Note: The figures in the following table only show the number of important Judgements/Orders uploaded on this site. It does not reflect total disposal of the Hon'ble Judges.
Apex Court: Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan:| S.No. | Citation | Case No. | Case Type | Case Year | Parties | Order_Date | A.F.R | Head Notes/ Tag Line | Bench | Apex Court | Apex Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 2014 CLC 1080 | Suit 74/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | Original Side | 2007 | MUHAMMAD SALEEM. (Plaintiff) VS M/S.PREMIER AGGLOW IND (Defendant) | 21-MAR-14 | Yes | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 151 & O. XXII, R. 3---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for specific performance of contract---Refund of earnest money from the defendant---Inherent powers of court---Scope---Plaintiff filed suit wherein one of legal heirs on his death moved an application for refund of earnest money paid by his father to the defendant---Validity---Prayer for refund of earnest money was out of purview of the pleadings---Inherent powers under S.151, C.P.C. could not be stretched to change the complexion of a suit from the suit for specific performance of contract to the suit for refund of money---Legal heirs of the plaintiff had not been impleaded nor any application for the same had been moved---No material was on record whether applicant was the legal heir of the deceased---None of the legal heirs of deceased had authorized the applicant to claim/seek refund of earnest money from the defendant through court---Earnest money, if same was refundable, could not be refunded to the legal heirs unless they were impleaded in the suit or they produced succession certificate to claim the refund as legal heirs of the deceased---Application for refund of earnest money was dismissed in circumstances. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | ||
| 14 | 2014 YLR 2042 | First Appeal Against Order 13/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | Criminal Appellate Jurisdictions | 2013 | Hassan Abbass (Appellant) VS Ist Additional District & Session Judge (Central) at Karachi. (Respondent) | 10-MAY-14 | Yes | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Karachi) Ordinance (III of 1962), Ss.27 & 29---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration---Correction of father's name was sought by plaintiff---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Name of maternal grandfather was mistakenly mentioned in the school record as name of father of plaintiff and same had been disclosed by him which was also supported by affidavit of his mother---Record maintained by the Education Board was incorrect and father of plaintiff and that of his mother could not be one and the same---Trial Court was bound to reconcile the record of Education Board with that of the correct name of father of plaintiff in view of available record---Education Board had not applied mind to the request made by the plaintiff through a proper application wherein ingredients of plaint and circumstances mentioned in the same had been brought to the notice of Education Board but same had been declined without assigning a cogent reason---Education Board had not mentioned the rules before the Trial Court which restrained them from making correction in the record---Section 27 of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1962 did not mean that Education Board was a final authority and order passed by the same was not subject to review by the courts---Section 29 of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1962 stipulated that no suit for damages or other legal proceedings should be instituted against Government and any member of Education Board or Committee---No decision or order of Education Board was under challenge nor plaintiff had claimed any damages against controlling authority or member of Education Board in the present suit---Present was a suit for correction in the relevant record of Education Board---Education Board was bound to make necessary correction once there was a satisfactory proof of mistake on the record---Refusal of Education Board to rectify the mistake in the certificate issued by Board was without any lawful jurisdiction---Impugned order passed by the Education Board was without reasoning and same was not a speaking order---Trial Court had rejected the plaint without proper trial which was contrary to the requirement of law---Orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court were set aside and case was remanded for decision on merits after recording of evidence in accordance with law. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 5---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Appeal---Non-disclosure of dismissal of appeal by the counsel to the appellant---Professional misconduct of counsel---Condonation of delay---Scope---Application was supported with a complaint against the counsel who had been representing the appellant before the Trial Court and first Appellate Court---Details of professional misconduct of counsel had been given in the affidavit with regard to the fact that he (counsel) did not disclose about the dismissal of appeal---Circumstances were not within the control of appellant to file present appeal in time who had accounted for the delay---Application for condonation of delay was accepted in circumstances. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | ||
| 17 | 2015 PLD 155 | II.A. 25/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | Civil Appellate Jurisdictions | 2012 | Sikandar Ali (Appellant) VS Abdullah & Others (Respondent) | 09-SEP-14 | Yes | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---O. XXIII, R. 1(3) & 0. II, R.2---Withdrawal of suit---Fresh suit, institution of---Scope---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court being barred under O.II, R.2, C.P.C.---Validity---Plaintiff was precluded from filing another suit after withdrawl of earlier suit on same "cause of action", on same "subject matter" and against the same defendant without permission to institute a fresh one-Provisions of O.XXIII, R.1(3) and O.II, R.2, C.P.C. were complementary to each other to control the litigation after litigation between the same parties on the same subject matter. Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yakoob and others PLD 1983 SC 344; Muhammad Suleman v. Ehsan Ali PLD 1983 Kar. 537; State Life Insurance of Pakistan v. Mst. Zainab Khatoon and others PLD 1987 SC AJ&K 5; Manzoor Hussain v. Rasool Bukhsh 1991 CLC 640; Qazi Shamas-ur-Rehman and another v. Mst. Chaman Dasta and others 2004 SCMR 1798 and Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 ref. Muhammad Suleman v. Ehsan Ali PLD 1983 Kar. 537; State Life Insurance of Pakistan v. Mst. Zainab Khatoon and others PLD 1987 SC AJ&K 5; Manzoor Hussain v. Rasool Bukhsh 1991 CLC 640; Qazi Shamas-ur-Rehman and another v. Mst. Chaman Dasta and others 2004 SCMR 1798 and Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 99---Appeal---Court fee, non-payment of---Effect---Ministerial staff of court was bound to point out non-payment of court fee and if such had been done then appellant could pay the same to avoid dismissal of appeal on account of non-payment of court fee---If such objection had been raised by the Appellate Court only then appellant could have been penalized---Jurisdiction of Appellate Court was not disputed to entertain the appeal, therefore order passed thereon was not affected adversely on account of non-payment of court fee---Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were protected by the provision of S.99, C.P.C. despite the fact that no court fee on the appeal was paid---Appellate Court had no power to set aside the judgment and decree on the ground of error or irregularity which had not affected the merits of the case or jurisdiction of the court---Non??payment of court fee was mere irregularity which could be corrected at any time and such irregularity had not rendered the impugned order void or without jurisdiction---Appellant (respondent) had not refused to pay the court fee and High Court could not non-suit him on the ground of filing first appeal without court fee---No punitive action could be taken against the appellant (respondent) without recourse to the provision of O. VII, R.11, C.P.C.---High Court could call upon the appellant (respondent) to pay the court fee---Appellant (respondent) was directed to deposit/pay the requisite court fee in the High Court within a specified period to rectify the irregularity occurred on account of non-payment of court fee before the first Appellate Court. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | ||
| 19 | 2016 PLC 1 | M.A. 40/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | Civil Appellate Jurisdictions | 2009 | M/s. Sindh Employees Social security & Ors (Appellant) VS Rajwani Apparel (Pvt) Ltd (Respondent) | 04-AUG-14 | Yes | Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)--- ----Ss. 22(3), 57, 62 & 64---Social Security Contribution---Assessment of Social Security Contribution by the Institution for three specific years---Institution's Inspection Team found underpayment of Social Security Contribution by the establishment for the period from July, 1995 to June, 2000 and on account of non-production of record for the period from January, 1993 to June, 1995, the said Inspection Team also assessed the contribution in terms of S.22(3) of the Ordinance---Director of the Institution raised the demand towards short payment of Social Security Contribution---Establishment filed objections to the said demand under S.57 of the Ordinance, which was registered as complaint---Commissioner of the Institution ordered rechecking, but the establishment/company failed to produce record for the period from January, 1993 to June, 1995---Commissioner found the company liable to pay short/underpayment of Social Security Contribution for the period from January, 1993 to June, 2000 to the Institution---Company preferred appeal against the order of Commissioner before the Social Security Court, which was allowed and the entire demand was set aside, against which the Institution filed appeal---Contentions of the Institution/appellant were that the Social Security Court had erred in law by holding that the question of limitation was involved in the case and the inspection of the record by the Institution beyond the period of two years was illegal---Establishment had neither rebutted the demand nor produced any evidence in that regard, therefore, establishment was liable for the short/underpayment of Social Security Contribution---Validity---Findings of the Social Security Court rejecting the entire claim of the Institution towards short payment of Social Security contribution was contrary to the facts as well as the law---Establishment had not led evidence before the Commissioner during the hearing of their complaint under S.57 of the Ordinance despite the fact that specific directions were given by the Commissioner to produce the record to negate the audit report after rechecking---In the event of no evidence in rebuttal, the Appellate Court ought to have maintained the findings of the Commissioner instead of reversing the entire claim of the Institution regarding the short payment of Social Security Contribution as not justified---Burden was on the establishment who had raised the objection to the demand to prove that any amount mentioned in the statement was incorrect or not justified---Establishment had failed to discharge their burden before the Commissioner as well as before Social Security Court having not offered to lead evidence in terms of S.62 of the Ordinance to rebut the claim of the Institution---Social Security Court had not exercised its powers of summoning the witnesses or calling record of establishment for the purpose of deciding the appeal in terms of S.62 of the Ordinance and accepted the appeal of the establishment without any evidence. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | C.P.228-K/2015 M/s Rajwani Apparel Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (SESSI) and others,C.A.192-K/2015 M/s Rajwani Apparel Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Sindh Employees Social Security Institution (SESSI) and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Leave Granted, Appeal to be heared with 3 months.,Disposed Dismissed |
| 25 | 2014 CLD 773, 2015 YLR 1027 | Suit 568/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | Original Side | 2013 | Pakistan International Bulk Terminal (Plaintiff) VS Maqbool Associates (pvt) Ltd & Ors. (Defendant) | 17-JAN-14 | Yes | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXIII, R. 3---Contract---Compromise between parties---Scope---Lawfully entered contracts by and between parties are binding upon them irrespective of placing such contracts before court of law by means of joint applications under O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C. (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----S. 20---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R.3---Arbitration--- Dispute resolution--- Role of court---Compromise between parties---During pendency of proceedings under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940, parties entered in compromise and sought disposal of suit under O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C.---Validity---Court was only gateway to adjudication of dispute between parties and not adjudicator in its own right---Present was not a regular suit under common law and dispute resolution was not possible by court of law under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Court was not empowered to examine and even comment on "dispute/issues" between parties, lest it could prejudice case of either party---Provisions of O.XXII, R. 3, C.P.C. were not applicable to arbitration suit under S.20 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Court appointed sole arbitrator for resolution of dispute between parties in terms of arbitration agreement---Suit was disposed of accordingly. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | ||
| 46 | 2015 YLR 1652 | Suit 1475/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | Original Side | 2010 | NANNEY KHAN (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD DAWOOD KHAN & OTHER (Defendant) | 20-JAN-15 | Yes | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 24 & 172---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 117 & 120---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Requirements--- Ownerless property---Execution of document---Onus to prove---Plaintiff claimed to have entered into agreement to sell with defendant for suit property---Validity---In order to succeed in a Court of law for specific performance of agreement, plaintiff had to prove execution of agreement through a strong, consistent and cogent evidence independently and he could not succeed in obtaining decree solely on the basis of weakness, lacuna and total absence in or of the defence---Court, in the present case, was satisfied that none was known to the Court for having any right or entitlement in suit property, in such situation the Court was required to find out the actual owner/or his/her legal heirs before holding that suit property was escheatable---High Court imposed cost upon the plaintiff who had been in illegal possession of suit property since year, 2009---Suit was dismissed, in circumstances. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | ||
| 52 | 2015 CLC 1333 | Suit 703/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | Original Side | 2007 | MRS. BILQUIS MOHSIN BUTT & OTHERS. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD BUTT & ORS. (Defendant) | 30-JAN-15 | Yes | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XX, R. 13---Administration suit---Limitation---Scope---Suit for administration was only a formality to determine the mode of distribution of the estate of the deceased amongst the legal heirs according to the Shariah---Court would act only as an administrator in such suit for a limited purpose---Plaintiff was required to satisfy the court in a suit for administration and partition, his status as legal heir of the deceased and proprietary rights of the deceased in the estate at the time of opening of succession---Question of limitation in case of joint family properties did not arise---In the present case, none of the properties mentioned in the schedule were part of the estate of the deceased---Plaintiff could not seek administration and partition of the disputed properties---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Pattoki Sugar Mills Limited through Chief Executive v. WAPDA through Chairman and 4 others 2007 CLD 659 and Anjum Rashid and others v. Shahzad and others 2007 CLC 1414 and Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XX, R. 13---Administration suit---Limitation---Question of limitation in case of joint family properties did not arise. (c) Company--- ----Limited company was a juristic person and a legal entity separate from its share-holder and any change in the shareholding of a company did not mean change in the title of assets of the company or premises occupied thereby---Properties of a company could not be inherited by the legal heirs of one of its Directors or even ordinary shareholders of the company---Legal heirs of a deceased director or shareholder of a company could claim inheritance only to the extent of shareholding of the deceased Director or shareholder in the company and not in the assets of the company as estate of the deceased. (d) Islamic law--- ----Succession---Classes of legal heirs---Classes of legal heirs of deceased (in Sunni Hanfi Law of Succession) were sharer, residuaries and uterine (distant kindred). (e) Islamic Law--- ----Distribution of the estate of deceased---Procedure. Muhammadan Law paras 61 and 63 quoted. (f) Islamic law--- ----Succession---Succession to the estate of a Muslim would open immediately, he had passed away and title would pass to the legal heirs automatically to the extent of their respective shares ordained by Shariah without any interference by the State functionaries. (g) Islamic law--- ---- Inheritance---Grand-children whose father or mother had survived their grand-father had no locus standi to claim inheritance in the estate of the deceased grand-father---Once father/mother of grand-children had died (true legal heirs of grand-father) they could file a suit for administration of the estate left by their deceased parents and if there was any undistributed property from the estate of their grand-father, continued to be in existence, they could include "share" of their deceased parents in the said estate of their own deceased father or mother but they could not reopen the issue of inheritance from the entire estate of their grand-parents---Grand-children could not claim as matter of their own right any share in the estate of their grand-father. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | ||
| 56 | Nil | Cr.Rev 62/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | Criminal Appellate Jurisdictions | 2013 | Ali Gul Hakro (Applicant) VS The state (Respondent) | 05-MAY-15 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | |||
| 60 | 2017 YLR 138 | Suit 1021/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | Original Side | 2014 | Muhammad Ali Zubair. (Plaintiff) VS Sabira Khatoon & another. (Defendant) | 12-JAN-15 | Yes | (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R. 3 & O. VII, R. 11---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Compromise---Cause of action---Power-of-attorney---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Executant of power of attorney died prior to the execution of agreement to sell---Effect---Agreement was not validly entered into by and between the parties after the death of principal---Said agreement to sell was not enforceable at law even if contesting parties were ready and willing to abide by its terms---Sub-attorney who claimed to have entered into an agreement of sell with the attorney had not invited objections on entering into agreement of sale of suit property---Even (present) plaintiff after entering into agreement of sale with the sub-attorney had not issued any public notice in newspapers for inviting any objection from public-at-large for transfer of title of suit property---Had such effort been made, legal heirs of the deceased executant of power-of-attorney could have warned the plaintiff before making any further payment of suit property---Search certificate of suit property was not obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar of the properties concerned---Defendant had already breached promise with the plaintiff---Broken promise by the compromising parties could not be endorsed by the court---Application for compromise of suit was liable to be dismissed---No cause of action existed for filing of suit against the defendant---Cause of action shown in the plaint was a false and collusive statement of plaintiff and defendant---Plaintiff had attempted to obtain a compromise decree from the court---Defendant had never refused to perform her part of contract---When cause of action had ceased to exist, provisions of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. would attract and plaint was liable to be rejected---Suit for specific performance was liable to be rejected once defendant had conceded that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract---Nazir of the court could not be allowed to perform part of contract under circumstances---Suit had become infructuous and plaint was liable to be rejected---Both the suit and compromise application were dismissed with cost of Rs. 100,000/- to be jointly and severally borne by the plaintiff and defendant---Said cost should be paid within specified period and if the same was not paid, Nazir of the court should take step for recovery of cost including attachment of movable and immovable properties of plaintiff and defendant---Member Inspection Team of High Court was directed to examine the record and if any criminal case was made out, he should initiate or cause to initiate criminal proceedings against plaintiff and defendant in accordance with law. Diamond Rubber Mills v. Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. and 2 others 1989 CLC 1989 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Jurisdiction of civil court to exercise its authority to adjudicate between the parties would co-exist with the "cause of action" to settle the grievance of plaintiff against the defendant on his/her denial to accept/acknowledge certain rights of plaintiff---No suit could be filed without a "cause of action" and if at all such suit was filed, plaint should be rejected for want of cause of action---If cause of action had ceased to continue after filing of suit, nothing was left for the court to exercise its authority. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar | ||
| 63 | 2015 MLD 1191 | Suit 1709/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | Original Side | 2014 | Malik Muhammad Riaz & another. (Plaintiff) VS Mrs. Farhat Imrana & another. (Defendant) | 09-JAN-15 | Yes | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42, 54 & 56 (a) & (b)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963), S.17(2)---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Tenancy agreement---Temporary injunction, grant of---Scope---Plaintiff had sought restraining orders against the defendant from claiming any rent of suit property from him and restraining of relevant proceedings pending in the other court---Validity---Plaintiff was bound by the terms and conditions of tenancy agreement---Plaintiff would become illegal occupant of the premises if he denied rent of the same---Illegal occupant of immovable property could not restrain the owner from recovery of possession of said property by application of law---Plaintiff had no prima facie case to maintain injunction against the proceedings of Rent Controller in accordance with law---Application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed in circumstances. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar |