?
  • Which court has original civil jurisdiction over divorce petitions under the Divorce Act 1869 in Karachi when no specific pecuniary valuation is attached to the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• PLD 1958 Lah. 4,68 K [Karachi] Abdul Wahid And 3 Others--Appellants vs1972 P Cr. L J 250 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 614 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-16Read full judgment →
• Nook Nabi Agha vs The StatePLD. 1972 Karachi 292 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nawaz Ali Shah vs Government of West Pakistan and 2 Othm1972 PLD Karachi 483 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-15Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din Alias Baboo vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 712 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-25Read full judgment →
• Nariman M. Postwala Ands vs Labour Officer and Inspector of Factories, Karachi and 5 Other1972 PLC 205 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-27Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 933 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Akhgar vs Daraya Minwala And Another1972 P Cr. L J 1098 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-31Read full judgment →
• Muniruddin Qidwai and 2 Other vs Karachi Development Authority and Another1972 PLD Karachi 521 · Sindh High Court · 1972-04-13Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain vs Superintending Engineer, Agriculture Machinery1972 PLC 247 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mujtaba Hussain vs Mst. Ather Jeiian And Another1972 P Cr. L J 351 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs The S Fate and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 181 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 166 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 58 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Gazdar vs Additional Commissioner, Karachi and 31972 PLD Karachi 119 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-25
  constitutional petitionmunicipal administrationcontrolling authoritydelegation of powersconsent ordercompromisewrit jurisdictionsuppression of facts
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner regarding the lease of a municipal plot. The petitioner's father held a temporary lease from the Municipal Corporation, and the Corporation later passed a resolution recommending a 99-year lease of the plot to the petitioner, which required approval from the Commissioner as the Controlling Authority under the West Pakistan Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal, which the Commissioner transferred to the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner decided the appeal based on a compromise among the parties. The High Court held that the Commissioner, acting as the Controlling Authority under Section 111 of the Ordinance, alone had the power to examine the resolution, and this power could not be delegated to the Additional Commissioner via appeal rules, as a statute prevails over rules. However, the Court ruled that the petitioner was disentitled to discretionary relief under Article 98 of the Constitution because the petitioner had consented to the compromise order before the Additional Commissioner, subsequently abandoned the jurisdictional objection, and suppressed material facts in the writ petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Controlling Authority under Section 111 of the West Pakistan Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 can delegate its power of examining a municipal committee resolution to the Additional Commissioner?
  • Does a resolution passed by a Municipal Corporation recommending a lease amount to an appealable order under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Appeals) Rules, 1960?
  • Is a party who consented to an agreed decision before a tribunal estopped from challenging that order under Article 98 of the Constitution?
  • Whether the suppression of the fact that an impugned order was passed by consent disentitles a petitioner to discretionary writ relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Juman Patole And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 885 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 661 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Patel vs Gaffar Wali Muhammad and Other1972 PLD Karachi 421 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-21
  rent restrictionstatutory interpretationproperty taxlandlord and tenantproviso constructionfair rentfiscal burden
  Summary & questions settled

  These Letters Patent Appeals concern the interpretation of Section 9 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, specifically regarding a landlord's right to recover increased property taxes from tenants. The core legal question was whether the proviso to Section 9, which limits rent increases to one-half of the tax burden, applies to both fresh taxes and increases in existing taxes, or only to the former. The Court held that the landlord is entitled to recover the full amount of the increase in existing taxes. The ratio decidendi is that the proviso creates two distinct contingencies; the limitation of 'one-half' applies explicitly only to the first contingency (fresh taxes). The absence of the qualifying phrase 'one-half of' in the second part of the proviso signifies a clear legislative intent to allow full reimbursement for increases in existing fiscal burdens. Furthermore, the Court established that where statutory language is plain, the preamble cannot be used to create ambiguity or restrict the text, and courts must avoid interpretations that render statutory words surplusage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 9 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, limit a landlord's recovery to one-half of the increase in existing taxes?
  • Can the preamble of a statute be used to override the plain language of a specific section?
  • Does the omission of a qualifying phrase in the second part of a proviso indicate a different legislative intent compared to the first part?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 3 Other vs Additional District Judge and Ex1972 PLD Karachi 632 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux And 8 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 195 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bhai and Another vs The State1972 PLD Karachi 88 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asif vs The State1972 PCr. LJ 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aminparacha vs Thb State Bank. of Pakistan1972 P Cr. L J 397 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akib Pali vs Madad Ali and 2 Other1972 PLD Karachi 433 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab vs Ghafoor Textile, Mills Ltd., Karachi1972 PLD Karachi 438 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zaibun Nisa vs Muhammad Mozammil1972 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court
  Family Courtguardianshipchild custodyforum of appealrevisional jurisdictiondeeming clauseprocedural lawsubstantive right of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference before a Full Bench of the High Court arose out of conflicting views regarding the appellate forum and revisional supervisory jurisdiction applicable to orders passed by Family Courts in guardianship matters under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The primary questions referred were whether an appeal lies from a decision of a Family Court presided over by a judge below the rank of a District Judge in guardianship disputes and to which forum, and whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, lies against such orders.

  The High Court held that under Section 14(1)(b) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, an appeal against a decision or decree of a Family Court presided over by a Civil Judge lies to the District Court, not the High Court. Furthermore, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is inapplicable due to the express statutory exclusion under Section 17. The Court established that the deeming clause and procedural adoption in Section 25 relate purely to trial procedure and cannot expand the definition of 'procedure' to encompass substantive rights of appeal or revision.

  Questions settled

  • To which forum does an appeal lie from a decision of a Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, when the presiding Judge is not a District Judge or of equivalent rank?
  • Does the deeming provision in Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, confer the rights of appeal and revision provided under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890?
  • Does the term 'procedure' in Section 25 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, include the substantive rights of appeal and revision?
  • Is an order of a Family Court subject to the supervisory revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saddiqunnisa-Paintiff vs Khan Sahib Agha Muhammad Sultan Mirza1972 PLD Karachi 103 · Sindh High Court · 1969-04-03
  limitationcondonation of delaydeficiency of court-feesspecific performancedamagesbreach of contractconsequential relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an appeal against a Single Judge judgment dismissing a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell immovable property valued at Rs. 66,000, or in the alternative, damages of Rs. 33,000. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was barred by time. When initially filed, the appeal carried nominal court fees of Rs. 4, and after office objections, the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay and paid additional court fees on an amended valuation of Rs. 10,000, abandoning the claim for specific performance. The High Court considered the effect of deficient court fees on the period of limitation, as well as the maintainability of a suit for damages without seeking specific performance. The Court held that an appeal is not properly instituted until full court fees are paid, rendering the appeal barred by 103 days without any adequate explanation or valid grounds for condonation. Additionally, abandoning specific performance while seeking damages violated Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • From what date is an appeal deemed to be properly instituted when the initial memorandum of appeal is presented with deficient court fees?
  • Whether illness and old age of an appellant constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay when steps for filing the appeal were otherwise actively taken?
  • Can a party claim damages for breach of contract without seeking the consequential relief of specific performance under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rajbai And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janat and 9 Othms vs Pir Bux1972 PLD Karachi 336 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hakimzadi vs Nawaz Ali1972 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-23Read full judgment →