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.

• The State vs Muzaffar Ali and 2 Other1970 PLD Karachi 457 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-26Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Moosa and 4 Other Opponents1970 PLD Karachi 386 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-09
  previous acquittalauterfois acquitsanction for prosecutiontampering with public recordsdistinct offencecriminal revisiondischarge of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application filed by the State challenged the order of the Special Judge-cum-Enquiry Officer, Hyderabad, discharging five respondents in a special case involving offences under sections 419, 420, 467, and 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The trial court had discharged certain respondents on the ground of previous acquittal under section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and others due to defective sanction. The core legal questions involved whether a subsequent distinct offence of tampering with official records is barred by a previous acquittal for forgery, and whether the prosecution sanction was legally defective for omitting exact dates and times. The Sindh High Court held that the subsequent offence constituted a distinct transaction not barred by section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the prosecution sanction was valid and legally sufficient. The revision application was allowed, the discharge order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous acquittal for forgery bar a subsequent prosecution for tampering with official records relating to the same matter under section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Is a prosecution sanction rendered invalid merely because it omits the exact date and place of the alleged offence?
  • Can a trial court discharge an accused on the ground of a defective sanction without providing the prosecution an opportunity to prove the validity of the sanction by extraneous evidence?
  • Does delay in criminal proceedings constitute a sufficient ground to prevent the trial of an accused for serious offences?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mirza Mohiuddin Ahmed Aid Others1970 P Cr. L J 131 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-23Read full judgment →
• The State vs Khan Afsar and Others1970 P Cr. LJ 64 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Hadi Bux1970 PLD Karachi 737 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-30Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Hamid and Another1970 P Cr. L J 384 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-01
  Section 540 CrPCrecall of witnesscourt witnesscriminal trialhandwriting expertfilling gaps in prosecutionjust decision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision reference arose from an order by a Magistrate in a case under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the Magistrate directed the recall of a prosecution witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to provide thumb impressions for expert analysis. The accused challenged this order, arguing that the trial had effectively concluded after arguments were heard and that the Magistrate was improperly attempting to fill gaps in the prosecution's evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the Magistrate’s order was legal and proper. The Court affirmed that Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confers wide discretionary powers upon a court to summon or recall witnesses at any stage of an inquiry or trial, provided the evidence is essential for a just decision. It established that a trial does not terminate until the judgment is pronounced. Furthermore, the Court clarified that if such evidence is prejudicial to the accused, the Magistrate must provide the accused an opportunity to rebut it, thereby ensuring fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate recall a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after arguments have been heard but before judgment is pronounced?
  • Does the term 'trial' in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include the period up to the pronouncement of judgment?
  • Is a court permitted to recall a witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the evidence is deemed essential for a just decision, even if it might assist the prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd., Karachi vs Siddiq Textiles Ltd. and Other1970 PLD Karachi 643 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazahir Hussain Naqvi vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 188 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulamali Shah vs Tim District Magistrate and Tribunal, Sanghar1970 P Cr. L J 393 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-16Read full judgment →
• Steel Brother & Co. Ltd., Karachi-S vs A. Wahid Opponent1970 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-26
  arbitration agreementsole arbitratorarbitration venueequitable groundsappointment of arbitratorservice agreementarbitration proceedingsdefaulting party
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned an application under Sections 3 and 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, arising from a service agreement between an employer (applicants) and employee (opponent) that included an arbitration clause (clause 9) stipulating English law and the company's option for arbitration in London or Karachi. Disputes arose following the termination of the opponent's services and his subsequent refusal to relocate, leading to the opponent unilaterally appointing a sole arbitrator in Karachi under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, citing the applicants' delay. The core legal question was whether the opponent's appointment of a sole arbitrator was valid and if the court could intervene on equitable grounds, considering the contractual terms and the provisos of the relevant arbitration acts. The court held that it could exercise its discretion under the provisos to Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and Section 7 of the English Arbitration Act, 1950, on equitable grounds. It allowed the applicants 15 days to appoint their arbitrator in Karachi to proceed with arbitration alongside the opponent's nominee, emphasizing the court's power to grant further time to a defaulting party when sufficient cause is shown and a willingness to arbitrate exists.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court set aside the appointment of a sole arbitrator made under Section 9(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a court allow further time to a defaulting party to appoint an arbitrator under the proviso to Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • What factors does a court consider when exercising its discretion to allow further time for arbitrator appointment on equitable grounds?
  • Does the proviso to Section 7 of the English Arbitration Act, 1950, allow the High Court to set aside an appointment of a sole arbitrator?
  • Can a party insist on a specific arbitration venue if the agreement grants the other party an option for the venue?
  Read full judgment →
• Smt. Vanibai and Another vs Republic of Pakistan and 36 Other1970 PLD Karachi 42 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-23
  appointment of receiverinterlocutory orderevacuee propertyjust and convenientstatus quoallegation of fraud
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was preferred against an interlocutory order of the trial court dismissing the appellants' application under Order XL, Rule 1 of the CPC for the appointment of a receiver over disputed agricultural land. The appellants asserted title by inheritance from a deceased non-evacuee owner, whereas respondents Nos. 5 to 37 had been in possession as allottees since 1959. The allottees subsequently instituted a suit alleging that prior decrees obtained by the appellants were procured through fraud, following disclosures made in an enquiry report submitted to the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The core legal issue was whether it was 'just and convenient' to appoint a receiver during the pendency of the title suit. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to satisfy the test of justice and convenience as their title was heavily clouded by unresolved allegations of fraud and they had been out of possession since 1959. Moreover, appointing a receiver would conflict with the Custodian's existing status quo order and breach Section 41 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957.

  Questions settled

  • Can a receiver be appointed under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the plaintiff's title is prima facie clouded by unrebutted allegations of fraud?
  • Does the mere difficulty in estimating future income of agricultural land justify the appointment of a receiver against long-standing occupants?
  • Whether the appointment of a receiver by a civil court is barred when it effectively nullifies or modifies a status quo order issued by the Custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Baluchistan Provincial Co-Operative Bank Limited, Karachi and Another vs Dilawar Khan and Another1970 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1969-05-19
  co-operative bankelection disputetemporary injunctioncivil court jurisdictionbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi, which suspended a previous appellate order and issued an injunction restraining the appellants from holding elections of the Directors of the Sind Baluchistan Provincial Co-operative Bank Limited. The core legal question concerns the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits and grant injunctions regarding disputes over the election of directors of a co-operative society, given the bar on civil jurisdiction where disputes touch upon the business of a co-operative society. The court held that a dispute regarding the election of a co-operative society touches its business, thereby attracting the application of section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act and ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts. Consequently, the appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the earlier appellate order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits regarding election disputes of a co-operative society?
  • Does a dispute about the election of directors touch the business of a co-operative society under the Co-operative Societies Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Shirin Bai vs Muhammad Ali and Other1970 PLD Karachi 450 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-02Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Rafiuddin vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore and Other1970 PLD Karachi 170 · Sindh High Court · 1969-05-27Read full judgment →
• Shahdad and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-09Read full judgment →
• Shabeehul Hassan and Another vs The State1970 PLD Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-01Read full judgment →
• Settlement Commissioner, Karachi vs Ghulam Hussain Brohi and Other1970 PLD Karachi 51 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-10Read full judgment →
• S. A. Latif vs J. B. Dubash and 5 Other1970 PLD Karachi 220 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-22
  restitutionlis pendenstemporary injunctionejectment decreetenant pendente litecode of civil procedureletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This letters patent appeal challenged a single judge's dismissal of an application for an injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to restrain the execution of a restitution order and prevent dispossession. The dispute arose over premises where landlords obtained an ejectment decree against original tenants, leased part of the premises to the appellant during the pendency of an appeal, and the ejectment decree was ultimately set aside, leading the successful tenants to seek restitution under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a third-party tenant inducted during the execution of a reversed decree is bound by restitution proceedings and whether section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 or the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 protects such a tenant. The court held that the appellant, claiming through the landlords, was bound by the final outcome and that the word 'parties' in section 144 includes legal representatives by assignment or devolution. The court laid down the principle that the reversal of an ejectment decree extinguishes a derivative tenancy created during the interim period, rendering the tenant liable to restitution without invoking the specific rent restriction protections meant for subsisting landlord-tenant relationships.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term parties in Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include legal representatives and persons claiming through assignment or devolution?
  • Does the reversal of an ejectment decree automatically terminate the tenancy rights created by a landlord during the pendency of proceedings?
  • Can a third-party tenant inducted during the execution of a decree resist restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the protection of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 apply where the underlying ejectment decree has been reversed and restitution ordered?
  Read full judgment →
• Richard Benjamin Wheeler Haines-- Plaintiff vs Ismail and Other1970 PLD Karachi 628 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-23Read full judgment →
• Rasool Iwksr vs The State-.Respondent1970 P Cr. L J 768 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-10Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux Alias Dobal vs District Magistrate and Tribunal, Karachi1970 P Cr. L J 935 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1968-11-12Read full judgment →
• Qazi Saleem vs Manager, National Products Company, Karachi and Another1970 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
• Piral Shah vs The State1970 PCr.LJ 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-03Read full judgment →
• Pir Muhammad Khan and 2 Other vs The State1970 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-02
  murderdying declarationocular testimonyappraisal of evidencecriminal appealbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were convicted under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Abdul Qayum and sentenced to transportation for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. The incident arose from a prior dispute over a house and a settlement by the Union Council. The prosecution relied on ocular testimony, circumstantial evidence, and oral and written dying declarations. On appeal, the Sindh High Court examined the credibility of the eye-witnesses and found their presence at the scene doubtful and their conduct unnatural. The court also scrutinized both oral and written dying declarations, noting infirmities, lack of certification regarding the mental fitness of the deceased, and material contradictions regarding the presence of co-accused. Holding that the dying declarations and ocular evidence did not inspire confidence and lacked reliable corroboration, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration form the sole basis for a conviction without corroboration if it is found to be free from taint and reliable?
  • Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses whose presence is doubtful and whose conduct is unnatural can be relied upon to sustain a murder conviction?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the mental and physical fitness of the maker of a dying declaration impair its evidentiary value?
  • How should courts evaluate discrepancies between oral and written dying declarations in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Oil and Gas Development Corporation vs LT. Col. Shujauddin Ahmed1970 PLD Karachi 332 · Sindh High Court · -
  statutory corporationmaster and servanttemporary injunctionrevisional jurisdictionwrongful terminationbalance of convenienceprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition arose from a dispute between the Oil and Gas Development Corporation and its former employee, Lt. Col. Shujauddin Ahmed, regarding the termination of his services. The respondent sought a declaration and injunction against the termination, which the trial court initially refused. The District Judge, on appeal, granted a temporary injunction, prompting the Corporation to file a revision petition. The core legal question concerned whether the appellate court properly exercised its discretion in granting an injunction that effectively decided the merits of the suit, and whether the respondent, as an employee of a statutory corporation, was entitled to constitutional protections or governed by ordinary master-servant law. The High Court held that the appellate court acted with material irregularity by prematurely deciding the suit's merits and disregarding binding Supreme Court precedents. The Court reaffirmed that employees of statutory corporations generally do not enjoy constitutional guarantees and that courts should be cautious in granting mandatory injunctions that force a servant upon an unwilling master, especially when the balance of convenience does not favor the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee of a statutory corporation enjoy constitutional guarantees against termination of service?
  • Can a court grant a temporary injunction that effectively decides the entire suit before trial?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court interfere with the discretionary order of an appellate court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a suit for specific performance maintainable in cases of personal service contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and 4 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1312 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muradali and Another vs The State1970 PLD Karachi 15 · Sindh High Court · 1968-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sallah vs The State1970 PLD Karachi 695 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salim vs The State1970 PLD Karachi 187 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan vs Municipal Committee, Larkana and Another1970 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1969-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 2 Other vs The State and Another1970 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court
  dacoitywrongful confinementpolice officerssanction for prosecutiondeadly weaponsextortionanticipatory bailenhancement of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment by the Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, convicting three police officers and four private individuals for dacoity and wrongful confinement under sections 395 and 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the police officers, acting in collusion with private appellants, raided the complainant's house at midnight despite an anticipatory bail order, assaulted him, seized cattle, and wrongfully confined him and his relatives in the police lock-up to extort a bribe. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution of police officers acting during an incident required prior sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whether the mere carrying of deadly weapons attracts section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether obedience to unlawful orders of a superior officer exonerates subordinates. The court held that sanction under section 197 is not required for public servants removable by authorities subordinate to the Provincial Government, and that police officers committing high-handed criminal acts cannot claim to act in the discharge of official duties. Furthermore, the court held that mere carrying of deadly weapons during dacoity attracts the minimum sentence under section 397, and blind obedience to unlawful orders does not excuse criminal liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether previous sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is required for the prosecution of police officers who are removable from service by an authority subordinate to the Provincial Government?
  • Does the mere carrying of a deadly weapon during the commission of a dacoity attract the enhanced minimum sentencing provisions of section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a police constable or subordinate officer successfully plead obedience to unlawful orders of a superior officer as a complete defense to criminal liability under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • When does an act committed by a public servant cease to be one done or purporting to be done in the discharge of official duty for the purposes of statutory protection?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs The State1970 PLD Karachi 66 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-01
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionappreciation of evidencemurderpre-concertreasonable grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This second post-arrest bail application was filed by the applicant, who was accused of murder alongside another assailant. The applicant's counsel raised several contentions, arguing that there was no pre-concert between the applicant and the co-accused, thereby rendering Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 inapplicable. It was further argued that the applicant only inflicted a non-fatal stick blow, that he had sustained injuries rendering him unable to strike, and that the eye-witness testimonies were highly contradictory and unreliable. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the committal inquiry was ongoing, that the applicant was apprehended at the spot, and that the appreciation of evidence was the exclusive domain of the trial court. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that at the bail stage, the court's role is limited to determining whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused with the crime. A deeper appreciation of evidence or a definitive finding on the applicability of Section 34, P.P.C. would be premature and prejudicial to the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court conduct a deep appreciation of evidence and make definitive findings on facts at the stage of deciding a bail application?
  • Whether the absence of pre-concert under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be conclusively determined at the bail stage when there is prima facie evidence of joint action?
  • What is the scope of inquiry for a court when determining whether to grant bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and Another vs The State Opponent1970 PLD Karachi 413 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-25
  murderdeath sentenceocular evidencechance witnessballistic expertidentification paradecommon intentionconfirms death reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the convictions and death sentences imposed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, upon the appellants Muhammad Hasan and Sadhoro under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the premeditated murders of Muhammad Usman and Natho. The incident occurred on March 2, 1967, in the Shahi Bazar of Hala Town, where the appellants allegedly targeted Usman to avenge the prior murders of the first appellant's brothers, incidentally killing Natho who was caught in the line of fire. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular evidence from chance witnesses, the integrity of corroborative recoveries such as crime empties and blood-stained clothing, and the evidentiary value of an identification parade. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentences, holding that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses were fully corroborated by immediate lodging of the First Information Report, police pursuit, and forensic ballistic and chemical reports, leaving no mitigating circumstances to justify leniency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of eyewitnesses who happened to be present at the scene by chance can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does a delay in sending incriminating articles to the chemical analyzer vitiate the evidentiary value of the presence of human blood?
  • Whether an accused who kills an unintended bystander while firing at a target is liable for the murder of the bystander under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • What is the evidentiary impact of flaws in holding an identification parade on the in-court identification of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Din vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1159 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azim vs Pakistan Employees' Co Operative Housing1970 PLD Karachi 202 · Sindh High Court · 1969-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 526 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and Another vs The State1970 PCr.LJ 217 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ' Inayat Ali Kfian and Another vs Fazlurrehman and Another1970 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tahera Begum vs Saleem Ahmed Siddiqui1970 PLD Karachi 619 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sultano and Another vs Mst. Aliman and Another1970 P Cr. L J 1043 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shirinbat vs Saleem Jamal and 7 Other1970 PLD Kar 657 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T Bibi vs The State and 6 Others--Opponents1970 P Cr. L J 489 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hawabai and 6 Other vs Abdus Shakoor and 8 Other1970 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-28
  compromise decreereturn of plaintpecuniary jurisdictionamended plaintcourt feesmaintainability of suitfraudulent decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit filed to set aside a compromise decree obtained by the defendants in a previous partition suit, alleging fraud and lack of service. The plaintiffs initially filed a suit in a lower court, which was returned for presentation to the proper court due to pecuniary jurisdiction limits. Instead of presenting the original plaint, the plaintiffs filed a new, amended plaint in the High Court, altering the relief sought to avoid court fees and the bar of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff, upon receiving a plaint returned under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is entitled to file a fresh or amended plaint in the proper court, or if they must present the original plaint. The Court held that the suit was not maintainable, ruling that an order under Order VII, Rule 10 does not permit the filing of a new or different plaint. The principle laid down is that a suit presented in the proper court after being returned is a continuation of the original suit, and the plaintiff cannot unilaterally alter the plaint or file a fresh one.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff, after a plaint is returned under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, file a fresh or amended plaint in the proper court instead of the original one?
  • Does an order returning a plaint for presentation in the proper court under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, allow the plaintiff to treat the original plaint as a useless document?
  • Is a suit presented in the proper court after being returned under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 considered a continuation of the original suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faizan vs Pakistan through the Director General,1970 PLD Karachi 362 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-01
  Telegraph ActDistrict JudgePersona DesignataPrincipal Civil CourtOriginal Civil JurisdictionKarachi BenchJurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner applied to the High Court under section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 for the determination of compensation for telegraphic installations erected on her land in Karachi, valued at Rs. 3,78,000. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court, contending that the application should lie before the District Judge under the Telegraph Act. The core legal question was whether the High Court on its original side or the District Judge constitutes the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for Karachi under the statute, and whether the District Judge under section 16(3) is a persona designata or a court. The court held that the District Judge under section 16(3) is not a persona designata but a court, referring to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. Furthermore, since the District Judge of Karachi has a restricted pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 25,000, the Karachi Bench of the High Court functions as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for proceedings exceeding that amount. Consequently, the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and the respondent's application under Order VII, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was rejected. The key principle laid down is that where a statute confers jurisdiction on a 'District Judge' without defining it, the General Clauses Act definition applies, and if the local District Judge's pecuniary jurisdiction is limited, the High Court exercising district court jurisdiction on its original side acts as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the District Judge named under section 16(3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 is a persona designata or a court?
  • Does the Karachi Bench of the High Court function as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for the civil district of Karachi in proceedings exceeding Rs. 25,000?
  • Whether the term 'District Judge' under the Telegraph Act, 1885 includes a High Court exercising its ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ayoob vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1289 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mitho and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 34 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-16Read full judgment →
• Mirza Mehboob Beg vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1248 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mir Dost and 3 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 957 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Punjab Soap Factory, Lahore vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi1970 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1966-11-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Punjab Soap Factory vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade1970 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1966-11-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Rubber and Tyre Co., Karachi vs The Government of Pakistan, Depart1970 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs M. G. Kadir & Co vs Abdul Latif1970 PLD Karachi 708 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-28
  acknowledgment of liabilityLimitation Actopen and current accountset-offLetters Patent Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a suit for the recovery of a principal sum of Rs. 20,500 and interest, originally decreed by a learned Single Judge. The core legal questions involved whether a specific letter written by the appellants constituted a sufficient acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, to save the suit from being time-barred, and whether the trial court rightly refused to place reliance on a belatedly introduced document. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an admission of the existence of an open and current account, or a credit balance coupled with a claim to set-off, constitutes a valid and sufficient acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, even if accompanied by a refusal to pay or a claim to set-off. The key principle laid down is that the Limitation Act, being in derogation of the right to sue, must be construed liberally to maintain the right to action, and that an acknowledgment of liability need not be express but may be inferred by implication from the language and surrounding circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a written admission of a credit balance coupled with a claim to set-off constitutes a sufficient acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Does an acknowledgment of liability require a conscious and unequivocal intention to admit a subsisting debt, or can it be inferred by implication from the language and surrounding circumstances?
  • Whether an acknowledgment of the mere existence of open and current accounts satisfies the requirements of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can a party introduce a new defense or rely on a document at the final hearing stage that was neither pleaded in the written statement nor disclosed in prior correspondence?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karim Commercial Co. Ltd. vs The United Oriental Steamship Co.1970 PLD Karachi 427 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-27
  carriage of goods by seashort landinglimitation periodstatutory noticeport authority lienmala fide actionfraud on the statutebill of lading
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for the recovery of compensation for short-landed and undelivered bales of cotton yarn shipped from Karachi to Chittagong. The core legal questions relate to the limitation period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, the effect of delivery of cargo to the port authority under nil marks, and whether a port authority can claim statutory protection and notice requirements under Section 109 of the Port of Chittagong Act, 1914 when it wrongfully withholds cargo for extraneous claims. The court held that while the suit against the carrier was time-barred under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, the port authority was liable for failing to deliver the goods and could not claim the protection of Section 109 of the Port of Chittagong Act, 1914 because its mala fide refusal to release the goods constituted a fraud on the statute. The key principle laid down is that statutory protections requiring notice and limitation periods for acts 'purporting to be done' under an enactment do not extend to mala fide acts done in deliberate disregard or contravention of the statute's provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the starting point of limitation for a suit against a carrier under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 at the Port of Chittagong is the date of the discharge of cargo or the date of the delivery order?
  • Does an agreement to extend the limitation period under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 require express pleading in the plaint under Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Whether a port authority can claim the protection of notice and limitation under Section 109 of the Port of Chittagong Act, 1914 when it refuses delivery of goods for reasons extraneous to the statute?
  • Does the exercise of a statutory lien under Section 60 of the Port of Chittagong Act, 1914 permit a port authority to detain goods for general debts unconnected with the specific goods detained?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Faqir Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Government of West Pakistan and Anqther1970 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1959-06-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fairland Export Syndicate vs Messrs Bengal Oil Mills Ltd., Karachi1970 PLD Karachi 125 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-06
  sale of goodssale by descriptionimplied conditionmerchantable qualitydecorticated oil cakesbreach of warrantydamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for the recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 25,266.34 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on account of the supply of inferior quality oil cakes. The plaintiff purchased cotton-seed cake expellers described as decorticated from the defendant, which were subsequently exported and found upon analysis in the United Kingdom to be deficient in oil and albuminoid contents, rendering them partially decorticated rather than fully decorticated. The core legal questions involved whether the sale was by description, whether an implied condition or warranty as to merchantable quality applied notwithstanding the express refusal of a guarantee as to exact percentage, and whether the defendant was liable for the breach. The Sindh High Court held that where goods are sold under a commercial description, there is an implied condition under sections 15 and 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930 that the goods must correspond with and be merchantable under that description, and an express refusal to guarantee exact chemical percentages does not negative this implied warranty unless inconsistent therewith. The court accordingly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sale of goods by a commercial trade name constitute a sale by description under Section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930?
  • Whether an express refusal by a seller to guarantee exact chemical percentages excludes the implied condition of merchantable quality under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1930?
  • Is a seller liable for damages for supplying goods that are partially decorticated when contracted to supply decorticated goods?
  • Can a defendant set up a new factual case during evidence that was not specifically pleaded in the written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Datsun Service Station, Karachi vs Abdul Aziz1970 PLD Karachi 584 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Brigstock Eduljee & Co., Karachi vs Mst. Ajbai1970 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-09Read full judgment →
• Men Glo vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 155 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-20Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmad vs Karachi Road Transport Corporation Ltd.1970 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court · 1969-05-06Read full judgment →
• Lalan and 4 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 236 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-07Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad Khan and Other vs Wahid Bux1970 PLD Karachi 60 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-27Read full judgment →
• Khair Mohammad (Represented by Heirs) and Another vs Ghulam1970 PLD Karachi 212 · Sindh High Court · 1969-05-16
  execution of decreelimitation periodFederal Court Enlargement of Jurisdiction Actrepeal of statuteletters patent appealJudicial Committee of Khairpur Stateconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Letters Patent Appeals arising from execution proceedings of decrees originally passed by the Judicial Committee of the former Khairpur State. The core legal question was whether the Federal Court Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act, 1949, was a constitutional amendment to the Government of India Act, 1935, that stood repealed upon the repeal of the 1935 Act in 1956, or whether it remained an independent statute governing the limitation period for executing the subject decrees. The Court held that the 1949 Act was an independent statute and not a constitutional amendment to the 1935 Act; thus, it survived the repeal of the 1935 Act. Consequently, the orders of the Judicial Committee of Khairpur State were deemed orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Section 9(3) of the 1949 Act. The Court established that Article 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908, providing a 12-year limitation period, applied to these decrees rather than Article 182, rendering the execution applications filed in 1960 within time.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Court Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act, 1949, constitute an independent statute or an amendment to the Government of India Act, 1935?
  • Was the Federal Court Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act, 1949, repealed by the repeal of the Government of India Act, 1935, under the Constitution of 1956?
  • Does Article 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908, apply to the execution of decrees passed by the Judicial Committee of the former Khairpur State?
  Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State and 8 Others1970 P Cr. L J 56 · Sindh High Court · 1969-05-24Read full judgment →
• Karim vs Hajyani Hanifa and 4 Other1970 PLD Karachi 613 · Sindh High Court · 1961-01-19
  nominationinheritanceMahomedan Lawco-operative societyabsolute ownershippartition suitpersonal law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit for partition of property filed by the appellant, claiming a share in the estate of his deceased father, Haji Habib. The central legal question was whether a nomination made under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, regarding a house in a housing society, overrides the personal law of inheritance (Mahomedan Law), thereby conferring absolute ownership upon the nominee to the exclusion of other legal heirs. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the nomination made by the deceased in favour of his wife, Mst. Hajiani Hanifa, was valid and conferred absolute title upon her. The Court established that Section 27 of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, operates in supersession of personal law. Consequently, a nominee under the Act becomes the absolute owner of the property, and the property does not form part of the deceased's estate subject to distribution among heirs under Mahomedan Law. The Court rejected the argument that the nominee acts merely as an administrator or trustee for other heirs.

  Questions settled

  • Does a nomination under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, override the personal law of inheritance?
  • Is a nominee under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, an absolute owner of the property or merely an administrator for the heirs?
  • Does the nomination of property under the Provident Funds Act, 1925, confer absolute rights to the nominee?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation, Karachi vs THB Karachi Parsi Co1970 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-24Read full judgment →
• Karachi Co Operative Housing Societies Union Ltd vs Safia Bai and 121970 PLD Karachi 379 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-10
  arbitration awardreceiver authorityretrospective ratificationestoppelacquiescenceLetters Patent Appealjurisdiction of arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from two Letters Patent Appeals challenging a decision of a learned Single Judge who made an arbitration award a rule of the Court and granted interest. The core legal questions involved whether a court-appointed receiver had the authority to refer a dispute to arbitration without prior express permission, whether such a reference could be ratified retrospectively, and whether a participating party was estopped from subsequently challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction based on technical irregularities. The Sindh High Court held that the receiver acted with implied authority, which was subsequently made explicit by retrospective court sanction, and that the appellant Union, having fully participated in the arbitration proceedings and consented to extensions of time without timely objection to jurisdiction, was estopped from challenging the validity of the award. The key principles laid down include that the element of agreement in conferring jurisdiction upon an arbitrator allows for the doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel, and that a party taking the chance of an award cannot later invalidate it on technical grounds of initial informalities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court-appointed receiver can make a reference to arbitration without prior express permission of the court?
  • Can an unauthorized reference to arbitration be validated through retrospective sanction or ratification by the court?
  • Is a party that actively participates in arbitration proceedings and consents to extensions of time estopped from later challenging the arbitrator's jurisdiction on technical grounds?
  • Does the doctrine of acquiescence prevent a party from avoiding an unfavorable arbitration award due to initial informalities in the submission to arbitration?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamil Nook Khan vs Controlling Authority, Union Committee1970 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-17
  constitutional petitionvote of no-confidencecontrolling authoritybasic democraciesmandatory and directory provisionsnotice periodunion committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 98 of the Constitution challenged the convening of a no-confidence meeting against the Chairman of a Union Committee and his subsequent removal. The core legal questions revolved around whether the Chairman of the Karachi Municipal Corporation was legally competent to act as the Controlling Authority to convene the meeting, and whether the requirement of providing seven clear days' notice under the West Pakistan Basic Democracies (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman) Rules, 1963 was mandatory or directory. The Sindh High Court held that the Chairman of the Karachi Municipal Corporation was lawfully empowered as the Controlling Authority by virtue of government notifications issued under the definition clause of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, and that the provision regarding seven clear days' notice is directory rather than mandatory, serving as a procedural irregularity that does not invalidate proceedings unless prejudice is shown, particularly where all members attended and participated. The petition was consequently dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chairman of a Municipal Corporation is authorized to act as a Controlling Authority under the Basic Democracies Order, 1959?
  • Is the requirement of giving seven clear days' notice under rule 3(2) of the West Pakistan Basic Democracies (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman) Rules, 1963 mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to provide the prescribed clear days' notice invalidate a no-confidence meeting when all members attend and participate without showing prejudice?
  Read full judgment →
• Kalimuddin Ansart and Another vs Director, Excise and Taxation, Karachi and Another1970 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-04Read full judgment →
• Kaim and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-15Read full judgment →
• Jamal and 5 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-12Read full judgment →
• Hassad and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 947 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-20Read full judgment →
• Harold Roberthenry Lind vs British Insulated CALLENDER's Construc1970 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-28
  defamationqualified privilegeexpress malicemitigation of damagesgeneral reputationlibelaggravated damages
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a consultant, filed a defamation suit against the defendant company for publishing a public notice in newspapers announcing the termination of a sub-contract and implying the plaintiff was an imposter regarding his association with the 'Canbrit Group'. The core legal questions were whether the notice was defamatory, whether the defendant was protected by qualified privilege, and the appropriate assessment of damages. The Court held that the notice was defamatory as it contained false, malicious statements intended to injure the plaintiff's reputation. The Court rejected the defense of qualified privilege, finding that the defendant acted with express malice by including unnecessary, false information and fabricating evidence during the trial. The Court established that in defamation suits, evidence for mitigation of damages must be limited to the plaintiff's general bad reputation, not specific acts of misconduct. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit, awarding Rs. 13,000 in damages, noting that the defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings aggravated the injury.

  Questions settled

  • Is a defendant in a defamation suit entitled to introduce evidence of specific acts of misconduct by the plaintiff to mitigate damages?
  • Does the publication of a notice in a newspaper regarding the termination of a contract enjoy qualified privilege if the notice contains false and malicious statements?
  • Can a foreign company's failure to register under the Companies Act 1913 invalidate its contracts?
  • Does the conduct of a defendant during the trial proceedings constitute a factor for the aggravation of damages in a defamation suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Tayab and 2 Other vs Eastern Textile Mills Ltd.,1970 PLD Karachi 357 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-11
  arbitration awardmisconduct of arbitratornatural justiceright of hearingspecific performanceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge who dismissed the appellants' objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act and refused to set aside an arbitration award. The dispute arose from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale and transfer of all shares of a textile mill. During the trial, the parties referred the dispute to a sole arbitrator. The appellants challenged the award on the ground that the arbitrator misconducted himself by failing to give them notice or a hearing, and by conducting secret inquiries in violation of the principles of natural justice. The High Court held that unless the terms of reference explicitly dispense with an inquiry, the right of hearing is presumed, and an arbitrator cannot hold secret inquiries behind the parties' backs. The Court observed that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that no notice or hearing was necessary. Emphasizing that the arbitrator or relevant witnesses should have been examined regarding the allegations of a lack of hearing, the appellate court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Single Judge for recording evidence and fresh adjudication on the objections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitrator is required to give notice and a hearing to the parties unless expressly excluded by the terms of reference?
  • Does an arbitrator commit misconduct by holding secret inquiries behind the back of the parties in violation of the principles of natural justice?
  • Whether the court should summon the arbitrator as a court witness when serious allegations of misconduct or lack of hearing are made against him?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Sher Muhammadand 13 Others vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 175 · Sindh High Court · 1969-05-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Rahmatullah and Another vs Standard Bank Ltd., Karachi1970 PLD Karachi 577 · Sindh High Court · 1969-01-29Read full judgment →
• Haji Ali Ahmed vs The State and 8 Others- Respondents1970 P C r. L J 493 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghani vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Abdul Khaliq Rahmani vs Abdul Ghani and Another1970 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-02
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processcivil liabilitycriminal prosecutioninherent powerscheatingcoercion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before an Additional City Magistrate. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings instituted primarily to enforce a civil liability and coerce the payment of a loan—after a civil suit and subsequent revision for the same transaction had already been dismissed on merits—constituted an abuse of the process of the court warranting interference under inherent powers. The Sindh High Court accepted the application and quashed the proceedings. The court held that utilizing criminal courts as a coercive mechanism to recover civil dues or settle business disputes amounts to a clear abuse of process, and the High Court is duty-bound under its inherent jurisdiction to intervene and prevent such uncalled-for harassment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be invoked to quash criminal proceedings that are essentially of a civil nature?
  • Whether using the machinery of the criminal courts to enforce a civil liability or recover a loan constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
  • Should criminal proceedings be quashed when a complainant initiates a criminal case after failing to recover dues through civil courts?
  • When will the High Court interfere at an interlocutory stage of criminal proceedings pending in a subordinate court?
  Read full judgment →
• H. H. S. Feldman vs The Province of East Bengal1970 PLD Karachi 295 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-13
  Letters Patent Appealdeficit court-feeSection 149 CPClimitationOrder VII Rule 11 CPCcondonation of delaywant of prosecutionpoverty as ground
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's suit for recovery of damages and interest regarding demurrage charges on a sea salt supply contract. At the appellate stage, the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was barred by limitation. The appellant initially lodged the appeal paying a nominal court-fee of Rs. 5 instead of the required Rs. 2,076. Upon the office returning the appeal with an objection allowing seven days for compliance, the appellant retained the papers for over eight months before re-submitting them with an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. A Division Bench admitted the appeal subject to respondents' objections. The High Court held that an ex parte admission order allowing payment of deficit court-fee remains open to reconsideration upon the objection of the affected party at final hearing. Furthermore, while Section 149 vests wide discretion, mere poverty, financial inability, or erroneous legal advice do not constitute sufficient cause. The appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an ex parte conditional order accepting deficit court-fee subject to objections be reconsidered and set aside at the final hearing of the appeal?
  • Does the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree extend limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 even if the court rules do not require such copy to accompany a Letters Patent Appeal?
  • Does mere poverty or inability to arrange funds constitute a sufficient ground for the exercise of judicial discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Do the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a memorandum of appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State-1970 P Cr. L J 485 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa and 27 Other vs The Chief Administrator, Auqaf, West1970 PLD Lahore 619 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1052 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-11
  murderdeath sentence confirmationretracted judicial confessioncorroborationrecovery of weaponextenuating circumstancesyouth as mitigationgrave and sudden provocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the conviction of the appellant, Ghulam Hyder, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for the murder of Budho, resulting in a sentence of death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the retracted judicial confession, the sufficiency of corroborating ocular and circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a blood-stained hatchet, and whether the appellant's youth or alleged provocation constituted extenuating circumstances warranting a reduction of the death sentence. The Sindh High Court held that the retracted judicial confession was voluntary and duly corroborated by eyewitness testimony and material recovery, and that neither youth alone nor jealousy arising from homosexual infatuation amounted to mitigating circumstances sufficient to commute the death penalty. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a retracted judicial confession can form the basis of a murder conviction when duly corroborated by ocular testimony and material recoveries?
  • Does youth alone constitute a sufficient extenuating circumstance to justify the imposition of a lesser penalty than death in a premeditated murder?
  • Whether jealousy arising from the loss of affection of a companion amounts to grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate a charge of murder?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar Alias Chapoo vs The State1970 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-10Read full judgment →
• G.D. Amin vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 3 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-23Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 966 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-26Read full judgment →
• Farid Alias Ghayasuddin vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 364 · Sindh High Court · 1968-12-12Read full judgment →
• Falah-Ul-Momineen Trust vs V. P. Abdullah1970 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-13
  execution of decreewrit of ejectmentpolice aidinherent powerscivil revisionpossession of immovable propertyrefusal to exercise jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges an order by the Civil Judge, Karachi, refusing to grant police aid for the execution of a writ of ejectment. The core legal question is whether a civil court possesses the inherent power to order police assistance for executing a decree for possession, notwithstanding the absence of an explicit provision in the Civil Procedure Code 1908 or the Sind Civil Courts Rules. The Court held that while the Civil Procedure Code 1908 and the Sind Civil Courts Rules do not explicitly provide for police aid, the court inherently possesses the power to take necessary steps to enforce its mandates and execute its decrees. The Court reasoned that a grant of jurisdiction implies the necessary incidental powers to effectuate it, and preventing violence during execution is a valid exercise of this inherent authority. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Civil Judge to reconsider the request for police aid, establishing that courts have the inherent power under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to provide police assistance when necessary for the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have the inherent power to grant police aid for the execution of a decree for possession?
  • Is a revision application maintainable against an order refusing to exercise inherent powers to grant police aid?
  • Does the refusal to exercise inherent power to grant police aid constitute a refusal to exercise jurisdiction?
  • Is the stay of execution proceedings mandatory under Order XXI Rule 29, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a separate suit is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilmir Khan vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) Karachi vs Messrs United1970 PLD Karachi 148 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-19Read full judgment →
• Chowdhry Muhammad Iqbal vs Mst. Ahmed Jahan Begum1970 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-07Read full judgment →
• Azim and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L. J 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-28Read full judgment →
• Atlasindustrial and Trading Corporation, Karachi and Another vs DR.1970 PLD Karachi 241 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-03
  public policyvoid contractinfluence peddlingcontract enforcementillegal considerationappellate review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two Letters Patent Appeals arising from a dispute over a contract for "material assistance" in procuring a government rice export order. The core legal question was whether a contract for services described as "material assistance," which in reality involved leveraging personal influence with high-ranking government officials to secure a commercial contract, is enforceable. The Court held that the contract was void and unenforceable. It determined that the plaintiff’s services consisted solely of utilizing his personal connections with the Foreign Secretary to influence official decision-making. The Court laid down the principle that any contract for monetary consideration involving the use of personal influence or position to procure benefits from the government is contrary to public policy and illegal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appellate court may entertain a plea of illegality based on public policy for the first time if the illegality is deducible from the evidence already on the record, even if not pleaded at the trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Is a contract for 'material assistance' involving the use of personal influence with public officials enforceable?
  • Can a party raise the plea of illegality of a contract based on public policy for the first time in an appeal?
  • Does an agreement to use one's position and influence to procure a benefit from the government violate public policy?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 809 · Sindh High Court · 1970-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Imam vs Sr. Ghulam Hussain1970 P Cr. L J 980 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Hyder and Another vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 495 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-21Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Hafeez Kamal vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rashid vs The State Bank of Pakistan and Another1970 PLD Karachi 344 · Sindh High Court · 1969-10-28
  malicious prosecutiondamagesreasonable and probable causemalicerepatriation of foreign exchangeForeign Exchange Regulations Act 1947acquittal in appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff claiming Rs. 2,00,000 as damages for malicious prosecution against the State Bank of Pakistan and its Deputy Assistant Controller following the plaintiff's acquittal in appeal under Sections 12(1) and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act 1947. The core legal questions pertained to whether an initial conviction by a trial court bars an action for malicious prosecution if reversed on appeal, whether the prosecution was initiated maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause, and whether acting on police investigation reports constitutes reasonable and probable cause. The Sindh High Court dismissed the suit, holding that acquittal on appeal satisfies the requirement of favorable termination and does not preclude a suit, but reasonable and probable cause must be assessed independently. The Court found that shifting explanations by the exporter, who was also a partner in the consignee firm, gave the authorities reasonable and probable cause to prosecute. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to affirmatively prove malice, want of probable cause, or actionable damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in appeal, following an initial conviction by a trial court, satisfy the requirement of termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favor in an action for malicious prosecution?
  • Can the presence of malice compensate for or supply the defect of a want of reasonable and probable cause in a malicious prosecution suit?
  • Does acting upon expert advice or police investigation reports automatically establish the conclusive existence of reasonable and probable cause for a criminal prosecution?
  • Can a claim for damages for malicious prosecution succeed where the prosecutor possessed an honest and reasonable belief in the guilt of the accused based upon prima facie evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 2 Others vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 14 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-10Read full judgment →