Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.
- Abdul Shakoor vs Kay Khusru Barman Ardeshediar and 6 Other1970 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising from a judgment of a learned Single Judge who dismissed the appellant's Second Appeal concerning rent restriction proceedings. The core legal question was whether the failure of a tenant to furnish security within the time prescribed by the first appellate court attracts the penalty of striking off defence under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, read with section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that the appellate authority has no power to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to furnish security, as section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is excluded by necessary intendment in rent appeals, and penal provisions must be strictly construed. The key principle laid down is that since the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is a special law, its provisions override the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in the absence of an express provision empowering the appellate authority to strike off a defence for non-furnishing of security, such a penalty cannot be imposed, thereby preserving the tenant's right of appeal.
Questions settled- Whether failure to furnish security within the time prescribed by the first appellate court attracts the penalty prescribed by section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Does section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, apply to rent appeals to empower an appellate authority to strike off a tenant's defence?
- Can an appellate authority strike off the defence of a tenant for failure to furnish security ordered during stay proceedings?
- Abdul Razzak vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 1172 · Sindh High Court · 1966-08-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid Khan vs The Eastern General Insurance Co.1970 PLD Karachi 70 · Sindh High Court · 1969-03-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakeem vs Mst. Abida Begum1970 PLD Karachi 293 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ahad vs The State-the State1970 P Cr. L J 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, arrested on charges of theft of motor cars in five separate cases, was granted bail by the magistrate subject to a condition requiring the surety amount of Rs. 5,000.00 in each case to be deposited in cash. Upon a revision petition, the Sessions Judge reduced the cash amount to Rs. 2,000.00 per case but maintained the cash deposit condition. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether a court or magistrate has the power to demand a cash deposit as a condition for granting bail. Relying on binding precedents, the High Court held that the imposition of a cash deposit condition is illegal as the relevant statutory provisions contemplate the execution of a bond with sureties and not a cash deposit. Consequently, the revision applications were allowed, setting aside the cash deposit condition and directing the petitioner to furnish surety and P.R. bonds.
Questions settled- Does a Magistrate have the power to require an accused person to deposit cash as a condition for bail?
- Whether the imposition of a cash deposit condition while granting bail is permissible under the law?