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:

Show Only Authored Judgements/Orders Filter

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam High Court of Sindh, Principal Seat Karachi, Bench at Sukkur, Circuit Courts at Hyderabad and Larkana
S.No.	Citation	Case No.	Case Year	Parties	Bench Type	Order/Judgment	Order_Date	A.F.R	Head Notes/ Tag Line	Bench	Apex Court	Apex Status
1	2016 CLD 2106	Suit 268/1980 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1980	Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (Appellant) VS V/S Muhammad ASLAM SIDDIQUI & ORS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	29-JAN-16	No	It is proved that Defendant No.3 was the sole beneficiary of embezzled amount, which landed in her bank account. Therefore, the stance of Defendant No.3 has been rejected that the amount was embezzled by her husband (Defendant No.1) who has since disappeared and the said Defendant No.3 is not a beneficiary. In the circumstances, Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Defendant Bank has been also held liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the losses it suffered, as admittedly relationship between Defendant No.2-Bank and Plaintiff is of a fiduciary nature and thus former (Defendant No.2) owed a duty of care to the latter (Plaintiff) that its bank account had to be maintained in a professional and diligent manner. Nature of duty of Defendant No.2 implies exercise of due diligence and by making payment of such a substantial amount on the basis of a Request Letter containing some alternations and that too in the name of Defendant No.3 (the beneficiary of said amount) with which the Plaintiff-the customer of Defendant No.2 had no business relationship, latter (said Defendant No.2) had acted negligently. Suit for Recovery---Decreed	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
2		Suit 1008/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	WASIM IQBAL (Plaintiff) VS KARWAN E ISLAMI (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	14-NOV-22	Yes	It is a settled rule that special damages cannot be awarded, unless Plaintiff has led a convincing and positive evidence in support of his claim, which in the present case has not been done.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
3		Suit 67/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1988	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	22-FEB-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
4		Suit 826/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1987	M/S. MUSTAFA SONS PVT. LTD. (Plaintiff) VS PORT QASIM AUTHORITY. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	15-AUG-16	No	There is a distinction between a routine board resolution that authorizes a person / Officer of a Company to do certain acts, including instituting a legal proceeding and a non-routine resolution as contemplated under Section 164 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (the Ordinance 1984). Similarly, a special resolution passed under Section 172 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, which has been defined in Section 2 sub-section (36) of the Ordinance 1984, is also of distinct nature and different import. For a routine and a procedural resolution as mentioned hereinabove, there is no requirement that the same should be filed with the SECP (Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan). If a board resolution is passed without giving prior notice to the Directors of the Board then the meeting convened and the resolution passed there at, both are held to be invalid and not in accordance with the Ordinance 1984. Even otherwise, if a Board Meeting is allowed to be held without prior notice to other directors, then it would lead to a chaotic situation and it will be against the basic principle of good corporate governance, which cannot be permitted. A suit instituted on behalf of a Plaintiff-Company without a valid authorization simply means that the plaint is not existing for all intents and purposes. A suit instituted on behalf of a Plaintiff-Company without a valid authorization simply means that the plaint is not existing for all intents and purposes.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
5		Const. P. 718/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2012	Ali Hassan & Others (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-APR-16	No	Mere issuance of conditional appointment letters that too for a contract employment, cannot be invoked for seeking a relief for issuance of writ of mandamus, when official respondents have categorically disputed the relationship of the employment. Non-fulfillment of other codal formalities as mentioned in the offer letter has disentitled the petitioners from invoking the writ jurisdiction. Mere issuance of conditional appointment letters that too for a contract employment, cannot be invoked for seeking a relief for issuance of writ of mandamus, when official respondents have categorically disputed the relationship of the employment.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
6	2018 PLC Lab. 36	Const. P. 84/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mst. Samina Pathan (Petitioner) VS National Database and Registration Authority [NADRA] (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-MAY-16	Yes	Dismissal from service in undue haste and in violation of statutory service rules, can be assailed in a writ jurisdiction. Dismissal from service in undue haste and in violation of statutory service rules, can be assailed in a writ jurisdiction.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.2857/2016 National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) thr. its Chairman, Islamabad & others v. Samina Pathan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted
7		Suit 1318/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Mrs. Almas Farooqi and another (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	09-MAR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
8		Const. P. 4570/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Munir Ahmed (Applicant) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	06-APR-16	Yes	Mere fact that petitioner opted for plea bargain, which was not even recommended by the NAB Authorities, or duly approved by the Accountability Court, cannot operate as a bar for withholding the bail, if the accused otherwise makes out a case for grant of bail on merits. Mere fact that petitioner opted for plea bargain, which was not even recommended by the NAB Authorities, or duly approved by the Accountability Court, cannot operate as a bar for withholding the bail, if the accused otherwise makes out a case for grant of bail on merits.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
9		Const. P. 1493/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Gul Menjraan (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
10		Const. P. 792/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Lutufullah & Anothers (Petitioner) VS P.O sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
11		Election Appeal 22/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Rao Wahid Ali (Appellant) VS Rao Muhammad sullman & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
12		Const. P. 830/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst.Fahmida (Petitioner) VS SSP Hyd &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
13		Const. P. 1267/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Muhammad Umar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
14		Const. P. 1412/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
15		Const. P. 1011/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Rasool Bux Khoso (Petitioner) VS Goverment of Sindh Through Home Secretary & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
16		Cr.Bail 1032/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Moin Akhtar (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
17		Const. P. 1479/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Damro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
18		Suit 1560/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Syed Masood Hussain Jafri (Plaintiff) VS Registrar Cooperative Societies, Sindh. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	27-OCT-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
19		Suit 1724/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	MST.ZAIBUNISA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS IQBAL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	28-JAN-19	Yes	Section 39 of Specific Relief Act. Cancellation of Document. An instrument inherently void not required a formal cancellation under Section 39 of Specif Relief Act. Object of Law is to advance justice and remedy the wrong forthwith, instead of putting a law abiding person through the mill. to enforce orderly behaviour in a society. General Damages awarded for sufferings of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs awarded general damages due to protracted litigation and on account of fraudulent act of Defendants.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
20		Suit 620/1994 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1994	ISMAIL MEMORIAL TRUST (Plaintiff) VS KARACH COOP H.S. UNION LTD. & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-MAY-19	Yes	Hospitals fall within the category of amenity plots, as envisaged in Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) Order, 1957. Suit decreed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
21		Suit 74/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1991	Mohammad Sarwar (Plaintiff) VS Government of Sindh and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-JUN-17	Yes	Suit for recovery of compensation amount--Deceased died in the custody of police officials---Contention of the police was that deceased died due to cardiac arrest---Validity---None of the police officials entered the witness box to defend the claim against them---Written statement filed by the police officials had lost its evidentiary value as contents whereof were never proved in the evidence---Deceased died while he was in the custody of police officials---Plaintiff was to prove the factum of incident only---Burden would shift on the police officials to disprove the causation if they wanted to succeed in the claim against the plaintiff---Present case did fall within the purview of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855---Prosecution in a criminal case was to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused but in civil proceedings the matter had to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities---Acquittal of (private) defendants in the criminal case did not have any adverse bearing on the present lis---Police official were liable to compensate the plaintiff by applying the rule of vicarious liability--- Claim of plaintiff with regard to quantum of damages was also unchallenged---Life expectancy of seventy five years in plaintiff's family had been proved---Deceased might also have lived for another fifty years approximately---Claim of awarding damages of Rs.50,00,000/- was justified---Master/employer in the claims with regard to tortuous liabilities would be liable for the wrongful acts of his employees/servants---Provincial Government and Inspector General of Police were liable to compensate the plaintiff besides other defendants---Defendants (Police officials) were liable to pay the damages/compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- together with 10% markup from the date of institution of suit till realization of the amount to the plaintiff and his wife i.e. parent of the deceased jointly and severally. Suit decreed. Custodial death, suit for recovery of compensation amount decreed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
22	2017 CLC 1650	Const. P. 2199/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Haji Khan (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-JUN-16	No	The eligibility criteria f a contesting candidate mentioned in the Sindh Government Act, 2013 (2013 Act), is to be interpreted keeping in view the basic concept of 2013 Act, which spells out that if a candidate is voter registered in an urban area, then he can only be elected for a Council falling within an urban area of the District as envisaged in Section 8 and 15 of the 2013 Act, including town committees; irrespective of the fact that a candidate is voter of the same district. The eligibility criteria f a contesting candidate mentioned in the Sindh Government Act, 2013 (2013 Act), is to be interpreted keeping in view the basic concept of 2013 Act, which spells out that if a candidate is voter registered in an urban area, then he can only be elected for a Council falling within an urban area of the District as envisaged in Section 8 and 15 of the 2013 Act, including town committees; irrespective of the fact that a candidate is voter of the same district.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.367-K/2016 Haji Khan Bhatti v. Province of Sindh through Provincial Election Commission and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
23		Suit 1511/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1999	Pakistan Railwasy Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Plaintiff) VS Mirza Abdul Sattar Baig and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-SEP-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
24		Const. P. 1624/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Moulo (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
25		Civil Revision 38/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Mansoor Ali (Applicant) VS Amir Bux (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-NOV-16	No	It is a settled principle that the applicant/plaintiff has to prove his case on its own merits. The contents of the plaint/pleadings do not carry weight unless they are proved by leading evidence and for which the applicant/plaintiff has to enter the witness box and lead the evidence.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
26		Cr.Bail 871/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Nazeeran (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
27		Const. P. 841/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Muhammad Fayyaz (Petitioner) VS Mst Nighat & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
28		Civil Revision 285/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Muhammad Aabid (Appellant) VS Shamshad Ahmed and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
29		Const. P. 1669/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Iqbal (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
30		Const. P. 583/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Abdul Ghaffar Memon (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
31		Const. P. 1600/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Abdul Ghaffar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
32		Const. P. 665/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Rawal (Petitioner) VS Walam and otehrs (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
33		Const. P. 1434/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
34		Const. P. 1617/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Sanam & another (Petitioner) VS Dost Muhammad & ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
35		Const. P. 1814/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Sidho (Petitioner) VS SSP Tharparkar @ Mithi & Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
36		Const. P. 2020/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Bachal (Petitioner) VS S.S.P Matiari and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
37		Const. P. 1087/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Afzal (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
38		Const. P. 6915/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-SEP-17	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
39		Suit 601/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
40		Const. P. 3488/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-SEP-17	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.3309/2017 Iqbal Ahmed v. Province of Sindh thr. Secretary, Local Government , Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
41		Election Appeal 3/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Jam Javed Ahmed Khan Dehar (Appellant) VS Haji Muhammad Akbar and 14 others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
42		Suit 112/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	SAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS MOHSIN ALI (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	29-MAR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
43		Const. P. 1424/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Hajiran & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
44		Const. P. 1451/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Imdadullah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
45		Const. P. 475/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sht Nano (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
46		Const. P. 1663/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Rasool Bux & Ors (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
47		Const. P. 1567/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Nazia & Ors (Petitioner) VS Nazeer & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
48		Const. P. 6274/2017 (F.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Bushra Jabeen and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	F.B.	Order	08-APR-19	No		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar	C.P.3854/2018,C.P.4573/2018,C.A.1486/2018,C.A.1487/2018,C.P.4475/2018,C.P.4476/2018 SCP	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed ,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
49		Const. P. 1974/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Shahzad Hussain Shahani (Petitioner) VS Governor of Sindh (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
50	2016 SBLR Sindh 1651	Adm. Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1990	Jugolinifa (Plaintiff) VS Sayeed A.Tayyab (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	28-MAR-16	Yes	Rule of 'best evidence' explained; according to which, if a best piece of evidence is not produced by a party or is withheld, then an adverse inference would be drawn against such party, that it deliberately not produced the evidence coupled with some ulterior motive. Objection can be taken during pendency of case that the Suit has been instituted by a person who was not duly authorized or competent to file the proceeding, as envisaged under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, even though no specific Issue was framed in this regard, but, in the evidence the Plaintiff witness was cross-examined on this particular fact and was given an opportunity to produce relevant authorization, under which the suit was instituted, but, he failed to do so. Since defect in filing proceeding was incurable, hence, suit was dismissed. Suit filed by unauthorized person---Defect in filing proceeding was incurable, hence, suit was dismissed	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
51		Civil Revision 245/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Party-1 (Applicant) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
52		Cr.Ref 15/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	IInd Additional Sessions Judge Mirpurkhas. . (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
53	2018 CLC Note 24	Suit 611/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Qadir and another (Plaintiff) VS Laeeq Ahmed and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	07-JUL-17	Yes	Defendant sought rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff had concealed material facts---Validity---Object and principle of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was that a frivolous litigation should be laid to rest at the earliest and bona fide parties should be saved from rigors of such a litigation---Subject matter of litigation in question, i.e. the house property was not in dispute and sale consideration was admitted---Communication of offer and acceptance by parties to each other with regard to subject matter and total sale consideration was acknowledged by both the parties---All ingredients of a valid agreement enforceable as a contract existed---Defendants failed to make a case for grant of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Defendants failed to make a case for grant of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Application was dismissed in circumstances.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
54		Const. P. 222/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Abdullah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-NOV-18	Yes	It is also necessary to clarify that a plot of land, even if it is situated in some housing scheme, cannot be presumed to be reserved for amenity purpose, unless it is shown as an amenity plot in the duly approved layout plan. No plausible material or document has been brought on record by the Petitioners side which can lead to the conclusion that the Plot Nos.163 and 164 were actually the amenity plots and their use was illegally changed/converted from amenity to that of commercial	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
55		F.R.A 8/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Khalid Hayat (Appellant) VS Mst Tehmina (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-MAY-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
56		Const. P. 164/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Muhammad Akram (Petitioner) VS P.O.Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
57		Civil Revision 13/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2006	Shankar Marecho (Applicant) VS Ranjho (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-SEP-18	No	Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara, Advocate, at this juncture complains that the respondents have been harassed by the applicants due to their close relationship with the Administration and particularly police. This has been disputed by Mr. David Lawrence Advocate who represents the applicants and further assures that no harassment either has been caused or will be caused in future, even otherwise since matters are sub judice, therefore, parties are directed to conduct themselves within parameters of law and not otherwise.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.1170-K/2018 Shankar and others v. Ranjho thr. his L.Rs and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
58		Const. P. 4700/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Muhammad Ramzan P.O Sindh & Ors (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-MAY-18	No	we must observe, that while exercising such discretion to grant or refuse permission or lease/license, the Respondents should adhere to the prevailing rules, inter alia, Sindh Mining Concession Rules 2002. The other aspect of the case is that the official respondents have already issued a mining permit for lime stones over an area of 90.6 acres, which is part of the subject area, to private respondent No.9 vide aforementioned Notification, which fact is neither disputed by the petitioner nor any illegality has been pointed out by the latter in the procedure adopted by official respondents.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
59		Election Appeal 27/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Jumman (Appellant) VS Zulfiqar and 3 others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-AUG-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
60		Const. P. 2288/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	khair Muhammad M/S Gul Bottles another (Petitioner) VS M/S Gul Bottles another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-MAY-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
61		Const. P. 1019/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Muhammad Roshan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
62		Civil Revision 172/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Shadi S/o Rahimdino (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
63		Const. P. 1732/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ali Muhammad (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
64		Suit 1118/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	MRS. BILQUIS MOHSIN BUTT & ORS (Plaintiff) VS GHULAM RASOOL UMER & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	13-JUL-18	No	In these circumstances, Sections 19 and 22 of Specific Relief Act are invoked to extend a relief to the Plaintiff. Section 22 speaks about, inter alia, hardship that Defendants can face if a decree of Specific Performance is granted, but, on the other hand, the Plaintiff will not face such a hardship, if the relief is refused. Section 19 makes a provision for compensation. In the present case it will be the above named third party who will face hardship, all the more if the subject property is further transacted. Therefore, I am inclined to follow the decision of Honble Supreme Court handed down in Liaquat Ali Khan versus Falak Sher, reported in PLD 2014 Supreme Court page-506 (ibid). In this case, the Honble Apex Court though did not decree the suit for Specific Performance, but granted compensation	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
65		Const. P. 2578/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Mohammad Ibrahim Shar (Petitioner) VS P.O.Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-MAR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
66		Const. P. 1815/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mashoque Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
67		Const. P. 1843/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Lakha Dino (Petitioner) VS SSP Distt SBA & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
68		Const. P. 1473/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Rafique Ahmed (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
69		Const. P. 705/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Chhagan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No	Learned A.A.G states that no criminal case has been registered against any party to this petition nor police officials have caused any harassment to the petitioner. In these circumstances, present petition is dismissed being meritless	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
70		Const. P. 2874/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Mst Hira (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
71		Const. P. 356/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Naseer Ahmed Mallah (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
72		Suit 771/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	MASJID E ABDEEN TRUST (Plaintiff) VS DUBAI SHOPING MALL (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-MAY-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
73		Suit 504/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1985	TEWFIQ FIKREE & ORS (Plaintiff) VS V/S USMANI FIKREE & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-JAN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
74		Suit 5/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	NOMAN ABID CO (Plaintiff) VS NAVEED HAIDER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-JUL-19	Yes	The Plaintiff has already received the amount of disputed cheque, therefore, the present suit was filed with mala fide intention and is not maintainable. Not only this, the overall conduct of the Plaintiff Company, from the time of granting Leave to Defend Application was not of a bona fide litigant. Hence, the present suit is dismissed with costs. The Plaintiff has already received the amount of disputed cheque, therefore, the present suit was filed with mala fide intention and is not maintainable. Not only this, the overall conduct of the Plaintiff Company, from the time of granting Leave to Defend Application was not of a bona fide litigant. Hence, the present suit is dismissed with costs.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
75		Election Appeal 3/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Jam Javed Ahmed Khan Dahar (Appellant) VS Haji Muhammad Akbar and 14 others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-FEB-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
76		Const. P. 411/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	High Court Bar Hyd (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-MAR-20	Yes	Petition pertains to the current issue of Corona Virus (COVID-19)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
77		H.C.A 260/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Mrs. Zarina Iqbal (Appellant) VS Haji Jaffar & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
78		Const. P. 1905/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cp.D 1932/2011 &1269/2016	2011	Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-APR-20	Yes	Law Discussed: Land Acquisition Act, 1894----- Standing Order of the revenue department No.12, subsection 31 regarding land acquisition provides that if the land was not required for the purpose it was acquired, it should be relinquished and should be offered to the original occupant/owner on payment of compensation received by them and in case of their refusal to have it back on the said terms, it should be considered as a government property in the record. The proceedings of acquiring land could only be ended once the compensation is deposited and the possession was taken over by the acquiring agency. Thus, this would be in severe violation of Articles 23 and 24 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, depriving the land owner not only from enjoying the property but also from its compensation. Thus, there is no justification that he (the owner/private respondent) may be granted interest now after almost three decades of litigation when the value of the property multiplied several hundred folds, as against the compensation, the value of which was determined three decades before and grant of interests under Land Acquisition Act, under the circumstances has no justification.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.420-K/2020 Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
79		Suit 826/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Security Organizing System Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (Plaintiff) VS National Bank of Pakistan & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	28-JUL-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
80		R.A (Civil Revision) 13/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Sohail Ahmed Ansari (Applicant) VS Irfan Ahmed Ansari and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	10-AUG-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
81		Suit 1738/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	SYED HUSSAIN ALI (Plaintiff) VS SYED AKHTAR ALI & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
82		S.M.A 47/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Raza Muhammad S/o (Late) Muhammad Hussain (Petitioner) VS Nil (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-JAN-20	Yes	Petition not maintainable. Dismissed. Petition not maintainable. Dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
83		Suit 394/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1997	MUHAMMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) VS PAK. STEEL MILLS CORP. LTD. & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-MAR-20	Yes	Non-production of Departmental Inquiry Report in the evidence by Defendants has raised adverse presumption against them, as envisaged in Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Loss of consortium; that is, deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries or death caused by a tortfeasor. Well known rules about "foreseeability",causation and but for explained; if any reasonable person by applying his ordinary prudence can foresee a loss that can arise from his act(s), then he owes a duty of care to others [claimant] and is liable for the negligent act that has caused damaged to the other person (claimant). Similarly, causation is the linkage between the negligent act [breach of duty of Care] that has resulted in causing injury and the "but for" test if simply put, means, that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence. Legislative amendments are proposed. Non-production of Departmental Inquiry Report in the evidence by Defendants has raised adverse presumption against them, as envisaged in Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Loss of consortium; that is, deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries or death caused by a tortfeasor. Well known rules about foreseeability,causation and but for explained; if any reasonable person by applying his ordinary prudence can foresee a loss that can arise from his act(s), then he owes a duty of care to others [claimant] and is liable for the negligent act that has caused damaged to the other person (claimant). Similarly, causation is the linkage between the negligent act [breach of duty of Care] that has resulted in causing injury and the "but for" test if simply put, means, that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence. Legislative amendments are proposed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
84		Const. P. 2186/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Zabardast Khan Mehar (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	05-APR-21	Yes	NAB Petition for Reduction of Surety Amount	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.4267/2021 Zabardast Khan Mahar v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Chairman NAB,Islamabad and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
85		Const. P. 3542/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Mukhtiar Ahmed & Ors (Petitioner) VS N A B & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-MAR-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.4122/2021 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Mukhtiar Ahmed and others,C.A.3029/2022 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Mukhtiar Ahmed and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed
86		Const. P. 1272/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Mst. Salma @ Ume-Salma (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh, through Secretary Home Department Sindh Secretariat, Karachi & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	05-MAY-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
87		Suit 493/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1993	Shahimah Sayeed (Plaintiff) VS Base Commander and three others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-FEB-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
88		I. A 5/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Abdul Samad Mahar & others (Appellant) VS The Habib Bank Limited & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-DEC-17	Yes		Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
89		Const. P. 8680/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Muqeem (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	31-AUG-21	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
90		Const. P. 4447/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Ashiq Ali Lakhan (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-MAR-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.4186/2021 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Ashique Ali Lakhan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded
91		Const. P. 661/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2019	Nazeeruddin Qazi (Petitioner) VS Fed of Pak & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-MAR-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.4204/2021 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Nazeeruddin and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded
92		Const. P. 3779/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Sadiq (Petitioner) VS KDA & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	01-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
93		Const. P. 5553/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Syed Iqbal Zaidi (Petitioner) VS Farooq Ahmed and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
94		Const. P. 5539/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mst Aysha Begum (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-NOV-21	Yes	Bonafide purchaser for value without notice Rule will apply where purchasers are not equally at fault with their predecessors. Property purchased on the basis of official record and transactions spreading over many years and did not change hands in quick succession showing undue haste, hence 5th owner cannot be penalized. Responsible officials of KDA to be dealt with strictly, DG KDA directed to hold enquiry and fix responsibility on officials involved in committing illegality and fraud, whether in service or retired, alive or dead, should be mentioned in the Inquiry Report. An alternate plot of same value and utility be allotted to the petitioner. Cost of Rs.100,000/- is imposed on respondent KDA payable to the petitioner.	Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.286-K/2022 Mst.Aysha Begum v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Housing & Town Planning & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
95		Const. P. 6423/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mst. Tahira Bano (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
96		Const. P. 5707/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Ghulam Sarwar & Ors (Petitioner) VS Govt of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
97		Const. P. 8498/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mst. Uzma (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	25-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
98		Const. P. 5574/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s Messe Incorporation (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
99		Const. P. 2440/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Shahid Ali (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-AUG-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
100		Const. P. 7578/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Abdul Quddus Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
101		Const. P. 3906/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Muhammad Tufail (Petitioner) VS Administrator Through CDGK and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-AUG-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
102		Const. P. 2122/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Ali Jaan Brohi (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
103		Suit 1717/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Khalid Ali Khan (Plaintiff) VS Najam Ahmed & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-22	Yes	Collateral proceeding is principle of law and thus suit is barred.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
104		Execution First Appeal 20/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/S. METROPOLITAN STEEL CORP. LTD (Decree Holder) VS MEPCO & AN ANOTHER (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Order	16-FEB-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
105		Suit 610/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	UNION FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	31-AUG-22	Yes	In view of the above discussion, it must be reiterated, that Defendants have to formulate and implement a Policy, which should not result in the closure of businesses of consumers, including present Plaintiffs, as it would violative of Articles 18 and 24 of the Constitution, inter alia, relating to trade, business and proprietary rights. However, both the Plaintiffs are at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority, in accordance with the above Statute and other Regulations and if representations are filed, same should be decided expeditiously by the OGRA.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
106		Suit 379/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	MISS. UZMA AMJAD ALI & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MRS.SAEEDA BANO & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	22-DEC-22	Yes	Since the Defendant No.1 has accepted a substantial amount of rupees six million as part payment towards sale price, and never returned the same till the above Order was passed, which means for almost seven years the same was beneficially utilized by her, therefore, Defendant No.2 (Purchaser) despite the afore discussed lacuna in her claim for damages, is entitled for monetary relief, in view of the judicial consensus, that by invoking Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, where the circumstances so permit, monetary compensation can be given, while refusing the specific performance to plaintiff	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
107		Cr.Bail 1215/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Tayyab (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-DEC-22	Yes	Conversely, the case law relied upon by Applicants counsel is relevant, wherein bail was granted, inter alia, considering the earlier Court case. Both male members of a family are behind bars who are bread earners. There is no record of earlier conviction. Guilt of accused is yet to be determined in the above circumstances, because at this stage a deeper appreciation of facts cannot be made.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
108		Const. P. 84/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Aleemuddin (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-MAR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito
109		Const. P. 712/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Mst. Sundas Asghar (Petitioner) VS Talal Ahmed Qureshi& Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-MAR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
110		Const. P. 115/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Mumtaz Ali (Petitioner) VS Govt Of Sindh & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-FEB-20	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
111		Suit 1188/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Sadia Siddiqui & another (Plaintiff) VS Adnan Andalaib Siddiqui & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-22	Yes	The other undisputed but crucial fact is that since decades both Plaintiffs and their families are residing in the Suit Property, although the lease is in the name of Claimant. It is to be determined through a proper trial that whether the Suit Property was given to the Claimant as her exclusive Property or the same was the compensation given to the Family of the above named Deceased, through his widow, viz. the Claimant, as children, including the above Son [Adnan Andalib] were minors [at the relevant time].	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
112		Const. P. 1977/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Mst. Kausar Sikandar (Petitioner) VS Govt Of Sindh & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-JAN-20	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.1036-K/2022 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. Noor Traders & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
113		Cr.Rev 14/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	NOOR MUHAMMAD (Applicant) VS IST A.D.J BADIN & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-MAY-23	Yes	It is not prohibited under the law for complainant to become investigation officer, provided it does not prejudice the accused person;but, this practice is not approved by the Courts, as it would compromise his impartiality as an investigation officer to find out the truth.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
114		Suit 1246/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Sarfaraz Khamisani & others (Plaintiff) VS The Province of Sindh & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-AUG-23	No	Massive land grabbing in the City of Karachi by Local Administration.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
115		II.A. 29/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cr.Misc.A.S.394/2023	2022	Mian Bux. (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh & others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-23	Yes	Section 47 of C.P.C in wrongly invoked by the Anti-Encroachment Tribunal.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
116		Suit 972/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	DR. HASAN FATIMA JAFERY & ORS (Appellant) VS ROYAL SAUDI CONSULATE KARACHI & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	13-FEB-07	No	With the passage of time, the principle governing immunity has undergone a change. National Courts in different jurisdictions, specially where there exists constitutional dispensation, have generally narrowed down the scope of immunity, whether constitutional, diplomatic or any other type of immunity. One of the reasons for adopting such view, while interpreting the law or clauses relating to immunity is that the concept of immunity is to be balanced with the accountability and those rights guaranteed as fundamental and human rights	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
117		Suit 1150/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1991	ISLAMIC ESTATES & BUILDERS (Appellant) VS V/S HAJI ALLAH DINO & ORS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-FEB-07	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
118	2014 CLC 322	Suit 119/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	MRS. SHABEENA FARHAT (Appellant) VS V/S M/S HIGHWAY HOUSING PROJECT & ORS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-SEP-19	Yes	Defendant has neither provided basic amenities in the Housing Scheme nor has produced any document, rules / bye-laws or Agreement between the parties hereto, to substantiate its evidence, that it is not the responsibility of Defendant to provide these basic amenities. the subject Housing Project launched by Defendant was not complete at least till the time of giving evidence till September, 2014; thus, the grievance of Plaintiff is of continuing nature, inter alia, in terms of Section 23 of the Limitation Law. This is a further ground in addition to the above, for determining that the present lis is maintainable. Hence, suit partly decreed. Defendant has neither provided basic amenities in the Housing Scheme nor has produced any document, rules / bye-laws or Agreement between the parties hereto, to substantiate its evidence, that it is not the responsibility of Defendant to provide these basic amenities. the subject Housing Project launched by Defendant was not complete at least till the time of giving evidence till September, 2014; thus, the grievance of Plaintiff is of continuing nature, inter alia, in terms of Section 23 of the Limitation Law. This is a further ground in addition to the above, for determining that the present lis is maintainable. Hence, suit partly decreed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
119	2016 YLR 2008, 2017 SBLR Sindh 202	Suit 871/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1987	MUHAMMAD HABIB (Plaintiff) VS HUMAYOON LTD. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
120	2017 YLR 1551	Suit 13/1972 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1972	PREMIER INSURANCE CO. V/S KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING (Plaintiff) VS M/S. FAROOQI & CO., Surridge & Beecheano, ARFIN & CO., Abdul Rauf, Samiuddin Sami, H. A. Rahmani (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-MAY-16	No	Marine Insurance Policy is assignable and consequently an Insurance Company after being subrogated, can sue the tortfeasor in its own name, in terms of Sections 130A read with 135A, of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Foreseeability Causation and but for is that if any reasonable person by applying his ordinary prudence can foresee a loss that can arise from his act(s) then he owes a duty of care to others [claimant] and is liable for the negligent act that has caused damaged to the other person (claimant). Similarly, causation is the linkage between the negligent act [breach of duty of care] that has resulted in causing injury and the but for test if simply put means, that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant is negligence. Subject Marine Insurance Policy being a 'time policy' had covered the risk, while the Vessel in question was dry-docked and subsequently damaged. Marine Insurance Policy is assignable and consequently an Insurance Company after being subrogated, can sue the tortfeasor in its own name, in terms of Sections 130A read with 135A, of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
121		Suit 462/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Sajid Ali Qureshi (Plaintiff) VS V/S Saleem Dawood. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	27-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
122	2016 CLC 1326, 2016 CLD 2106	Suit 749/1989 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1989	Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Plaintiff) VS Mohammad Alam (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-APR-16	No	In absence of a counter claim, the Defendant being a handling agent of Plaintiff was held liable to render report of the outstanding balance of unaccounted for rice stock lying in go-down, which was in custody of Defendant. Latter status is of bailee of the goods, who is clothe with the same obligations. Import and applicability of Sections 151 and 161 of the Contract Act [1872] has been discussed vis-??-vis res ipsa loquitur [things speak for themselves]. Defendant has been held liable to compensate Plaintiff for the losses it suffered. Import and applicability of Sections 151 and 161 of the Contract Act [1872] has been discussed [things speak for themselves]. Defendant has been held liable to compensate Plaintiff for the losses it suffered.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
123		Const. P. 2293/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	26-NOV-15	No	The Petitioner being the landlady has complained that the Lessee/tenant PSO [Respondent] in violation of Building & Town Planning Regulations, 2002, particularly 25-12.3, has set up a CNG facility at the existing petrol / service station. Since area of the plot was admittedly more than 1000 square yards, hence the applicable regulation is 25-11.12, where under a CNG facility can be added at an existing petrol station / retail outlet, subject to fulfillment of other requisite formalities, which were complied with. When an Oil Marketing Company appoints a Franchise in respect of a retail outlet / service station, the status of the said Franchise is that of a dealer, that is, a licensee, as envisaged in the Storage, Distribution and Marketing of Petroleum Rules, 1971. Franchisee is a term in vogue in the international Oil and Gas Industry. Different agreements entered into between an Oil Marketing Company as a lessee / tenant of a property, with its Franchisee or other person(s), in particular, for NFR [non-fuel retail] business, is subservient to the main lease agreement being a registered document, entered into between an Oil Marketing Company and owner / lessor of a property. Therefore, for such agreements a written no objection is not necessarily required from landlord / lessor, but only from the concerned government functionary. Different agreements entered into between an Oil Marketing Company as a lessee / tenant of a property, with its Franchisee or other person(s), in particular, for NFR [non-fuel retail] business, is subservient to the main lease agreement being a registered document, entered into between an Oil Marketing Company and owner / lessor of a property. Therefore, for such agreements a written no objection is not necessarily required from landlord / lessor, but only from the concerned government functionary.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
124	2017 CLC 1783	Suit 378/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1987	Habib Jute Mills Limited (Plaintiff) VS The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-FEB-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
125		Const. P. 1221/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sht. Kaveta & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
126		Suit 622/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Habib Ismail (Plaintiff) VS Mrs. Syeda Fiza Hashmi & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	31-AUG-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
127		Const. P. 638/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Zaman (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
128		Const. P. 1906/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Jan Muhammad (Petitioner) VS SSP T.M Khan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	13-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
129		Const. P. 1745/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Husna & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
130		Const. P. 1075/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
131		Civil Revision 78/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Nazar Muhammad (Applicant) VS Noor Muhammad & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
132		Civil Revision 78/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Nazar Muhammad (Applicant) VS Noor Muhammad & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
133		Suit 1311/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2004	Shaikh Abdul Jabbar through his Legal Heirs (Plaintiff) VS Irfan Jami Rafique and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-JUN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
134	2019 YLR 380	Suit 1007/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	Mrs. Uzma Moinuddin (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	03-JUL-18	No	When a Government functionary or statutory body was vested with discretionary powers then same were to be exercised in a structured manner---Discretion was to be exercised in a fair, just and reasonable manner. Suit of Plaintiff was decreed except the claim of damages. When a Government functionary or statutory body was vested with discretionary powers then same were to be exercised in a structured manner---Discretion was to be exercised in a fair, just and reasonable manner. Suit of Plaintiff was decreed except the claim of damages.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
135		Const. P. 1778/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Nazeeran & Ors (Petitioner) VS SSP Badin & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
136		Const. P. 1812/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Zainab & Ors (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
137		Const. P. 1794/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Dayal Kohli (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh &Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
138		Const. P. 1975/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Ramzana & another (Petitioner) VS S.S.P Shaheed Benazirabad & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
139		Const. P. 1955/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Mahnaz & another (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
140		Const. P. 1571/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Sitara & ors. (Petitioner) VS SSP N.Feroze & ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
141	2017 PLC CS 625	Const. P. 1519/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Abdul Ghafar (Applicant) VS Govt of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-APR-16	Yes	Group Insurance being not part of inheritance (Tarka) and the same is payable to the nominee mentioned therein. Since, it is an admitted position as also supported by all documentary evidence, the present petitioner has been mentioned as nominee in the Nomination Form of State life Insurance Corporation, therefore, petitioner is entitled to amount of group insurance.---Rules 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 are interpreted and pensionary benefits were allowed to the petitioner being a nominee. Group Insurance being not part of inheritance (Tarka) and the same is payable to the nominee mentioned therein. Since, it is an admitted position as also supported by all documentary evidence, the present petitioner has been mentioned as nominee in the Nomination Form of State life Insurance Corporation, therefore, petitioner is entitled to amount of group insurance.---Rules 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 are interpreted and pensionary benefits were allowed to the petitioner being a nominee.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
142		M.A. 10/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Muhammad Rafique (Applicant) VS Federal Public Service Commision (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
143		Suit 1151/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Mrs. Hailey Vincent D'Abreo (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	27-OCT-17	No	Rent arrears of School building. S.R.P.O does not apply to the Government buildings. Relief of rent arrears and possession of school building was allowed. Rent arrears of School building. S.R.P.O does not apply to the Government buildings. Relief of rent arrears and possession of school building was allowed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
144		Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-FEB-17	No	Under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. the Court has ample power to even reject the plaint suo moto if it comes to the conclusion that the plaint is hit by any of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. What it appears that defendant No.4-Society after losing their case at different judicial fora, has brought forward the present plaintiff with a claim that already stood adjudged by the aforereferred Judgment of the Appellate Court. Principle of collateral proceeding is a settled rule, under which, a final decision by a competent Court of jurisdiction cannot be upset or interfered with in some parallel or collateral proceeding, as the plaintiff has attempted to do through present suit.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
145		Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	12-APR-17	No	Under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. the Court has ample power to even reject the plaint suo moto if it comes to the conclusion that the plaint is hit by any of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. What it appears that defendant No.4-Society after losing their case at different judicial fora, has brought forward the present plaintiff with a claim that already stood adjudged by the aforereferred Judgment of the Appellate Court. Principle of collateral proceeding is a settled rule, under which, a final decision by a competent Court of jurisdiction cannot be upset or interfered with in some parallel or collateral proceeding, as the plaintiff has attempted to do through present suit.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
146		Suit 1461/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1998	A. QUBUBUDDIN KHAN (Plaintiff) VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-APR-19	Yes	if illegallity is separable from the main award, the same can be modified / corrected by invocking section 15 of the Arbiration Act, 1940.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
147		Suit 160/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	FAHIM ZAFAR LARI (Plaintiff) VS M/S. SANDAL DYESTUFF IND. LTD. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	04-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
148		Suit 515/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	M/S SOORTY ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SYED (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-FEB-19	Yes	The Plaintiffs side has not pursued the matter diligently nor has come forward to lead the evidence, inter alia, at least Plaintiff could have examined any of its authorized representative, but he did not. It appears that the Plaintiff has lost interest in the matter. Unnecessarily a case for want of evidence should not be kept pending if the conduct of the parties does not seem to be bona fide, as in the present case, in view of the above discussion	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
149		Suit 1078/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2002	INAMULLAH SHAIKH. (Plaintiff) VS M/S.CITY SECURITIES & OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-FEB-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
150		Civil Revision 30/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Iqbal Ahmed (Applicant) VS Muhammad Saleem (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
151		Const. P. 1653/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Pir Bux (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
152		Const. P. 1136/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Fayaz Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
153		Const. P. 177/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Azhar Ali (Petitioner) VS Mst. Zareena Bibi (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
154		Const. P. 677/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ali Hassan (Petitioner) VS Mst Sultana Begum & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
155		Const. P. 1750/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Karim Bux (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
156		Const. P. 1150/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Sarwar (Petitioner) VS SSP Jamshoro & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
157		Const. P. 1579/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Wajid Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
158		Const. P. 1724/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Shankar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
159		Civil Revision 266/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Muhammad Bachal (Applicant) VS Haji Allah Dino and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-NOV-16	No	It is observed though regretfully that a recent trend is, that parties move such application for transfer of the case with an object to prolong the matter, though cogent material is usually not available with the parties, which can justify grant of such transfer application but yet in order to create sensationalism in the matter and to gain sympathy of the Court, having supervisory jurisdiction, even the allegations are leveled against the Presiding Officers/Judicial Officers, before whom the cases are pending adjudication. These applications even otherwise cannot be allowed or granted as a matter of routine as it will lead to a situation where at some point in time, the parties and their Counsel in effect would be choosing Courts and Benches of their choice, which is against the norms of administration of justice.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
160		Const. P. 1858/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Khan Chand (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
161		Cr.Misc. 414/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Nazeer Begum (Applicant) VS Illahi Bux Abro & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
162		Civil Revision 135/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Ayoub (Applicant) VS Mushtaque Ahmed & ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
163		Const. P. 416/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Maqsood Ali (Petitioner) VS Mst Raheeda & anothers (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
164		Const. P. 481/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Akhtar Ali & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
165		Const. P. 1742/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Shahid Hussain (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
166		Const. P. 579/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mevo Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
167		Suit 2651/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Zohaib Shakoor (Plaintiff) VS Mahwish Pirzada & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	06-APR-17	Yes	With these observations, the third basic ingredient of suffering irreparable loss is not difficult to decide. The forecasting done by Plaintiff while entering into the subject agreement and making investment in relation to that is bound to be frustrated and jeopardized if the injunctive relief is refused. Hence, Plaintiff cannot be compensated in monetary terms; whereas, the Defendants will not suffer any loss as they will be getting their agreed payments, rather now the enhanced payments as per Plaintiff Statement dated 30.01.2017	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
168		Const. P. 1550/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Salma & another (Petitioner) VS SSP District Sanghar & ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
169		Const. P. 1621/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Qadir (Petitioner) VS S.S.P, SBA and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
170		M.A. 3/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Shehar BAno (Applicant) VS Public @ Lodge Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
171		Execution First Appeal 25/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s. S.K. Enterprises (Decree Holder) VS Dadabhoy Multi-purpose Coperative Housing Soceity (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Judgement	15-JUN-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
172		Const. P. 1802/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Vasdev (Petitioner) VS P.O sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
173		Const. P. 1853/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Ahmed Ali Manzoor (Petitioner) VS Pakistan Railways and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	06-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
174		Suit 1767/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Abdul Sattar Shaikh. (Plaintiff) VS Adeel Zahoor Malik & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	30-MAY-19	Yes	Violation of proprietary right being a fundamental right should be remedied forthwith. Failure to examine both attesting witnesses of a Sale Agreement, which is a disputed document, is fatal to the case of Defendant, who is basing his claim on the Sale Agreement. Sufficient evidence is brought on record justifying grant of mesne profits. No Village / Goth can exist in a developed Scheme-36. The Passport entries and presumption of genuineness as envisaged in Articles-90, 92 and 129 (e) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is attracted. Hence, Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits. The conclusive evidence about the wrongful / illegal possession of Defendants No.1 and 2 of the suit plot does not require an inquiry as mentioned in Order XX, Rule 12, Sub Rule 1 (b). Suit Decreed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
175		Const. P. 1417/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Abdul Ghafoor Jatoi (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
176		Civil Revision 111/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1999	Muhammad Sharif (Applicant) VS Mian Sajjad Ahmed (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
177		Const. P. 2680/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Munawar Ali Bhatti (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	19-APR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
178		Const. P. 84/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Samina Pathan (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-MAY-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.A.843/2017 National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) thr. its Chairman, Islamabad & others v. Samina Pathan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned
179		Const. P. 1464/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Punhal Khan (Petitioner) VS Prov. of Sindh and ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-NOV-15	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.22-K/2016 Punhal Khan v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
180		Civil Revision 60/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Fazal Muhammad (Applicant) VS V/S Abdul Majeed & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
181		Suit 127/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	SURRIYA ZAHEER (Plaintiff) VS MRS.RUQAYA & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	04-OCT-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
182		Const. P. 71/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Miss Rukhsana and others (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-OCT-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.13-K/2018 The Province of Sindh and others v. Mst: Rukhsana Mallah and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
183		I. A 28/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Sajjan Nangore (Appellant) VS Saeed Ahmed Mughul (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-MAY-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
184		Const. P. 4726/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Abdul Malik (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
185		Const. P. 3528-A/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2013	Mst Najma Soomro (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh & Othr (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	30-MAY-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.8-K/2017 North Sindh Urban Services Corporation Ltd. (NSUSC) v. Mst: Najma Soomro and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
186		Suit 1271/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	HAJI SULEMAN. (Plaintiff) VS HAJI ADAM ALI & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	18-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
187		Suit 2227/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Allied Bank Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Qamar Hussain Naqvi & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	18-NOV-19	Yes	Plaint rejected by invoking legal maxim ???actio personalis moritur cum persona??? and Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Legal maxim ???actio personalis moritur cum persona??? (a personal right of action dies with the person) ??? death extinguishes liability in Tort, is enforceable in Pakistan subject to certain exceptions. First, where a tortfeasor???s estate is benefited by the wrong done, then an action would lie against his representatives, secondly, when already a decree is passed, inter alia, for damages, the legal representatives / heirs of a deceased can continue the litigation, thirdly, if in a service case, the Trial Court has reinstated a petitioner in service, which is overturned by an appellate court and in the intervening period, person dies, his legal heirs can continue the litigation, because if a Higher Forum restores the Order of Trial Court, then the legal heirs would at least be entitled for the service benefits. However, no suit can be filed after the death of a person for his individual acts, against his legal heirs. Plaint rejected by invoking legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona and Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal right of action dies with the person) death extinguishes liability in Tort, is enforceable in Pakistan subject to certain exceptions. First, where a tortfeasors estate is benefited by the wrong done, then an action would lie against his representatives, secondly, when already a decree is passed, inter alia, for damages, the legal representatives / heirs of a deceased can continue the litigation, thirdly, if in a service case, the Trial Court has reinstated a petitioner in service, which is overturned by an appellate court and in the intervening period, person dies, his legal heirs can continue the litigation, because if a Higher Forum restores the Order of Trial Court, then the legal heirs would at least be entitled for the service benefits. However, no suit can be filed after the death of a person for his individual acts, against his legal heirs.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
188		Civil Revision 26/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Muhammad Iyas & others (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-MAR-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
189		S.M.A 315/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Ms. Anam Jawed D/o Syed Jawed Naseer (Petitioner) VS Nil (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-JAN-20	No	Matter throughout remained non-contentious. Petition granted. Matter throughout remained non-contentious. Petition granted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
190		Suit 1258/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	DR. ISHAQUE MUHAMMAD SHAH (Plaintiff) VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-JUL-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.1580/2021 Dr. Ishaque Muhammad Shah (deceased) through L.Rs v. National Bank of Pakistan through its President Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
191	2021 SBLR Sindh Note 460	H.C.A 251/2008 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Government of Pakistan & Ors. (Appellant) VS Mian Khalid Manzoor (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
192	2021 PLD Sindh Note 108	H.C.A 241/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Syed Asadul Haq (Appellant) VS M/s.Balochistan Glass Ltd., (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-SEP-20	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
193		Suit 1954/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	RAZAK LATIF & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS ACE SECURITIES (PVT) LTD (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-APR-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
194		Const. P. 4177/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/s I.S Traders (Petitioner) VS FBR and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-SEP-20	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
195		Const. P. 5581/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Shamim Ahmed Siddiqui & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	08-DEC-20	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
196		Const. P. 300/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Mian Trust (Petitioner) VS Lyari Expressway And ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-OCT-21	Yes	It may be noted that in view of the express statutory Bar, inter alia, as provided in Regulation 18-4.1 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, a land reserved for amenity purpose cannot be converted and utilized for any other purpose. In this regard, a reported Judgment in the case of Mansoor Sharif Hamid vs. Shafique Rehman-2015 SCMR 1172 handed down by Honble Supreme Court, cited by the learned counsel for Petitioner is relevant.	Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
197		R.A (Civil Revision) 26/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Muhammad Iyas & others (Applicant) VS VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-MAR-20	Yes	A first question which comes to mind is that Defence Quota must have been based on a criteria that a person or a beneficiary of this Defence Quota must have performed any act of gallantry or bravery for the State of Pakistan.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
198		Suit 215/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Muhammad Rafiq (Plaintiff) VS Habib Bank Limited. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	14-JUL-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
199		M.A. 8/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	M/s. EFU General Insurance Ltd. (Appellant) VS Jahangir Moghul (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-FEB-21	Yes	As per Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, a claim is to be settled within ninety days, subject to certain conditions contained in the above provision. Consequently, finding of learned Tribunal, even on this issue, does not justify any interference.	Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.445-K/2021 M/s. EFU General Insurace Ltd. v. Jahangir Moghul Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
200		Const. P. 6524/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Arif Kasmani & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-NOV-21	No	Besides, the survey numbers claimed by the petitioners in this petition do not find mention in the said Deh For VII-B, while the survey numbers mentioned therein are on the name of Circular Railway. The petitioners have also annexed some other documents with this petition in support of their claim but the same also do not bear their names as owners. As per claim of the petitioners the subject land is occupied by respondents No. 6 & 7 and other housing societies, the possession of government or semi-government departments cannot be termed as land grabbing. This petition being devoid of any merit is; therefore, dismissed accordingly, alongwith listed application.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
201		Const. P. 6329/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Syed Suleman (Petitioner) VS Syed Agha Rafiullah and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	25-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
202		Const. P. 4496/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Abdul Rehman (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
203		Suit 1979/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Syed Sulaiman Jafri (Plaintiff) VS United Bank Limited & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	22-MAR-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
204		Const. P. 5849/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Shafi Muhammad Jokhio (Petitioner) VS Mukhtiarkar Gadap Malir and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
205		Criminal Miscelleneous 475/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2021	Mst.Mumtaz & Ors (Applicant) VS The State & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-MAR-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
206		Const. P. 1992/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Ali Akbar (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
207		Cr.Bail 486/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	GHULAMUDDIN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-JUL-22	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
208		R.A (Civil Revision) 260/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Shah Fahad and an other (Applicant) VS Pir Ghulam Kareem and other (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	21-DEC-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
209		R.A (Civil Revision) 243/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: R.A.Nos.244, 245 & 246 of 2010	2010	WAPDA,Thr:Superintending Eng,LBOD (Applicant) VS Land Acquistion Officer LBOD Project Wapda and Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
210		Cr.Bail 119/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Muhammad Anus (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-MAR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
211		Const. P. 3152/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Nasiruddin Abbasi (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	04-MAR-20	No	Pensionary benefits were commuted, not entitled to retirement benefits as ordered by Hon'ble Supreme Court.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
212		Criminal Miscelleneous 394/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: II.A. S.29/2022	2023	Nasreen Qadri (Applicant) VS Mian Bux (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-23	Yes	Section 47 of C.P.C in wrongly invoked by the Anti-Encroachment Tribunal.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
213		Suit 58/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	ASGHAR HUSSAIN (Plaintiff) VS ABDUL WAKEEL & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	07-SEP-23	Yes	Even if a cause of action there it ceases after cancellation of General Power of Attorney	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
214		II.A. 32/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	Mst. Hamida Iqbal (Appellant) VS Alay Raza & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	05-APR-24	Yes	Appellant has failed to prove the Sale Agreement, hence, Receipt issued in pursuance thereof, has no legal value.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
215		Const. P. 485/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Ch. Ghulam Muhuyuddin (Petitioner) VS Sheikh Abid & Co (Pvt) Ltd (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-APR-24	Yes	Non examining of marginal witnesses-fatal	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
216		I. A 36/1986 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1986	L.A.O Nawabshah & others (Appellant) VS Haji Ghulam Nabi thr: L.Rs (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-DEC-23	Yes	LAND ACQUISITION ACT. No Notice under Section 12. Limitation of six months as mentioned in Section 18 2(b) applies.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
217		Const. P. 1299/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Abdul Hafeez Siddiqui (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-OCT-23	No	(i) Government of Sindh should immediately appoint a competent and suitable person as Director Finance in Respondent No.4 (University) as required by Section 16 of the above Statute. (2) Education should be a top priority for any Nation or Society and those who are at the helm of the affairs.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
218		Suit 1347/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	ASADULLAH KHAWAJA (Appellant) VS INVESTMENT CORP. OF PAKISTAN (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-APR-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
219		Suit 1640/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	MST. ZUBAIDA KHATOON (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	18-OCT-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
220		Suit 762/1995 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1995	SHAHZAB GOTH RESIDENTS (Plaintiff) VS GOVT. OF SINDH & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	21-MAY-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
221		Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1990	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	28-MAR-16	No	Suit filed by unauthorized person---Defect in filing proceeding was incurable, hence, suit was dismissed	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
222	2016 CLC 1063	Suit 456/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1988	MUHAMMAD WAJID KHAN. (Plaintiff) VS M/S. ATTOCK CEMENT FAC. PAK. LTD. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	11-MAR-16	Yes	A remedy available to a person under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, cannot operate as an absolute bar for seeking a remedy under an ordinary civil jurisdiction by filing a suit. Article 22 and 24 of the Limitation Act, 1908, where under an action to seek compensation for an injury should be instituted within one year, is not applicable in the instant case, for the reason that Plaintiff was made to run from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance but without any success. Plaintiff was lastly operated upon on 15.10.1987 and the suit was filed on 17.11.1987, hence the cause of action and so is the grievance is of continuous nature. Well entrenched principle that if a person has a right to claim compensation for a wrong done to him, he should also have a remedy, has been attracted in the instant case. The Defendants, who are Employer [Client], Contractor and sub-contractors, respectively, were jointly and severally held liable to pay damages for the negligent acts, which caused the Plaintiff serious injury and partial disability of permanent nature. Damages have been awarded by invoking the principle of composite negligence. A remedy available to a person under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, cannot operate as an absolute bar for seeking a remedy under an ordinary civil jurisdiction by filing a suit.The Defendants, who are Employer [Client], Contractor and sub-contractors, respectively, were jointly and severally held liable to pay damages for the negligent acts, which caused the Plaintiff serious injury and partial disability of permanent nature. Damages have been awarded by invoking the principle of composite negligence.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
223	2017 CLC 1783	Suit 378/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1987	Habib Jute Mills Limited (Plaintiff) VS The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-FEB-16	No	Claim under Risk Sale is only tenable when there is an enforceable agreement, that is, a contract as defined in subsection (h) of Section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872, exists between the parties, which is subsequently breached by Defendant. In order to succeed in his claim, the Plaintiff has to show that what measures it took to mitigate its losses before arranging or manufacturing the requisite goods / gunny bags for Defendants, if at all, the Plaintiff was under an impression or understanding that it had been actually awarded the contract. Any prudent businessman or a corporate entity like Plaintiff would have addressed a notice or any other type of communication to the Defendants about the fact that the Plaintiff was about to make preparation or commence production of subject goods / jute bags for supplying them to Defendants within the given time frame. In response to Plaintiff bid, the Defendant by its correspondence reduced the price of gunny bags with an explicit condition that the communication is without any commitment. It is also an admitted position that other requisite formalities in such type of tender were never completed. For instance, Plaintiff was never issued a letter of intent nor the latter submitted any performance bond, which fact has been acknowledged by Plaintiff Admiralty suit dismissed (Being filed by unauthorized person)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
224		Suit 750/1989 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1989	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-APR-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
225	2017 MLD 200	Const. P. 424/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Kamran Khan V/S Full Bench of NIRC and Ors (Petitioner) VS V/S Full Bench of NIRC and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-JUN-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
226		Const. P. 2199/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-JUN-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
227		Const. P. 2524/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Ali Muhammad & another (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-AUG-16	No	Registered sub-leases in respect of two apartment / units which were non-existent at the time of registration and even till the decision of the instant petition, have been directed to be cancelled by Nazir of Sindh High Court. It is an admitted position that these apartments are to be located at the third floor / story of the building which is not even constructed by the Builder. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be construed so as to include an immoveable property, which is not even existing at the time of registration. Property sought to be registered should be of ascertainable description. Similarly, Section 2, subsection (6) of the Registration Act, 1908, wherein an immoveable property is defined, inter alia, means that an immoveable property should be a tangible one and physically exists. Different orders passed by this Court in various constitutional petitions, crux of which is that no registration of a residential or a commercial unit of a multistoried building should be done without a completion plan / occupancy certificate, are the decisions in rem, and thus applicable to the present case as well. One of the main objectives, that can be achieved by looking at the completion plan / occupancy certificate is that it can help in identifying the property sought to be registered and also verify the fact that a multistoried building is Regulations compliant, particularly having structural stability. Rule 135 of the West Pakistan Registration Rules, 1929, is not applicable to the facts of subject constitutional petition as the illegality of sub-leases in question were floating on surface and no further inquiry was required for ascertaining the validity of these sub-leases in question. Even otherwise a rule cannot be interpreted in such a manner that results in perpetuating illegality rather preventing it. Registered sub-leases in respect of two apartment / units which were non-existent at the time of registration and even till the decision of the instant petition, have been directed to be cancelled by Nazir of Sindh High Court. It is an admitted position that these apartments are to be located at the third floor / story of the building which is not even constructed by the Builder. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be construed so as to include an immovable property, which is not even existing at the time of registration. Property sought to be registered should be of ascertainable description. Similarly, Section 2, subsection (6) of the Registration Act, 1908, wherein an immovable property is defined, inter alia, means that an immovable property should be a tangible one and physically exists.	Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
228		Const. P. 1363/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Azhar Ali Qureshi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
229		Suit 1482/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1998	Abdul Wahid (Plaintiff) VS Deedar Ali Issran (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	29-DEC-17	Yes	Sale Deed registered in favour of defendants are valid documents and have been entered by the authorized Attorney (having registered sub-irrevocable general power of attorney which is in pursuance of earlier registered irrevocable general power of attorney given by the legal heirs to one of legal heirs) of the plaintiffs. Suit dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
230		Const. P. 1158/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Marvi (Petitioner) VS SSP Tando Allahyar & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
231		Civil Revision 78/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Nazar Muhammad (Applicant) VS Noor Muhammad & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
232		Const. P. 2378/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Shahzad Qamer Abbas (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-AUG-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
233	2018 PLD Sindh 327	Suit 750/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Syed Farukh Mazhar (Plaintiff) VS SGS Headquarters and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-APR-17	Yes	Injunction dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
234	2017 MLD 903	I. A 13/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Nadeem Ali (Appellant) VS Muhammad Yaseen Atta & Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
235		Const. P. 1562/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Shoukat Ali & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sind &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
236		Const. P. 779/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Abdul Jabbar (Petitioner) VS Prov of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
237		Const. P. 1656/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Nadia and an Other V/S Province Of Sindh and Other (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Other (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
238		Const. P. 1592/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mian Dad (Petitioner) VS SSP SBA and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
239		Suit 1353/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Iqbal Umer (Plaintiff) VS Karachi Gymkhana and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-SEP-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
240		Const. P. 1020/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muneer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS DIGP SBA & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
241		F.R.A 3/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Saeed Ali Qureshi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Zubaida Bai & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
242	2019 PLD Sindh 130, 2017 SBLR Sindh 2034	S.M.A 230/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	In the matter of Letter of Administration of deceased Tahir Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS Nil (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-JUN-17	Yes	It would be an inconvenience, rather a hardship for the present Petitioner and her siblings to file the proceeding in respect of properties of her deceased father in three different Countries; Pakistan for moveable property, United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates for the immoveable properties, particularly, when instant Proceeding is a noncontentious in nature. Proprietary rights are mentioned in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and hence they can neither be ignored nor their significance can be lessened.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
243		Suit 101/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1984	Karachi Properties Investment Company (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Karachi Properties Investment Company (1974) (Private) Limited and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	12-JUN-17	No	Once it has been admitted by the defendant that a huge amount rupees 9.3 Million was paid way back in 1978, which at the time was no doubt enormous amount, then onus on defendants to prove that either they paid back this amount to plaintiff or kept this amount in a separate account and it was never utilized in their other transactions. The Defendants failed to discharge their onus. Suit decreed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
244		Const. P. 1720/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Amb (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
245		Const. P. 1586/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Tania & Ors (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
246		Const. P. 1719/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Heero Mal (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
247		Const. P. 1810/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Faheem (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
248		Civil Revision 218/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2000	Jamshad Ali & Others (Applicant) VS Shamshad Ali & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
249		Const. P. 1634/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Imamuddin (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
250		Const. P. 1271/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Ramzan (Petitioner) VS SSP Sanghar & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
251		Const. P. 1384/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mumtaz @ Mano (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
252		Civil Revision 246/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Party-1 (Applicant) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	23-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
253		Criminal Appeal 98/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Urs Zardari (Appellant) VS The State & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	J.P.490/2018 Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State,Crl.A.184/2020 Mst. Sakina Ramzan v. The State Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted (Crl.M.A.304/2020 application for permission to appaear and argue allowed),Disposed Allowed (Short order/Reasons later)
254		Const. P. 894/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ahmed Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
255		Const. P. 787/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Hassan & Ors. (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.117-K/2019 Muhammad Shoaib & others v. Province of Sindh thr. Secretary & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
256		Const. P. 1062/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Hussain Thaheem (Petitioner) VS SSP Tando Allahyar & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
257		Const. P. 1519/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Saeeda (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
258		Const. P. 1245/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ahmed Khan & Ors (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
259		Const. P. 1491/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Suleman & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
260		Const. P. 1292/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2013	Riaz Hussain (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
261		Suit 1022/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	ABID & ORS (Plaintiff) VS K.B.C.A (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	25-JAN-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
262		Suit 425/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	RIZWAN AHMED (Plaintiff) VS JAMEEL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	29-JAN-19	No	It is not difficult to conclude that the Suit Property belonging to the deceased father has to be distributed in accordance with the Hanafi Law of Inheritance amongst all the legal heirs, viz. Plaintiff and Defendants. With regard to the stance of contesting Defendants No.1, 2 and 4, that Plaintiff misappropriated some amount and so also the gold ornaments, the same stand disproved.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
263		Const. P. 1682/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Shela & another (Petitioner) VS SSP SBA & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
264		Cr.Bail 951/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Hayat (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
265		Const. P. 681/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Salim (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.502-K/2016 The Province of Sindh and others v. Zameer Hussain Shaikh Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
266		Suit 889/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1998	Mirza Abdul Sattar Baig (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Railways and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-SEP-17	No	Suit for Declaration, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction dismissed with cost.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
267		Suit 1650/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Mrs. Shamima Alam (Plaintiff) VS Syed Abu Obedah and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-MAR-18	No	Suit for Declaration, Cancellation, Injunction and Mesne profit. suit decreed except the Mesne profit as same were not proved. However, damages were awarded to the plaintiff for the loss which she suffered on account of demolition of boundary wall of her plot.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
268	2018 YLR 1319	Suit 1367/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Muhammad Iqbal Dawood and another (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Qayoom Hot and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	11-MAY-17	Yes	Suit for possession of immovable property and mesne profits---Defendant was inducted by the plaintiffs as care taker to look after the suit land---Defendant/care taker had committed default in payment of money earned from the cultivation to the plaintiffs---Defendant had kept the plaintiffs out of possession of suit property---Plaintiffs were deprived of use and enjoyment of their land---Suit land was leased out to the plaintiffs and period/term of lease had been consumed by the care taker, mesne profits was to be granted to the plaintiffs in circumstances---Care taker was directed to hand over vacant possession of suit land to the plaintiffs free from all encumbrances and claims---Defendant/care-taker should pay mesne profits and contract money to the plaintiffs---Suit was decreed accordingly. Suit for possession of immovable property and mesne profits. Suit Decreed	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
269		Const. P. 520/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Ghous Bux (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
270		Const. P. 804/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Mst: Shahnaz Akhtar (Petitioner) VS WAPDA and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	01-NOV-18	No	Even departmental rules, regulations and instructions, which are non-statutory, have to be adhered to and an employer (Organization) cannot deviate from such rules and instructions, which are in the nature of a contract, binding on the parties. With regard to the Policy matters, it has been held, that even in the absence of vested right, the principle of policy is enforceable. The Respondents have failed to justify the issuance of impugned Officer Order, which ex facie is violative of the policy of the Respondent No.1 contained in Office Memorandum dated 13-04-1988 besides being unreasonable, hence, having no legal sanctity. Consequently, the impugned Office Order is of no consequence and is set aside. Accordingly, petition is accepted and the grant of BPS-15 to the Petitioner is restored with effect from 14-10-1991 and her other service benefits have to be fixed and calculated accordingly. Even departmental rules, regulations and instructions, which are non-statutory, have to be adhered to and an employer (Organization) cannot deviate from such rules and instructions, which are in the nature of a contract, binding on the parties. With regard to the Policy matters, it has been held, that even in the absence of vested right, the principle of policy is enforceable. The Respondents have failed to justify the issuance of impugned Officer Order, which ex facie is violative of the policy of the Respondent No.1 contained in Office Memorandum dated 13-04-1988 besides being unreasonable, hence, having no legal sanctity. Consequently, the impugned Office Order is of no consequence and is set aside. Accordingly, petition is accepted and the grant of BPS-15 to the Petitioner is restored with effect from 14-10-1991 and her other service benefits have to be fixed and calculated accordingly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.1504-K/2018 Water & Power Development Authority and others v. Mst: Shahnaz Akhtar,C.P.265-K/2016 Mazhar Umrao Bundo Khan v. Abdul Haq and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
271	2019 SBLR Sindh 395	Suit 534/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	M/s Mehran Associates (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	07-MAR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
272		Const. P. 1948/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Khursheed Begum (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.621-K/2016 Commissioner Inland Revenue Larger Tax Payer Unit and others v. Maersk Pak. (Pvt) Ltd.,C.P.594-K/2016 The Province of Sindh thr. Chief Secy: Sindh and others v. Pakistan thr. Secy: Revenue Div. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Leave Granted
273		Const. P. 179/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Abdul Malik (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
274		Const. P. 484/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Irtaza@ Shahrukh V/S Province of Sindh & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
275		Const. P. 1360/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Mst Rubeena Shar (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
276		Const. P. 1346/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Muhammad Yaseen (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
277		Const. P. 2634/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Haji alias Hajjan (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
278	2021 MLD 284	Cr.Rev 73/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2018	Muhammad Bux Chandio (Applicant) VS Zulfiqar Ali and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-JUN-19	Yes	Investigation under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not properly done by the Trial Court and the case was decided merely on the reports of Officials without conducting further probe into the veracity of such reports. Impugned order set aside, case remanded. Investigation under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not properly done by the Trial Court and the case was decided merely on the reports of Officials without conducting further probe into the veracity of such reports. Impugned order set aside, case remanded.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
279		Criminal Appeal 20/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2018	Muhammad Sharif and another (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-JUL-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	Crl.P.1013/2019 Muhammad Sharif S/o Khuda Nazar Pathan & another v. The State thr. P.G. Sindh,Crl.A.183/2022 Muhammad Sharif S/o Khuda Nazar Pathan & another v. The State thr. P.G. Sindh Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Pending
280		Suit 727/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	IQBAL RASHEED (Plaintiff) VS BABAR MIRZA CHUGTAI & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-JAN-17	Yes	It is apparent from the record that no arbitration proceeding under the Arbitration Act, 1940 took place. To a query, learned counsel for the plaintiff did not deny this fact that the said arbitration decision which in fact is a Compromise Agreement, which is a result of mediation done by two persons, namely Zaheer H. Minhas, Advocate and Wazeerzada Afridi; the latter has also testified about the authenticity of the above document.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
281		Election Appeal 7/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Ameen and another (Appellant) VS Jawaid Ali and 5 others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	25-MAR-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
282		Suit 754/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2002	Abrarul Hassan. (Plaintiff) VS Qazi Muhammad Shakil (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-SEP-19	No	It has been observed that the suit plot was carved out from an amenity plot and has not been regularized in a proper manner and resultantly, the petition challenging the status of plot was allowed with the directions to Defendant No.10 to take over the plot and maintain its status as an amenity plot. Present Plaintiff was impleaded as Respondent No.1 in the above constitutional petition, thus, Plaintiff is in knowledge of the above Order. In this view of the matter the present proceeding cannot be kept pending anymore.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
283		Suit 1472/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1998	Abdul Qadir (Plaintiff) VS Mr.Ameer Zadi& Ors (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	16-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
284	2021 PLD Sindh Note 88	Suit 1498/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Feroze Sajan & others (Plaintiff) VS Farzana Sajan (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-APR-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
285		Suit 1696/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	BEECHAM PAKISTAN PVT. LTD. (Plaintiff) VS ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-APR-20	Yes	The imposition of impugned ten percent loading (charges) was in effect a levy, which could not have been imposed or recovered except through a valid legislation or other permissible statutory method. This impugned loading of 10% was/is illegal per se and cannot be sustained.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
286	2021 SBLR Sindh Note 571	H.C.A 428/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (Appellant) VS M/s. Data Stee Pipe Industries Pvt Ltd. & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-SEP-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
287		Suit 432/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Muhammad Arif. (Plaintiff) VS Mrs. Uzma Jawaid & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	30-DEC-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
288		Suit 87/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	MUHAMMAD AZAM MASOOD (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD RAUF & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	31-JAN-20	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
289		H.C.A 347/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Naseem Ahmed Malik & others (Appellant) VS Saeed Iqbal & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.94-K/2021 Naseem Ahmed Malik & others v. Saeed Iqbal & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
290		Suit 1213/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	SYED ZIANUDDIN (Plaintiff) VS M/S. CONTINENTAL LTD. & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-JUL-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
291		H.C.A 116/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Shahzad Noor Muhammad (Appellant) VS Karachi Gymkhana & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
292		Suit 1316/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	DR. ABDUL RASHID PARACHA (Plaintiff) VS THE DEF. HOUSING AUTHORITY (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-JAN-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
293		Const. P. 5660/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Mann-O-Salva Pakistan Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Chief Sect: Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.1542-K/2021 Mann-O-Salva Agri Pakistan Private Limited v. Chief Secretary Sindh Member/ Secretary LU, Board of Revenue Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
294		Suit 1152/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2004	INAYAT MASIH & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS WAQAR AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	27-SEP-21	Yes	Outcome of a criminal proceeding would not adversely affect determination of a Civil liability in a fatal accident suit, inter alia, because standard of proof in both proceedings is different. Family of the deceased is also entitled for damages for "loss of consortium", that is, deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to the death caused by a tortfeasor. Suit decreed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
295		Const. P. 1502/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Abdul Hameed Khan Pathan (Petitioner) VS Deputy Director NAB & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-MAR-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.3241/2021 Abdul Hameed Khan Pathan v. Deputy Director NAB Airport Road, Sukkur and others,C.P.3130/2021 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarter, Islamabad v. Abdul Hameed Pathan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of
296		Const. P. 771/2004 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2004	Capt. S. M . Asllam (Petitioner) VS Karachi Building Control Authority & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	12-OCT-21	Yes	When the application was made in the year 2003, the Resolution No.383 dated 06.01.2004 was in the field. Commercialization charges /fees as applicable in the year 2004 should be charged.	Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.1657-K/2021 Captain S.M.Aslam v. Sindh Master Plan Authority Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
297		Election Appeal 13/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Zunaira Rehman W/o Ali Rehman (Appellant) VS The Election Commission of Pakistan and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	05-APR-21	Yes	Once an identity of Seconder has been finally confirmed by NADRA, as discussed above, then difference in signature would not be a substantial defect (in terms of above provisions) and cannot be termed that it is not genuine, in the above given circumstances, resulting in rejection of the Nomination Form of present Appellant.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
298		I.T.R 201/2005 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: 47/2006, 52/2006 & 442/2006	2005	M/s State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (Applicant) VS Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
299		Const. P. 4882/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Muhammad Khalid Ali Khan (Petitioner) VS Court of Minister of Cooperation & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
300		Suit 2364/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s. Wadood Engineering Services (Pvt) Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS The Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	22-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
301		Const. P. 4923/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Sindh Games Association (Regd) (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
302		Const. P. 1893/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mst. Bakhmina (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	26-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
303		Const. P. 4770/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Syed Muhammad Tauheed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-NOV-21	No	Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Though the petitioner has not specifically prayed for the implementation of the order of Provincial Ombudsman dated 30th December, 2014 in the instant petition; however, it is an admitted position that the relief claimed by the petitioner through instant petition was already agitated by him before the Provincial Ombudsman, who adjudicated the same vide aforementioned order. We are not impressed with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that no efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner for getting the order of Provincial Ombudsman implemented, in view of section 11(5) of The Establishment of the Office of Ombudsmen for the Province of Sindh Act, 1991, which provides that If the Agency concerned does not comply with the recommendations of the Ombudsman or does not give reasons to the satisfaction of the Ombudsman for non-compliance, it shall be treated as "Defiance of Recommendations" and shall be dealt with as hereinafter provided. Section 12 (1) ibid provides that If there is a "Defiance of Recommendations" by the public servant in any Agency with regard to the implementation of a recommendation given by the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman may refer the matter to the Chief Minister who may, in his discretion, direct the Agency to implement the recommendation and inform the Ombudsman accordingly. We are; therefore, of the view that the Provincial Ombudsman is duly empowered to get his order implemented under the aforesaid Act and the remedy which is equally efficacious lies before him in terms of Section 11(5) and 12(1) ibid. We are also of the considered view that the instant petition is not maintainable in law as the same has been filed by a stranger, as it appears that the subject plot was allotted to one Syed Muhammad Tauheed (S. M. Tauheed) while the instant petition has been filed through one Parvaiz Arshad, claiming to be the Attorney of the petitioner. Copy of the General Power of Attorney (GPA) is available as annexure P at page 19 of the memo of petition. It appears from the perusal of the said GPA that it has not been executed by the petitioner but by one Muzammil Syed s/o S. M. Tauheed. No authority has been annexed with the memo of petition to establish that executor/principal of the said GPA, namely, Muzammil Syed has an authority to act on behalf of petitioner Syed Muhammad Tauheed and to appoint Parvaiz Arshad as his Attorney. Moreover, the GPA is though attested by the Attache, Consulate General of Pakistan at Houston (U.S.A.) but the same is not duly charged with duty. Power of Attorney as defined by section 2(21) of the Stamps Act, 1899 is required under section 3 (ibid) to be charged with duty of the amount indicated in the Schedule-I. Under Article 27(c) of the Sindh Schedule Stamp-Duty on Instrument GPA is to be charged with duty of five hundred rupees. Section 35 (ibid) imposes an absolute bar against acting upon the instrument not duly stamped. Hence, Parvaiz Arshad has no legal capacity to act on behalf of petitioner Syed Muhammad Tauheed and to file the instant petition. For the foregoing facts and reasons, this petition being devoid of legal merit is accordingly dismissed in limine, alongwith listed application.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
304		Const. P. 99/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Mst. Syeda Sheerin (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-MAY-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
305		Suit 341/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	SHIAKH KHALID SAFDAR (Plaintiff) VS ALI HUSSAIN & OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	29-SEP-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
306		Const. P. 2046/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Muhammad Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
307		Criminal Appeal 87/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	RAHIB ALIAS RAHU (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
308		Cr.Bail 1216/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Arbab (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-DEC-22	Yes	Conversely, the case law relied upon by Applicants counsel is relevant, wherein bail was granted, inter alia, considering the earlier Court case. Both male members of a family are behind bars who are bread earners. There is no record of earlier conviction. Guilt of accused is yet to be determined in the above circumstances, because at this stage a deeper appreciation of facts cannot be made.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
309		Suit 229/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Aga Khan Fund For Economic Development S.A. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	11-JAN-23	Yes	It is held that provisions of Treaty, which are statutorily recognized in terms of Section 107 of the Income Tax Law, has been given preference and would prevail over the provisions of the Income Tax Law. In Paragraph-9 of the above judgment, question of imposition of Super Tax has been specifically dealt with and the contention of the Department / Suit No.229 of 2017 present Defendants, has been discarded.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
310		Cr.Bail 799/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Muhammad Sajjan (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-MAR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
311		Criminal Appeal 121/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Dildar Ali (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	12-APR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
312		R.A (Civil Revision) 35/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Saeed Ahmed (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-OCT-23	Yes	When the entire record is before the Appellate Court, it is not proper to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court in a routine manner, only for resolving trivial issues, which under the law, can be determined by the Appellate Court itself.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
313		Const. P. 826/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: IInd Appeal No.8 of 2020 & CP.No.S-167 of 2021	2022	Muhammad Aslam (Petitioner) VS Muhammad yasin & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-23	Yes	APPLICATION OF A JUDICIAL MIND, THAT INCLUDES, ELEMENT OF VISIBLE FAIRNESS IN A DECISION.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
314		R.A (Civil Revision) 88/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Haji Gohar Khan Thr. Attorney Aziz Ur Rehman (Applicant) VS Gul Faraz Ahmed Murwat and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	12-JAN-24	No	Both impugned Orders dated 14.09.2021 passed by learned Trial Court have not only dismissed the injunction applications, but also Applications under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. In the impugned Order, one of the reasons, inter alia, is that the status of Plaintiffs / Applicants is yet to be determined [in the Trial].	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
315		II.A. 192/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Sumbul Saud W/o Saud Hasan Khan (Appellant) VS Humaira Mateen Thr. Syed Muhammad Mateen & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-JAN-24	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
316		Const. P. 86/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	National Refinery Ltd Thr. Rana Waqar Haider (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Zakir and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	01-FEB-24	No	Writ of certiorari.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
317		Const. P. 1788/2024 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	Saadabad Coop Housing Society (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-APR-24	Yes	Notification to supersede the Society, set-aside	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
318		Const. P. 167/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: IInd Appeal No.8 of 2020 & CP No.S-826 of 2022	2021	Muhammad Aslam (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Yasin & anothers (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-23	Yes	APPLICATION OF A JUDICIAL MIND, THAT INCLUDES, ELEMENT OF VISIBLE FAIRNESS IN A DECISION.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
319	2016 YLR Note 133	Suit 241/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	MRS. ZAREENA (Plaintiff) VS ISLAM UDDIN & OTHERS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	24-NOV-15	No	Principle of res judicata as envisaged under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, can in appropriate cases be made applicable to the interlocutory orders as well, particularly to forestall the abuse of process of Court, which is apparent from the conduct of the parties. Principle of res judicata as envisaged under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, can in appropriate cases be made applicable to the interlocutory orders as well, particularly to forestall the abuse of process of Court, which is apparent from the conduct of the parties.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
320	2016 CLC 1326	Suit 67/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1988	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	22-FEB-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
321	2016 CLC 1326, 2016 SBLR Sindh 967	Suit 796/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1987	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-MAR-16	No	No party is allowed to set up a new case in evidence, which is beyond his pleadings. Defendant was appointed as handling agent of Plaintiff in respect of one of latter's go-downs, inter alia, with an express obligation to submit periodical Reserve Stock Account (RSA), which Defendant failed to submit. Defendant being bailee in terms of Section 161 of Contract Act, 1872, was responsible for delivery of goods as well as keeping a proper account for the same. Defendant held liable for the reported short fall in the rice stock and bardanas (wheat / gunny bags). Concept of the Best Evidence Rule' vis-??-vis Article 129, Illustration (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 has also been discussed; that if a party relying upon a best piece of evidence but withholds it while leading evidence, then it will be presumed that under some sinister motive the best piece of evidence was not produced. No party is allowed to set up a new case in evidence, which is beyond his pleadings	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
322	2016 YLR 1436	Execution 25/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Askari Bank Ltd. (Decree Holder) VS A.H. International (Pvt) Ltd. & OTHERS (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Judgement	15-JAN-16	No	From facts of the case, when it is obvious that subject property though was transferred in favour of a creditor Bank through a registered deed of conveyance, on the basis of which said Bank filed Objection and resisted Execution proceeding, which is the outcome of a compromise decree between another Bank and the judgment debtor. Admittedly, the above transfer of property took place after passing of the above Decree in favour of another Bank [Decree Holder] that too on the basis of a settlement agreement in which the property in question was also part of subject matter. It is held, that the impugned transfer of property was made in clear violation of Section 23 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, therefore, the transfer/conveyance of property in favour of the creditor bank is void and it is not necessary that the registered conveyance deed should first be adjudged as cancelled in terms of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, but, in the Execution proceeding of the nature this determination can be made. Financial Institutions have to streamline their working and banking transactions should have transparency as they [Financial Institutions] have a fiduciary relationship with their customers. Transfer of property made in clear violation of Section 23 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is void.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
323	2016 SBLR Sindh 594	Execution 39/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Party-1 (Decree Holder) VS Party-2 (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Judgement	23-DEC-15	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
324		Suit 646/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1999	KHAN JAMAL (Plaintiff) VS M/S. LONG LIFE BUILDERS & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	03-OCT-16	No	Considering the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I hold that the suit filed by Khan Jamal is not barred by law but he had / has a legal character in terms of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, for filing the present proceedings [Suit No. 646 of 1999], inter alia, to safeguard his interest in respect of the suit property.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
325		Const. P. 1822/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Raja Ishtiaque Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
326		Const. P. 15/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	IInd Additional Sessions Judge Mirpurkhas (Petitioner) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
327		Adm. Suit 7/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Fair Sea International FZC (Plaintiff) VS MV "MISKI" & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-SEP-19	Yes	Plaintiff has incurred and still incurring expenses for supply of necessaries and other products to Defendant No.1 since or about 09.10.2017 and onwards, when the Defendant No.1 (subject Vessel) is berthed at Karachi Port; therefore, only those documents can be considered, which relate to this period and onwards, or, when the subject Vessel entered territorial waters of Pakistan and not before that. Suit of the Plaintiff is partly decreed to the extent of US Dollars-120,710.6 (US Dollars One Lac Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten only) and Pak Rupees-22,42,497/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand and Four Hundred Ninety Seven only). Plaintiff has incurred and still incurring expenses for supply of necessaries and other products to Defendant No.1 since or about 09.10.2017 and onwards, when the Defendant No.1 (subject Vessel) is berthed at Karachi Port; therefore, only those documents can be considered, which relate to this period and onwards, or, when the subject Vessel entered territorial waters of Pakistan and not before that. Suit of the Plaintiff is partly decreed to the extent of US Dollars-120,710.6 (US Dollars One Lac Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten only) and Pak Rupees-22,42,497/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand and Four Hundred Ninety Seven only).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
328	2018 CLC Note 39	Suit 566/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Tariq Rafi. (Plaintiff) VS Topgen Health Care/T.G. Pharma & Ors. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	27-APR-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
329		Civil Revision 57/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Allah Dino (Applicant) VS Mst: Saleha Begum and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
330		Civil Revision 9/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Ali Muhammad alias Aloo thr: L.Rs (Applicant) VS Haji Natho (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
331		Const. P. 1455/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Faiz Muhammad (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
332		Civil Revision 155/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
333		Const. P. 1966/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Asan Dass (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
334		Const. P. 1999/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Gulab Khan (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
335		Cr.Bail 979/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Jameel Ahmed Memon (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
336		Const. P. 1986/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Shareefan (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
337		Const. P. 198/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Abdul Majeed (Applicant) VS NAB and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-MAY-16	No	Bail Granted--- Petitioner was a Bank official and arrested by National Accountability Bureau on a complaint by manager of a private Bank that he, along with co-accused persons, misused their authority and misappropriated/embezzled funds of bank by illegally opening an imprest account---Validity---Fact that as to how much amount landed in pocket of petitioner as beneficiary was not highlighted. No loss was caused to public exchequer as matter pertained to a private Bank. Company in whose favour purported fake Letters of Guarantee were issued also did not come forward with their claim or complaint. Validity of Letters of Guarantee had expired. Under instruments, no fiscal fraud of cheating was committed. Prosecution had to still prove its case before Trial Court and therefore, case fell within established ingredients for grant of bail, as it was a case of further inquiry in order to prove guilt of petitioner. Bail Granted--- Petitioner was a Bank official and arrested by National Accountability Bureau on a complaint by manager of a private Bank that he, along with co-accused persons, misused their authority and misappropriated/embezzled funds of bank by illegally opening an imprest account---Validity---Fact that as to how much amount landed in pocket of petitioner as beneficiary was not highlighted. No loss was caused to public exchequer as matter pertained to a private Bank. Company in whose favour purported fake Letters of Guarantee were issued also did not come forward with their claim or complaint. Validity of Letters of Guarantee had expired. Under instruments, no fiscal fraud of cheating was committed. Prosecution had to still prove its case before Trial Court and therefore, case fell within established ingredients for grant of bail, as it was a case of further inquiry in order to prove guilt of petitioner.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
338		Const. P. 1733/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Dost Ali & another (Petitioner) VS SSP Umerkot & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
339		Const. P. 1263/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Maryam Khatoon (Petitioner) VS P.O sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
340		Const. P. 1716/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Jamal ud Din (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
341		Suit 1661/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Dewan Steel Mills and others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-JUN-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
342	2018 PTD 668	Suit 1661/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Dewan Steel Mills and others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-JUN-17	Yes	Ant- Dumping Case: Concept of dumping explained. Section 31 Anti Dumping Act, 2015, explained. NTC not required to first give an independent decision or determination before delivering its preliminary determination. Concession of parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court. Suit barred in view of Section 70 of the Anti Dumping Act, 2015. Confidentiality issue to be considered by Appellate Forum. Information and database about prices of a product obtained from Customs Department, not confidential, unless otherwise barred by any statute or rule. Decisions of National Tariff Commission should not be resulting in creating directly or indirectly any monopoly or cartel of any business. Claim of confidentiality should be decided on the touchstone of Article 19A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002. Role of National Tariff Commission is very significant vis-a-vis CPEC. NTC to ensure that local industry is not destroyed. Time enlarged for filing Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Case referred to National Tariff Commission.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
343	2018 MLD 1099	Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-APR-17	No	Under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. the Court has ample power to even reject the plaint suo moto if it comes to the conclusion that the plaint is hit by any of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. What it appears that defendant No.4-Society after losing their case at different judicial fora, has brought forward the present plaintiff with a claim that already stood adjudged by the aforereferred Judgment of the Appellate Court. Principle of collateral proceeding is a settled rule, under which, a final decision by a competent Court of jurisdiction cannot be upset or interfered with in some parallel or collateral proceeding, as the plaintiff has attempted to do through present suit.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
344		Const. P. 1007/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Muhammad Mehboob (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-MAY-18	Yes	The prohibitions contained in Sections 3 and 4 and the punishments provided therein for their contravention clearly show that the persons who do not fall within the exemptions provided in Section 5 or who knowingly and willfully show disrespect for the persons fasting and/or for the holy month of Ramazan, are to be dealt with strictly and punished under Sections 3 and 4, as the case may be. Another important aspect is that no person should be allowed to take advantage of the exemptions provided in Section 5 or to exploit the same if he is not entitled to the same.Since the hotels and restaurants of the petitioners are admittedly not situated within the premises of any of the places enumerated in Section 5 of the Ordinance, they are not certainly entitled to seek exemption under the said Section, and as such all these petitions are liable to be dismissed.	Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
345		Const. P. 1852/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Piyar Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
346		Const. P. 1558/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Malook (Petitioner) VS Jameel Ahmed & ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
347		Const. P. 1574/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Aneesa Begum (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
348		Const. P. 1590/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Qasim (Petitioner) VS Hamid Ali & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
349		Const. P. 4725/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Mansoor Ashraf (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-AUG-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.662-K/2016 Mst. Fareeda Zafar and others v. Mansoor Ashraf and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
350		I. A 35/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Ahmed Khan & Ors (Appellant) VS Land Acquisition Officer & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
351		Const. P. 1775/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Khadim Hussain (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
352		Const. P. 1276/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Kirshan (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
353		Const. P. 1353/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sht. Vidya Bai (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
354		Const. P. 1714/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mashooq Hussain (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
355		Civil Revision 225/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2000	Abdul Haq (Applicant) VS Mir Ali Nawaz & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
356		Const. P. 1583/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mir Hassan (Petitioner) VS Ghulam Mustafa & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
357		Const. P. 1855/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Hakim Zadi & Ors (Petitioner) VS SSP SBA & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
358		M.A. 9/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2001	Arbab Khatoon (Applicant) VS Mst Sakina & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
359		Const. P. 1961/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Ameeran & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
360		S.M.A 202/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	13-OCT-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
361		Suit 1059/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Ali (Plaintiff) VS Government of Sindh & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-SEP-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
362		Adm. Suit 3/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	GLANDER INTERNATIONAL BUNKERING DMCC (Plaintiff) VS M.V. MISKI AND 2 OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-SEP-19	Yes	It is an established Rule that pleadings themselves cannot be considered as evidence unless the Plaintiff or Defendant, as the case may be, enters the witness Box and lead the evidence in support of one's claim or defence. Plaintiff has not come forward to testify and discharge the burden of proof about its claim. The reported decision of Hon???ble Supreme Court handed down in the case of Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer Khan-2015 SCMR page-1401, is relevant. Since Plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations against the Defendants, thus the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Suit dismissed. It is an established Rule that pleadings themselves cannot be considered as evidence unless the Plaintiff or Defendant, as the case may be, enters the witness Box and lead the evidence in support of one's claim or defence. Plaintiff has not come forward to testify and discharge the burden of proof about its claim. The reported decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court handed down in the case of Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer Khan-2015 SCMR page-1401, is relevant. Since Plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations against the Defendants, thus the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Suit dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
363		Suit 1526/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Creek Marina Private Limited (Plaintiff) VS Guangdong Overseas Construction Group Company Limited and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-JUN-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
364		Const. P. 1633/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Khalida and another (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
365		Civil Revision 244/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	WAPDA,Thr:Superintendin Eng,LBOD(WAPDA) (Applicant) VS Land Acquistion Officer LBOD Project (WAPDA)&Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
366		Adm. Suit 6/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	FAREED AHMED KHAN & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS M.V. MISKI & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
367		Suit 1090/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1991	Sunray Corporation (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Total Parco Marketing Ltd (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	14-OCT-16	Yes	The Defendant in breach of its contractual obligation did not purchase the lubricants product from plaintiff. Suit decreed by awarding damages with markup rate of 12% from the date of institution of the suit till realization amount.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
368		Const. P. 1533/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Allah Wasaya (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
369		Suit 1744/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Hanif Ahmed and another (Plaintiff) VS Sindh Building Control Authority and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	15-FEB-18	No	Application U/O. XXXIX, R. 1 & 2 C.P.C dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
370		Civil Revision 42/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Pir Ghulam Kareem Shah (Applicant) VS Ali Ahmed & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-DEC-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
371		Election Appeal 26/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Mumtaz Ali (Appellant) VS Bakhshan Khan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-AUG-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
372		Const. P. 2457/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	kAREEM bUX AND OTHERS (Petitioner) VS po sINDH (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-MAR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
373		Const. P. 346/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Abdul Sattar (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-APR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
374		Const. P. 377/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Sher Muhammad (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
375		Const. P. 2464700/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Muhabat Khan alias Dado Mahar (Petitioner) VS EDO Gambat (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
376		Const. P. 4372/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Hafiz Mustafa Kamal Siyal & another (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
377		Civil Tran 11/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Dinal and others Mst. Zareena and others (Applicant) VS Mst. Zareena and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
378		Const. P. 1949/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Abdul Karim (Petitioner) VS Province of sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
379	2018 YLR 1053	Suit 327/1966 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1966	Raza Hussain and others (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Khan and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	15-AUG-17	Yes	Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Compromise on behalf of defendants---Scope---Transferee of property could not confer upon a transferor a better title than he himself possessed---Defendants had no lawful authority, right or interest at the relevant time in the subject property when they entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs---Neither any appeal was preferred against the partition order nor authenticity or validity of the same was challenged by any of the parties---Possession of suit property was wrongly handed over to the plaintiffs by the Nazir of the Court---Nazir of the Court was directed to take appropriate measures to hand over the possession of suit land to its claimants. Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. Directions to the Nazir to handover the possession of suit land to its claimants.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
380		Const. P. 1422/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Salma (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
381		Const. P. 2297/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Muhammad Iqbal (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
382		Const. P. 1506/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Haq Nawaz (Petitioner) VS PO (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
383		Const. P. 1414/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Mst. Hajani (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
384		Civil Revision 153/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Ghulam Hussain (Applicant) VS Abdullah and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-OCT-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
385		Const. P. 893/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Ghulam Murtaza and 26 others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
386	2019 CLD 185	Suit 1625/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	M/s. Fine Enterprises Traders.. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Constellation Co-Op. H.S. Ltd., & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	15-AUG-18	Yes	Suit by a partner on behalf of firm---Maintainability---Partner was not required to have an authority from other partners before initiating any action by way of a suit---No adverse consequence had been mentioned in the provision of O. XXX, R. 1, C.P.C. if compliance was not made---Partner could neither relinquish a claim of the firm nor withdraw a suit or proceeding without the authorization or endorsement of the other partners of a firm. Suit by a partner on behalf of firm---Maintainability---Partner was not required to have an authority from other partners before initiating any action by way of a suit---No adverse consequence had been mentioned in the provision of O. XXX, R. 1, C.P.C. if compliance was not made---Partner could neither relinquish a claim of the firm nor withdraw a suit or proceeding without the authorization or endorsement of the other partners of a firm.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
387		Suit 862/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	PERVAIZ HUSSAIN & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS MIAN KHURRAM RASOOL (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-JUL-19	Yes	The Defendant issues / has issued the cheques in favour of Plaintiffs, but the same upon presentation could not be encashed because of closure of account, then this conduct on the part of Defendant is a mala fide one and is done with a dishonest intention to defraud the Plaintiffs. Hence, suit is decreed. The Defendant issues / has issued the cheques in favour of Plaintiffs, but the same upon presentation could not be encashed because of closure of account, then this conduct on the part of Defendant is a mala fide one and is done with a dishonest intention to defraud the Plaintiffs. Hence, suit is decreed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
388		Cr.Bail 286/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2019	Cr. Muzafar Ghanghro (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-JUN-19	Yes	Case falling within the ambit of sick person as mentioned in the first proviso of Section 497 Cr.P.C., Applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. Challan submitted. Applicant was not required for further investigation. In order to prove the guilt of the Applicant and to connect him with the commission of the offense, matter requires further inquiry, which can only be done after conclusion of trial. Bail granted. Case falling within the ambit of sick person as mentioned in the first proviso of Section 497 Cr.P.C., Applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. Challan submitted. Applicant was not required for further investigation. In order to prove the guilt of the Applicant and to connect him with the commission of the offense, matter requires further inquiry, which can only be done after conclusion of trial. Bail granted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
389		Suit 1315/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	MUHAMMAD IQBAL (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-AUG-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
390		Adm. Suit 1/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/S. COMMERCIAL BANK INT (Plaintiff) VS M.V. MISKI AN OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-OCT-19	Yes	There cannot be two decisions with regard to same loan transaction / finance facility; that is, one passed in the foreign jurisdiction as above and the other one in the present proceeding. the Judgment given by the Court of Sharjah (UAE) in the Case filed by present Plaintiff against Defendant No.2, can be executed through the present proceeding. Therefore, the Judgment of Sharjah Court in a sum of AED 5723557 (Five Million Seven Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven Dirhams) together with 5% (five percent) of the legal interest, can be executed through the present proceeding. There cannot be two decisions with regard to same loan transaction / finance facility; that is, one passed in the foreign jurisdiction as above and the other one in the present proceeding. the Judgment given by the Court of Sharjah (UAE) in the Case filed by present Plaintiff against Defendant No.2, can be executed through the present proceeding. Therefore, the Judgment of Sharjah Court in a sum of AED 5723557 (Five Million Seven Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven Dirhams) together with 5% (five percent) of the legal interest, can be executed through the present proceeding	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
391	2020 MLD 257	Suit 725/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Mazhar Ali. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Pak Avenue Owners/Occup. Welf. Ass. & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-OCT-19	Yes	The undisputed record and the evidence adduced by the parties, concludes that Defendants and particularly Defendant No.1 was responsible for causing the death of the deceased Mazhar Ali, because despite collecting enormous amounts towards maintenance charges each month from different offices/Units in the said Building, the elevators / lifts were not maintained properly. Negligence rather callousness of Defendant No.1 in particular, is also proved from the undisputed fact that no remedial measures were taken even after another incident preceding the one of the present lis, in which a person was injured due to fault in one of the lifts (in the said Building).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
392		Const. P. 3088/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Mukhatiar Ali (Petitioner) VS Shahdad Ali and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-APR-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.447-K/2020 Mukhtiar Ali v. Shahdad Ali & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
393		Suit 1438/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Sabir Hussain Warsi. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Rani (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-JAN-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
394		Election Appeal 12/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Hasnain Ali Chohan S/o Mumtaz Ahmed (Appellant) VS Miftah Ismail Ahmed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-APR-21	Yes	To a specific query, Appellant replied, which is supported by the record, that till date Respondent No.1 has not been convicted in the NAB Reference pending against him; but his assets have been frozen by the NAB (National Accountability Bureau), which shows that he is involved in corrupt and illegal practice. This argument is not acceptable as there is no supporting record, including any judicial order. No information or material has been brought on record to prima facie show that Respondent No.1 is a defaulter of loans, taxes and Government dues, as envisaged in sub-section (4) of Section 63 of the Elections Law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
395		Const. P. 623/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Haji Muhammad Siddique (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh through Home Secretary, Karachi & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	05-MAY-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
396		Suit 133/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1998	MRS. PARVEEN MEHMOOD. (Plaintiff) VS THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC CO. LT (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-AUG-21	Yes	The delay in filing the claim in not of few days but it is of eleven months regarding which the Plaintiff had not led any positive evidence to justify that why the above delay beyond prescribed period should be condoned, or, the said delay in filing this Lis, is not hit by Rule 29.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
397		Const. P. 2587/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Iltaf Hussain & Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-MAY-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.3387/2021 Iltaf Hussain and another v. The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NAB, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
398		Suit 1657/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	TCB AVIATION (PVT.) LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS SRI LANKAN AIRLINES LTD THR. COUNTRY MANAGER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	17-MAY-21	Yes	The Court can take further proceeding, inter alia, as provided under Section 3 of the above Act, 2011, that is, invoking Civil Procedure Code. It must be clarified that grant of interim relief is not prohibited under the scheme of Arbitration Act, 2011, inter alia, in view of Section 3 thereof, but, in exceptional circumstances.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
399		Const. P. 3310/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Sohail Haroon (Petitioner) VS Saleem Memon and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
400		Const. P. 1115/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Ghulam Haider (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
401		Const. P. 849/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Barkat Ali and Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-AUG-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.827/2023 Abdul Aziz v. Mustafa Saeed and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned
402		Const. P. 1516/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Asjad Sattar Adv (Petitioner) VS DG SBCA and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-AUG-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
403		Const. P. 5604/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	West Wharf Warehouse Co. (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.6339/2021 Karachi Port Trust Estate Department, Karachi v. West Wharf Warehouse Company (Pvt) Limited, Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
404		Suit 28/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Isphanyar M. Bhandara.. (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Goshi M. Bhandara & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	31-MAR-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
405		Suit 749/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	DR. NAFEES ZUBAIR (Plaintiff) VS MRS. SAEEDA BANO & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	22-DEC-22	Yes	Since the Defendant No.1 has accepted a substantial amount of rupees six million as part payment towards sale price, and never returned the same till the above Order was passed, which means for almost seven years the same was beneficially utilized by her, therefore, Defendant No.2 (Purchaser) despite the afore discussed lacuna in her claim for damages, is entitled for monetary relief, in view of the judicial consensus, that by invoking Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, where the circumstances so permit, monetary compensation can be given, while refusing the specific performance to plaintiff	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
406		Const. P. 1994/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Shah Nawaz (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
407		Const. P. 812/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Mst. Uzma (Petitioner) VS Faheem Ahmed & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-JUN-22	No	Proper course could and should have been that if the learned Court has observed that onus to prove this claim was on Petitioner, then she should have been given ample opportunity to lead the evidence in this regard. Both the impugned decisions show that on this particular point Petitioner could not lead the evidence as required. Record is silent that whether proper opportunity was given to the Petitioner and she failed to bring plausible/tangible evidence on record in support of her claim concerning the gold ornaments.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
408		Const. P. 2053/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Fida Hussain (Petitioner) VS Returning Officer Local Govt: Sanghar & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
409		S.M.A 440/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Shamsuddin s/o Aboobakar (Petitioner) VS Yasin Hasan (Deceased) (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	12-AUG-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
410		Cr.Bail 45/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Muhammad Iqbal Abbasi (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-JUL-02	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
411		Const. P. 2059/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Saifal (Petitioner) VS Fed of Pak & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
412		Const. P. 2655/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Anwar Naeem Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS Chief Executive Officer (HESCO) & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	04-MAR-20	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
413		Suit 538/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS (PVT.) LTD (Plaintiff) VS NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTH & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	28-FEB-23	Yes	Prima facie case even was there at the start of this Lis, in favour of Plaintiff together with the other two ingredients; balance of convenience and irreparable loss; these factors with the passage of time have diminished. Conversely, now it is Defendant No. 1 being a Procuring Agency is facing inconvenience and hardship because its Tender Process is incomplete, in which everyone is allowed to participate including Plaintiff. The interim arrangement with Pakistan Post Office cannot continue for an indefinite period as it would question the transparency of the Tender Process itself of the Procuring Agency, besides, over all governance	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
414		R.A (Civil Revision) 38/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Mansoor Ali (Applicant) VS Amir Bux (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-NOV-16	No	It is a settled principle that the applicant/plaintiff has to prove his case on its own merits. The contents of the plaint/pleadings do not carry weight unless they are proved by leading evidence and for which the applicant/plaintiff has to enter the witness box and lead the evidence.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
415		Cr.Bail 136/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	SHAH NAWAZ (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Complainant)	S.B.	Order	30-MAR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
416		Criminal Miscelleneous 689/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Nazeer Ahmed (Applicant) VS S.H.O, P.S Islamkot Distt. Tharparkar and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-APR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
417		R.A (Civil Revision) 130/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Muhammad Saleh and another (Applicant) VS Muhammad Ramzan and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-JAN-20	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
418		Suit 434/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Imtiaz Ahmed & another. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Hussain (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	07-NOV-22	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
419		Const. P. 1001/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Syed Muhammad Faisal & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	31-OCT-23	No	Trivial administrative issues concerning Institutes and Hospitals are brought before Courts for decision, which squarely fall within the domain of the Executive, but due to its continuous inaction to the extent of negligence, Courts have to intervene, in order to save these Institutions and above all the public interest. Education and Health should be given top priority.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
420		Suit 323/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	MST.RASHEEDA BANO & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MST.KHURSHEED BEGUM & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	22-MAR-24	Yes	Reauction refused.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
421		Const. P. 1385/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: C.P.No.D-1242 of 2023	2023	Mumtaz Ali & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-NOV-23	Yes	Human Capital Development is the need of the hour.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
422		R.A (Civil Revision) 89/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Aziz ur Rehman S/o Gul Rehman (Applicant) VS Gul Faraz Ahmed Murwat and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	12-JAN-24	No	Both impugned Orders dated 14.09.2021 passed by learned Trial Court have not only dismissed the injunction applications, but also Applications under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. In the impugned Order, one of the reasons, inter alia, is that the status of Plaintiffs / Applicants is yet to be determined [in the Trial]	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
423		Const. P. 1955/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Israr Hussain (Petitioner) VS Federation Of Pakistan and Otehrs (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	12-JAN-24	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio(Author)
424		J.M 33/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mrs. Samar Rais. (Applicant) VS Askari Bank Limited & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
425		Suit 972/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	DR. HASAN FATIMA JAFERY & ORS (Appellant) VS ROYAL SAUDI CONSULATE KARACHI & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-DEC-19	Yes	With the passage of time, the principle governing immunity has undergone a change. National Courts in different jurisdictions, specially where there exists constitutional dispensation, have generally narrowed down the scope of immunity, whether constitutional, diplomatic or any other type of immunity. One of the reasons for adopting such view, while interpreting the law or clauses relating to immunity is that the concept of immunity is to be balanced with the accountability and those rights guaranteed as fundamental and human rights. With the passage of time, the principle governing immunity has undergone a change. National Courts in different jurisdictions, specially where there exists constitutional dispensation, have generally narrowed down the scope of immunity, whether constitutional, diplomatic or any other type of immunity. One of the reasons for adopting such view, while interpreting the law or clauses relating to immunity is that the concept of immunity is to be balanced with the accountability and those rights guaranteed as fundamental and human rights.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
426		Const. P. 340/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Kashif Ali (Petitioner) VS Vth A.D.J Hyd & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	21-AUG-15	No	The discretion exercised by the Appellate Court in awarding limited maintenance for the iddat period appears to be justified as the iddat period is the time provided in shariah in which a woman is not allowed to exercise her right of living as wife of somebody else in accordance with law. Therefore, maintenance of wife during her iddat on account of khula / divorce as the case may be is about the time in which she has already performed her obligation as wedded wife of the petitioner.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
427	2017 CLC 1387	Suit 1052/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1988	Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., (TCP) (Plaintiff) VS Haji Khuda Bux Amir Umar (Pvt) Ltd (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	16-SEP-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
428	2017 PLC CS 80	Const. P. 2105/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mst. Bhalan (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-MAY-16	No	The petition is completely silent about the fact that what steps the petitioner took to get her official service record corrected, while she was in service. This apparent contradiction about date of birth is a pure question of factual controversy and cannot be resolved in a writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Even otherwise, issue at hand does not fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction as it is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as, inter alia, the subject dispute is about an order of retirement from service passed by the departmental authority, as envisaged in Section 2(a) of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973, and can be otherwise assailed before Service Tribunal in accordance with law. Correction in date of birth---The petition is completely silent about the fact that what steps the petitioner took to get her official service record corrected, while she was in service. This apparent contradiction about date of birth is a pure question of factual controversy and cannot be resolved in a writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.---Even otherwise, issue at hand does not fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction as it is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as, inter alia, the subject dispute is about an order of retirement from service passed by the departmental authority, as envisaged in Section 2(a) of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973, and can be otherwise assailed before Service Tribunal in accordance with law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
429		Const. P. 1416/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Faqeer Muhammad (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
430		Const. P. 1471/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Sughra Bibi (Petitioner) VS DIGP SBA & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
431		Const. P. 714/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Javed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-SEP-17	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
432		Const. P. 726/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Sheela & anothers (Petitioner) VS Prov of sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No	Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioners have lost interest to pursue the matter as purpose of filing the petition has been achieved. Official respondents have undertaken neither to cause any harassment to the petitioners nor patronize any of the private respondents. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
433		Const. P. 581/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ranjho (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
434		Civil Revision 72/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Muhammad Ramzan andothers (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
435		Const. P. 997/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
436		Const. P. 1553/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Marriam & Ors (Petitioner) VS SSP Umerkot & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
437		R.A (Civil Revision) 60/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Fazal Muhammad (Appellant) VS Abdul Majeed & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
438		Const. P. 1631/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Punhoon (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
439	2018 YLR 713	Suit 627/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mr. Hamood Mehmood (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	10-NOV-17	No	Suit for specific performance of contract---Ad-interim injunction subject to deposit of balance sale consideration---Object---Non-deposit of balance sale consideration---Effect---Object for giving direction to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court was to see the bona fides of a purchaser---Injunction in such case was granted so that the corpus of dispute remained intact and ultimately could be transferred to a successful party in litigation---Balance sale consideration was to be invested in some profit bearing scheme enabling the vendor/defendant to get an increased amount as sale consideration---If purchaser/plaintiff was unsuccessful then deposited amount was to be returned back to him with accruals in order to safeguard his interest---Non-deposit of sale consideration would raise adverse presumption against plaintiff that he was not serious in performing his agreed part of contract disentitling him to decree for specific performance---Party seeking remedy of specific performance was to apply to the Court for depositing the balance amount---Any contumacious/ omission in that regard would entail in dismissal of suit or decretal of the same if it was filed by the other side---Plaintiff, in the present case, enjoyed the ad-interim injunctive relief but despite giving ample opportunities and chances to comply with the orders of Court he kept on defying all such directions/orders---One who sought equity must also do equity---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Plaintiff, in the present case, enjoyed the ad-interim injunctive relief but despite giving ample opportunities and chances to comply with the orders of Court he kept on defying all such directions/orders---One who sought equity must also do equity---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
440	2018 YLR 1557	H.C.A 47/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Haroon Zia Malik (Appellant) VS Mst. Fariha Razzak and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-NOV-17	Yes	Plaintiff was owner of suit property who voluntarily gifted the same to the donee-wife---Trial Court had correctly appraised the evidence while recording his findings---Impugned gift deed was not a forged and fabricated document but same had been signed by the donor---Suit property had been gifted in favour of defendant who was wife of donor at the relevant time---Ingredients of gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession which were present in the case---Possession of suit property was already with the donee which till date continued to be with her---If husband had made a gift of anything to his wife or vice-versa then it could not be retracted---Transaction in question was not a financial one but it was gift of which a reciprocal financial obligation was not a consideration---Provisions of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable in the matter of gift---Gift did not require a compulsory registration---Donor did not suffer any mental distress at the hand of donee---Impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Plaintiff was owner of suit property who voluntarily gifted the same to the donee-wife---Trial Court had correctly appraised the evidence while recording his findings---Impugned gift deed was not a forged and fabricated document but same had been signed by the donor---Suit property had been gifted in favour of defendant who was wife of donor at the relevant time---Ingredients of gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession which were present in the case---Possession of suit property was already with the donee which till date continued to be with her---If husband had made a gift of anything to his wife or vice-versa then it could not be retracted---Transaction in question was not a financial one but it was gift of which a reciprocal financial obligation was not a consideration---Provisions of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable in the matter of gift---Gift did not require a compulsory registration---Donor did not suffer any mental distress at the hand of donee---Impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.96/2018 Haroon Zia Malik v. Mst. Fariha Razzak and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
441	2018 YLR 1557	H.C.A 48/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Haroon Zia Malik (Appellant) VS Mst. Fariha Razzak (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.95/2018 Haroon Zia Malik v. Mst. Fariha Razzak Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
442		Suit 1408/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mirza Naseem Baig.. (Plaintiff) VS K.E.S.C. Employees Co-Op.H.S. Ltd., & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-APR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
443		Adm. Suit 2/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	HAYS TRADING & SHIPPING (Plaintiff) VS M.V. MISKI (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
444		Const. P. 1074/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Noro (Petitioner) VS IG of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
445		Civil Revision 94/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1991	Ghulam Muhammad (Applicant) VS Karim Bux (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
446		Const. P. 891/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Haji Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of SIndh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
447		Const. P. 1684/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Khalid Hussain (Petitioner) VS SSP SBA and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
448		Const. P. 1781/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Partab Rai & Ors (Petitioner) VS SSP Umerkot & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
449		Const. P. 1628/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ali Khan (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
450		Const. P. 439/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Adnan & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
451		Const. P. 1652/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Bakhtawer and an Other (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
452		Civil Revision 356/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Mubarak Cooperative Credit Society & another (Applicant) VS Ismail S/o Imam Dino Khowaja (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
453		Const. P. 1423/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Gul Bahar & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
454		Const. P. 1895/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Jian (Petitioner) VS DIG Police Dist Mirpurkhas & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.744-K/2019 M/s Star Electronics v. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-IV Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
455		Const. P. 1611/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Qasim and others (Petitioner) VS SSP SBA and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
456		Const. P. 1632/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Najma and an Other (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
457		Cr.Bail 902/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Faqeer Muhammad (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	26-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
458		Const. P. 1709/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Arshee & Ors (Petitioner) VS SSP Hyd & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
459		Const. P. 1761/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Jhaman Das (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
460		Const. P. 1725/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Moure & another (Petitioner) VS SSP SBA & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
461		Cr.Misc. 419/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sh. Rubeena (Applicant) VS SSP Dist. Naoshero Feroz & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
462		I. A 44/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2013	M/s CIE Computers through its Manager Aqeeel Hassan Khan & 2 others (Appellant) VS NIB Bank Limited Banking Company through its Manager Mr. Sajid A. Shaikh (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-OCT-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
463		Suit 209/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	MOHSIN ALI (Plaintiff) VS SAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	29-MAR-19	Yes	Suit for Specific Performance should have been filed and no possession can be given without seeking a Declaration in respect of title, because Agreement of Sale cannot be considered as a title / ownership document.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
464		Const. P. 1904/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Bhooro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
465		Const. P. 227/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Zubair Ali Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
466		Const. P. 1817/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Nazia Hassan (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
467		Civil Revision 213/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Mst Shakeela (Applicant) VS Muhammad Saleem & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
468		Const. P. 482/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Akram Bajwa (Petitioner) VS SSP Tando Allahyar & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
469		Const. P. 1038/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Reshma (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
470		Const. P. 1518/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Fazeelan (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
471		Const. P. 438/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Bux (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
472		Const. P. 1156/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Rukhsana & another (Petitioner) VS SHO PS Naseem Nagar & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
473		Const. P. 1746/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sajjan (Petitioner) VS DIG Hyd & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
474		Const. P. 1126/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Khairan (Petitioner) VS D.I.G, Hyd and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
475		Civil Revision 134/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Zameer Hussain (Applicant) VS Mst. Sonan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-MAY-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
476		Suit 1546/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Trustees of the Port of Karachi (Plaintiff) VS Syed Fazal Mahmood Shah (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	25-JAN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
477		Const. P. 416/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Muhammad Siddique (Petitioner) VS IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	01-NOV-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
478		Suit 1079/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	MAKRAN COMM. &ORS (Plaintiff) VS CHINA MOBILE PAK (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-MAY-19	No	In my considered view, the rule laid down in the two well-known Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, that is, Abdul Majeed Case and Ishaque Case [P L D 1996 Supreme Court page-737], applies to the present case. In the first one (as already stated), the principle, inter alia, with regard to general damages has been discussed in detail; whereas, in second reported decision, the rule with regard to grant of damages on account of mental anguish has been explained, because the Plaintiffs have also claimed a sum of Rs.15 Million towards mental torture in paragraphs-50 and 54 of the Plaint and paragraphs-61 and 63 of the Affidavit-in-Evidence / Examination-in-Chief, which, remained uncontroverted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
479		R.A (Civil Revision) 78/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Nazar Muhammad (Applicant) VS Noor Muhammad & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
480		Const. P. 1802/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Vasdev (Petitioner) VS P.O sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
481		Suit 1713/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Sharif Ahmed Qureshi (Plaintiff) VS Wing Cdr.(R) Mazhar Mirza and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	03-MAY-19	Yes	Housing Scheme_ If a Housing Scheme is announced by Defendant No.3, primarily, for Military Personnel, then either there should be a complete embargo on transferring of land to the civilians, or, if the same embargo is not in place and civilians / citizens can purchase in a housing scheme launched by Defendant No.3, then the policy and formalities of Defendant No.3 should be equitable and fair and no one should be discriminated against. It is understandable that there are security issues, for which NOC and other formalities are to be completed, but the security concern cannot be allowed to be misused, or, under the garb of security issue, rights of citizens cannot be compromised. Proprietary rights are guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; inter alia, in terms of Article 24. Pleadings_ Admission made in Written Statement (on oath) does not need further proof. Executive Action_ Executive actions based on the premise of national security are justiciable on the basis of Rationale Basis Test. Sale NOC_ Non issuance of sale NOC by the Army Housing Directorate, violates Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Thus, requirement of NOC cannot be given that degree of importance or significance, that it can be allowed to impinge upon a statutory and fundamental right of ownership of a citizen, who is a lawful and bona fide transferee of a property, situated in a Housing Scheme of Official Defendants.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
482		Const. P. 109/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Hibibullah Dahar (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-APR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
483		Election Appeal 29/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Abdul Hakeem (Appellant) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-AUG-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
484		Civil Revision 55/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Ahmed Ali (Applicant) VS Manzoor Ahmed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-MAY-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
485		Const. P. 1557/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Mst Mukhtiar Khatoon (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
486		Civil Revision 51/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Mohammad Yaseen and others (Applicant) VS Mureed Kalhoro and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	09-APR-18	No	The undisputed position that emerges from examining of record of present civil revision is that though the judgment of the trial Court has been handed down in the manner mentioned herein above, the same has been set aside by the appellate Court and case was remanded for deciding a fresh, but without complying Rule 31 of the provision which has been mentioned exclusively for the appellate Court. In my considered view this falls within the ambit of material irregularity existing in the impugned decision dated 22.2.2017 of the Appellate Court; hence the impugned decision is not a legal one	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
487		Const. P. 2586/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Rehana Akhtar (Petitioner) VS P.O.Sindh and an other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	06-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
488		Suit 1774/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Asad Zaheer. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Ismail & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	03-OCT-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
489		Const. P. 2149/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur; attached cases: Const. P D 4729/2015	2015	Abdul Hameed and another (Petitioner) VS Provicne of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-MAY-18	Yes	In our humble opinion, one of the reasons for introducing the doctrine of alternate remedy was to avoid and reduce the number of cases that used to be filed directly before this Court, and at the same time to allow the prescribed lower forum to exercise its jurisdiction freely under the law. Moreover, if a person moves this Court without exhausting the remedy available to him under the law at lower forum, not only would the purpose of establishing that forum be completely defeated, but such person will also lose the remedy and the right of appeal available to him under the law.	Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
490		Const. P. 1589/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Ismail (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
491		Election Appeal 5/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Wajid Hussain (Appellant) VS Election Commission of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-AUG-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
492		Const. P. 674/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Arshad Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
493		Const. P. 335/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Ishtiaque Ahmed (Petitioner) VS D.J Badin & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
494		Const. P. 1019/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Mst Fouzia (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
495		Suit 1142/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2003	Pakistan Battery Mfg. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Fahad Farooqi and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	09-MAR-18	No	Suit for Specific Performance. Suit Decreed except the prayers clause of awarding the compensation for withholding the performance. It was held that since the specific performance of MoU is allowed, subject to codal formalities, therefore, the claim of compensation of plaintiff is rejected.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
496		Civil Revision 45/2007 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2007	Mst Hajul through special attorney (Applicant) VS Nasrullah Malik and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
497		Const. P. 2379/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Abdul Malik (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
498		Election Appeal 41/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Tariq Hussain (Appellant) VS Subhan Ali (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	17-SEP-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
499		Civil Revision 144/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Mst. Parveen Raza Jadun through her legal heirs (Applicant) VS Bashir Ahmed Chandio and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	12-JUL-19	Yes	(i). In direct benami claim requires a higher standard of proof; (ii) every transaction between family members cannot be recognized as benami; (iii). Claimant not challenged the purchase of property by father in favour of his son, during the life time of the father, then claim of Plaintiff (sister) is meritless. (i). In direct benami claim requires a higher standard of proof; (ii) every transaction between family members cannot be recognized as benami; (iii). Claimant not challenged the purchase of property by father in favour of his son, during the life time of the father, then claim of Plaintiff (sister) is meritless.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
500		Suit 1847/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	M/s. EFU General Insurance Ltd (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Emirates Airline / Emirates Sky Cargo & other (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-MAY-20	Yes	Term an act of war or armed conflict as mentioned in Rule 18(2)(c) of the Fourth Schedule of Carriage by Air Act, 2012, also means non-international armed conflict (NIAC). Armed attack at Jinnah International Airport on 08.06.2014 falls within non-international armed conflict (NIAC) or at least it may be categorised as a hybrid phenomena; where repeated acts of terrorism in furtherance of defined objectives translated into a non-international armed conflict. Term an act of war or armed conflict as mentioned in Rule 18(2)(c) of the Fourth Schedule of Carriage by Air Act, 2012, also means non-international armed conflict (NIAC). Armed attack at Jinnah International Airport on 08.06.2014 falls within non-international armed conflict (NIAC) or at least it may be categorised as a hybrid phenomena; where repeated acts of terrorism in furtherance of defined objectives translated into a non-international armed conflict.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
501		S.M.A 144/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Meer Hussain Buksh Talpur S/o Meer Muhammad Murad (Petitioner) VS Nil (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-JAN-20	No	Petition being non-contentious was granted. Petition being non-contentious was granted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
502		Const. P. 2371/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Abdul Qudoos (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-MAR-20	Yes	Direction A public office cannot be offered / bartered or given in consideration of some donation, but a vacancy in respect of a public office is to be filled up strictly in accordance with law and the recruitment rules so that merit is not compromised and nepotism is curbed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
503	2021 PTD 867	Const. P. 4793/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Kashif Feroz (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-DEC-20	Yes	Implementation petitions.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
504		Civil Revision 169/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Province of Sindh and others (Applicant) VS Mst. Tasleem Begum and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	10-AUG-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
505		Const. P. 14/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Abdul Aziz (Petitioner) VS Mst. Hurrat-ul-Maleka and 2 others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	10-AUG-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
506		Suit 168/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	SYED HAMID HUSSAIN RIZVI (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ASIF SAEED (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	04-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
507		I. A 51/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Province of Sindh and another (Appellant) VS Land Acquisition Officer and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-JUN-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
508	2020 YLR 2597	Const. P. 2180/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Masood Ahmed Wassan & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-APR-20	Yes	For roads, bridges, gas/oil line etc. most precious lands were/are being acquired or intercepted in between to have a shortest distance to minimize the cost of that project, but we do not realize that while doing so we are not only destroying fertile/ agriculture land but so also risking our future. This acquisition is normally based on feasibility report of that particular project but there is no realization that for providing some convenience or low cost project, precious land is being destroyed, which is far more important for our future than the convenience and low cost project. The project may cost less but consequences would be detrimental. We are living in a world where natural resources such as fertile land is being vacuumed up by development of concrete structure and this would count a lot in future and no one would come for our rescue when we have to yield our own food for our own consumption. In this case land was attached with the research based agriculture department of Sindh which caters for not only fruit crop but other agri products as well. The authorities responsible for identifying this land have not applied their mind at all and in an attempt to please, the most fertile land of the province had been provided for an object which could conveniently be achieved on non-agriculture land, subject to law. Blanket recommendation was forwarded by the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose and without identifying the reasons of disassociating the land with the agriculture based research department, they have made this land available for a scheme called Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Town. The recommendation of the Committee and the action of the authority is neither transparent nor lawful but in fact a mala fide attempt to usurp the most precious and fertile land of district Mirpurkhas where research is being conducted. The provincial government should have emphasized to uplift the research system of the agriculture department and steered the progress by maintaining it rather than to ignore the research based system. They could always find the land anywhere else and provide resources and amenities for dwellers where the land could be developed by land developers. The performance of Ministry of Agriculture to save the land was half-hearted and they only presented themselves as marionette since they have not taken action against usurpation of their land. If we really want to protect the agricultural lands and to promote sustainable agrarian growth for the future, large scale basic reforms and legislation are needed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
509	2021 PLD Sindh Note 76	H.C.A 24/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. (Appellant) VS M/s. Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-SEP-20	Yes	Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Company can be considered as directions /instructions with a binding effect provided it is not violative of fundamental principles of law	Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.1054-K/2020 Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. M/s.Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises,C.A.4-K/2022 Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. M/s.Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Pending
510		Const. P. 8963/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Faisal Mubeen Jumani and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
511		Const. P. 1094/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Suresh Kumar Hindu (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-FEB-21	Yes	Precise facts are that Petitioners have challenged the Wheat Release Policy 2020-21 dated 14th October 2020 (said Policy), on the ground that Clause (xii) whereof is violative of the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, and the Food-grains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, and consequently, be set aside and Flour Mills of Petitioners be given wheat as per the uniform Policy. The legal team of Respondents has stated that it is purely an executive matter regarding which no petition of the nature is maintainable. Crux of the rule laid down in these decisions is that ordinarily under Article 199 of the Constitution, High Court cannot interfere in the policy matters of the Executive, except if it is violative of law or is product of mala fide; whereas, the mala fide is also explained, inter alia, that unless an un rebuttable material is on record with regard to a specific plea of mala fide and not a vague one, the decision or action complained of, cannot be annulled or declared illegal This principle has been evolved through judicial pronouncements and opinions of jurists, the crux of which is that punishment must fit the crime. When on the record there is no evidence that Petitioners / Flour Mills have entered into plea bargain with NAB, then Clause (xii) cannot be stretched to include Petitioners / Flour Mills, and such an action of Respondents is hit by this doctrine of proportionality also and is unreasonable and discriminatory. Petitions are accepted only to the extent, that the Clause (xii) of the Wheat Policy is not applicable to the present Petitioners / Flour Mills and they are entitled to get their respective share / quota of wheat in accordance with the present Wheat Policy 202021 like other Flour Mills established and operating in the Province of Sindh.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
512		I. A 7/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Chaudhry Abdul Jabbar (Appellant) VS Presiding Officer, Banking Court-II, Sukkur & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	13-DEC-17	Yes		Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
513		I. A 5/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2013	Javed-ur-Rehman and others (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-NOV-17	Yes		Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
514		Suit -758/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	MIAN NASSER HYATT MAGGO (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	19-MAY-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
515		Const. P. 4631/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Sir Syed Cooperative H.S Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	07-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
516		Const. P. 262/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Haji Jaffar Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	11-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
517		Const. P. 5885/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mst. Bushra Umer and Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
518		Const. P. 7697/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Shoaib (Petitioner) VS SBCA and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	23-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
519		Const. P. 321/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Khawaja Qadeer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS S.I.T.E & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
520		Const. P. 321/2000 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2000	Grandiphar Pakistan (Petitioner) VS Drug Appellate Board & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-MAR-20	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
521		Const. P. 5588/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/s IGI Holdings (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
522	2020 SBLR Sindh 744	Const. P. 213/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Burhan (Petitioner) VS Election Commisson Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-FEB-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
523		Const. P. 5017/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Ihsanullah Khan & another (Petitioner) VS P.O.Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-JAN-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
524		Const. P. 8092/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Barrister Mujtaba Sohail Raja and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
525		Const. P. 1950/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Abdul Majid (Petitioner) VS Dist: Judge/Appellate Authority SNG & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
526		Const. P. 885/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Dur e Shawar & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-DEC-22	No	Protection Matter	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
527		Const. P. 1199/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Mirza Aleem Agha S/o Mirza Ahmed Agha (Petitioner) VS M/s. Modern Motors (Pvt) Ltd and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	07-MAR-24	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
528		Suit 1205/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	HASAN AHMAD (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	11-JAN-23	Yes	Since sale transaction in respect of the Suit Property has been proved by Plaintiff, therefore, Specific Performance can be granted,	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
529		Const. P. 1554/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Rasheed Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Regional Election Commissioner SBA and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
530		Suit 852/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/s Visionary Baluchistan Media Corporation (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Shahnaz Abid & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	06-SEP-22	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
531		Suit 66/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	MOIN US SAMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) VS MRS.TANVEER QAZI (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	22-AUG-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
532		Const. P. 509/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Shoaib Ahmed Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-MAR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
533		Suit 1132/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	NASIR HUSSAIN (Plaintiff) VS MST.SHAHNAWAZ BEGUM & OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	06-MAR-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
534		Cr.Bail 140/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	ALLAD DAD (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-MAR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
535		Suit 777/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	UNITED BANK LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	27-MAY-22	Yes	Closure of Branch / Premises of Plaintiff is directly linked to commercial activity / trade, which is one of the fundamental rights; which cannot be compromised in the manner as is done by Defendant No.2. No specific statutory provision has been pointed out during arguments to show that Cantonment Board has this specific power to seal the Branch / Premises of the Plaintiff in such a situation. This penal consequence cannot be said to be an implied authority of Defendant No.2, but it has to be expressly mentioned in their parent statute viz. Cantonment Act, 1924.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
536		R.A (Civil Revision) 94/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1991	Ghulam Muhammad (Applicant) VS Karim Bux (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
537		Criminal Miscelleneous 163/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	NIZAMUDDIN & OTHERS (Applicant) VS THE STATE & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-MAR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
538		II.A. 21/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Nisar Ahmed Shahwani (Appellant) VS Lal Muhammad & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-APR-23	No	Section 53/A Transfer of Property Act-Time will continue to run.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
539		Suit 1652/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	MUHAMMAD AMIN (Plaintiff) VS ASIF YOUNUS & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	08-JUN-23	Yes	Undisputedly, IPO is subsequent in time and following the rule laid down in the aforementioned Decisions, the present Lis and issues agitated therein is triable by the Tribunal [in accordance with law], established and functioning under the IPO. Consequently, this Application is treated as the one for return of plaint rather rejecting it. Accordingly accepted. Plaint is returned.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
540		Const. P. 132/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Mrs Zoya (Petitioner) VS Salauddin & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-MAY-23	No	No review is provided under West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, hence, Appellate Court cannot review its earlier decision.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
541		Election Appeal 4/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Amir Khan. (Appellant) VS Federation of Pakistan and others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-MAY-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
542		Const. P. 1382/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Syed Hussain Ali Shah & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-NOV-23	Yes	This Province is longing for a good governance, but due to dishonest and corrupt officials, the sufferings of people at large are increasing day by day and an ordinary citizen does not even have access to Senior Officials, for redressal of their grievances and to hear complaints against the Subordinate Officials. This continuous mal-administration, abuse of authority and corrupt practices have resulted in an unprecedented level of litigation against the Government, which is unnecessarily burdening the Courts.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
543		R.A (Civil Revision) 18/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2000	Muhammad Bachal (Applicant) VS Banhoon & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	16-NOV-23	Yes	Responsibility of First Appellate Court.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
544		II.A. 3/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Nina Industries Limited (Appellant) VS Bhanero Textile Mills (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	24-JAN-24	Yes	A legitimate claim is also proprietry, protected under Article 24 of the Constitution.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
545		Const. P. 87/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	National Refinery Ltd (Petitioner) VS Shakir Mehmood Siddiqui and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	01-FEB-24	No	Writ of certiorari.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
546		Const. P. 1168/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Syed Iftikhar Haider Rizvi S/o Syed Mumtaz Hussain (Petitioner) VS VIth ADJ, Karachi Central and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-MAR-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
547		Suit 300/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN (Plaintiff) VS THE PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-AUG-23	No	Glaring interpolation in the official record. Inquiry should be held. This ground reality cannot be ignored that recent surge in property related litigation is due to the collusion and dishonest acts of Government Officials; many of them are even involved in land grabbing. The Chief Secretary should take immediate notice of this alarming situation, which can lead to deterioration of law and order situation in the City of Karachi.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
548		Suit 390/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2001	CAPT. TARIQ MEHMOOD MALIK. (Appellant) VS P.A.L.P.A. (Appellant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-AUG-21	Yes	Claim of Plaintiff has been disproved that he suffer any loss (financial or otherwise) or mental anguish on account of any decision or acts on the part of Defendant. Plaintiff was adequately compensated monetarily by his erstwhile employer - PIAC, International Association as well as Defendant, coupled with the fact that he was reemployed by PIAC. Consequently, not encashing the cheque given by Defendant will not improve the case of Plaintiff, who is not entitled for any further amount in view of Bye-Law 25(v). Both Issues are answered in affirmative that Plaintiff received his insurance and other compensation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
549		Suit 541/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	MST. AMTUL FATIMA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS SYED TAHIR ALI JAFRI & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	20-APR-17	Yes	Judgment debtor raised the plea that entire sale proceeds were received beyond statutory period of two weeks which was in violation of O. XXI, R. 85, C.P.C.---Validity---Time that was consumed in remitting amount from two accounts; one maintained by auction purchaser and other by the Court official on which neither court official nor auction purchaser had control---Such transaction and proceeds were governed by regulations of State Bank of Pakistan---Judicial sale had a sanctity and once sale was confirmed, auction purchaser had interest in proceedings---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Order XXI, Rule 85. Application dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
550		Execution 25/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Askari Bank Ltd. (Decree Holder) VS A.H. International (Pvt) Ltd. & OTHERS (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-23	Yes	Order of Banking Court cannot be interfered with in a collateral proceeding.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
551		Suit 1410/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Toyoshima & Co. limited (Plaintiff) VS Shadman Cotton mills limited (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	30-MAR-16	Yes	Territorial jurisdiction of Sindh High Court was questioned by Defendant, primarily on the ground that Defendant-Company has been shifted from Karachi to Lahore, therefore, a foreign company / Plaintiff cannot enforce an International Arbitral Award by filing a suit in Sindh High Court. The crucial documentary evidence shows that when the suit proceeding was filed for enforcement of the Award under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, the Defendant had its registered office in Karachi and even Annual Report of the Company also shows that the Management notice for convening the Annual General Meeting was also to be held at Karachi. Consequently, it has been held, that Sindh High Court has jurisdiction in the matter. Territorial jurisdiction of Sindh High Court was questioned by Defendant, primarily on the ground that Defendant-Company has been shifted from Karachi to Lahore, therefore, a foreign company / Plaintiff cannot enforce an International Arbitral Award by filing a suit in Sindh High Court. The crucial documentary evidence shows that when the suit proceeding was filed for enforcement of the Award under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, the Defendant had its registered office in Karachi and even Annual Report of the Company also shows that the Management notice for convening the Annual General Meeting was also to be held at Karachi. Consequently, it has been held, that Sindh High Court has jurisdiction in the matter.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
552		Const. P. 1822/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Raja Ishtiaque Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
553		Const. P. 1147/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Sarwar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
554		Const. P. 1504/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
555		Criminal Appeal 234/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Taj Muhammad (Appellant) VS The State (Complainant)	S.B.	Order	23-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
556	2018 CLC 883	Suit 2489/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	M/s. Al Naseeb Welfare Foundation International (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Latif Memorial Hospital & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	30-MAY-17	No	O. VII, R. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Rejection of plaint---Cause of action, absence of---Defendant, a Welfare Association was dissolved and plaintiff, a Welfare Foundation, wanted to takeover the assets of the Association---Plea raised by plaintiff was that objectives contained in Memorandum of Association of both the organisations were similar, therefore after dissolution, Association was bound to donate its assets to any such organization---Validity---Held, in absence of any clause under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of defendant Association, that assets would be given/handed over or donated to any specific entity or any agreement between the organizations that was plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff could not as a matter of right claim the assets of dissolved entity should be handed over to plaintiff---Such was an undisputed factual position and in absence of any such document or undertaking by defendant Association, neither any right nor any interest had accrued in favour of plaintiff for bringing an action of such nature---Plaintiff did not have any legal character for instituting suit as no cause of action had accrued for filing the same and it was hit by S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Basic features to attract O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. were present---Plaint was rejected in circumstances. Suit for declaration---Rejection of plaint.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
557		Const. P. 1779/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Qadir (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
558		Const. P. 772/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Naz Bano (Petitioner) VS SSP Tando Muhammad Khan (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
559		Const. P. 1251/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Dost Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
560		Const. P. 580/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Nizamuddin (Petitioner) VS Saadullah & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-NOV-16	No	Numbers of reported decisions have been cited by both sides, however, what is relevant is 1992 SCMR 1149, wherein, the Honourable Apex Court has held that in such cases before deciding the application under Section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the issue about relationship of landlord and tenant should be framed and decided.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
561		Const. P. 1612/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sht Washan (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
562		Const. P. 1557/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Rashida (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh&ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
563		Adm. Suit 539/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	Al-Riaz (Pvt.) Limited and another (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Ismail and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	14-JUL-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
564		Const. P. 1192/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Habibullah Khan (Petitioner) VS D.J. Hyderabad & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
565		Const. P. 1348/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Zahid (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
566		Const. P. 756/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Rafique Masih (Petitioner) VS Mst Agnes @ Inayat Bibi & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
567		Suit 421/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1991	Rahim Ali Palari & ors. (Plaintiff) VS Govt. of Sindh & ors.. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	14-MAR-19	Yes	Suit under Fatal Accident Act is independent of proceeding under Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 and Criminal Proceeding (If any). Res Ipsa Loquitor applies to fatal accident cases. If accident / incident disputed then onus on Defendant to disprove negligence. Defendant to disprove causation of death. Criteria for awarding damages. Deprivation of the association of a family member (loss of consortium). Tort Law as a Tool for enforcing good governance. Computing income of deceased when no evidence of employment.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
568		Suit 315/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	S.M.INAMUL HAQ. (Plaintiff) VS MIRZA AMJAD BAIG & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	28-JAN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
569	2017 SBLR Sindh 105	Const. P. 4725/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Mansoor Ashraf (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-DEC-15	No	Let notice be issued to the respondents as well as Additional Advocate General for 23.12.2015 when concerned SHO the respondent No.4 shall be in attendance. In the meanwhile Mr.Abdul Rahim Memon, Reader of this Court is appointed as Commissioner to inspect the site after issuance of notices to all concerned parties and if there are certain articles lying on the subject-property, which are claimed to be owned by the petitioner an inventory of such articles may be prepared. Report may be submitted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.662-K/2016 Mst. Fareeda Zafar and others v. Mansoor Ashraf and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
570		Const. P. 1651/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Syed Anwar Shah (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
571		Const. P. 1786/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Zahida & Ors (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
572		Const. P. 728/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Rabia Khan (Petitioner) VS Prov of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
573		Const. P. 766/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Walam (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
574		Const. P. 1505/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Aail Khatoon and an Other (Petitioner) VS S.S.P, SBA and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
575		Const. P. 1871/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sht Tejoo (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
576		Civil Revision 260/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Liaquat & Ors (Applicant) VS Gul Muhammad Shah (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
577		Const. P. 1755/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Wahid Bux (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
578		Civil Revision 254/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Aijaz Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Mst: Syeda Aftab Jehan (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
579		Const. P. 1783/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Hyder (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
580	2018 YLR 2210	Suit 622/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2003	Major Ret. Sheikh Abdul Naeem (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-JAN-18	No	Suit for declaration---Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority---Cancellation of allotment of plot---Plaintiff being employee of Pakistan Army was allotted plot but same was cancelled by the Housing Authority on the ground that he had already been allotted another plot---Contention of plaintiff was that said plot was allotted to him as per his service entitlement---Validity---Plaintiff was earlier allotted a plot under his membership---Plaintiff when filled up and submitted application form knowingly suppressed the fact with regard to allotted plot---Plaintiff was not entitled to more than one residential plot under by-laws of the Housing Authority---Impugned allotment was in violation of by-laws of the Housing Authority---Allotment of suit plot had been obtained through misrepresentation of facts---No person could be allowed to retain ill-gotten gain---Court was not to come to the aid of a person to retain a benefit or privilege to which he was not entitled at the very inception---Plaintiff was afforded chance to appear before the Scrutiny Committee of Housing Authority but he failed to avail that opportunity---Housing Authority had not violated any of the principles of natural justice---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
581	2019 PLD Sindh 697	Const. P. 1913/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Gulzar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	31-MAY-18	Yes	Cutting of Trees (Environment): Green Belt with trees is a 'Public Trust' resource. Environmental Human Rights are in fact fundamental human rights. Plea of National Security is also justiciable. "Rational Basis Test" explained. Balance is to be struck between the policies relating to security and civil liberties. State Institutions are subject to the accountability. Judiciary in a Muslim Polity is clothed with greater obligation. Only concern council can direct the cutting of dangerous trees under paragraph 55 of Part II-Schedule II of SLGA 2013.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
582		Suit 1232/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	RIZWAN RASOOL JAN (Plaintiff) VS P.I.A.C (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-FEB-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
583		Suit 357/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Muhammad Junaid Makhdumi. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Iqbal & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
584		Suit 786/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	MUHAMMAD MANSOOR (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD RASHID (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
585		Suit 1037/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	M/S SIDDIQUI FUND TRUST (Plaintiff) VS NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	07-FEB-19	No	It is an established Rule that pleadings themselves cannot be considered as evidence unless the Plaintiff or Defendant, as the case may be, enters the witness Box and lead the evidence in support of his / her claim or defence. In the present case, despite providing ample opportunities, the Plaintiff has not come forward to testify and prove his claim. The reported decision of Honble Supreme Court handed down in the case of Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer Khan-2015 SCMR page-1401, is relevant. Since Plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations against the Defendants, thus the former (Plaintiff) is not entitled to any relief.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
586		S.M.A 58/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Mrs. Atteeya Mahmood (Petitioner) (Petitioner) VS Nighat Muzaffar and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	12-JUL-17	Yes	The Objectors' counsel has failed to point out any error, factual or legal in the order dated 30-01-2017, sought to be reviewed by the present applicant. C.M.A dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
587		Const. P. 1743/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Iqra & ors (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
588		Const. P. 1990/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
589		Const. P. 1977/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Roshna and Ors (Petitioner) VS S.S.P Badin and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
590		Const. P. 1488/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Samina & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
591		Const. P. 1111/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Essro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
592		Const. P. 1630/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Chetan and an Other (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
593		Const. P. 703/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Abdul Qadir (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-SEP-17	Yes	The action of Respondent No.3 in changing amenity nature and use of reserved plots is void ab initio. Consequently, very allotment in favour of private Respondents has no sanctity in the eyes of law and it is also settled principle that transferor cannot transfer a better title then what he himself possesses, therefore, if the title of the private Respondents being purported allottees of the above subject Plots is defective then further transfers of these plots do not improve the legal status of these allottees / private Respondents vis-??-vis the respective newly created purported Plots No.261 to 265 or any other Plot(s) created / allocated in a land exclusively earmarked / reserved for amenity purpose(s).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
594		Suit 1689/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Mst. Saira Khatoon (Appellant) VS Syed Muhammad Ashraf and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	27-FEB-18	Yes	Suit for Recovery of Earnest Money and Damages decreed. The defendant had not any authority from the owner of the apartment for its sale, hence, the defendant through misrepresentation and fraud, induced the plaintiff in paying the amount of rupees fifty thousand towards part payment/earnest money for sale of apartment. The Defendant no. 1 was directed to pay the earnest money and the damages of rupees five hundred thousand to the plaintiff.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
595		Const. P. 1865/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Khadim Hussain & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
596		I. A 50/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Muhammad Ilyas (Appellant) VS Haji Farooque (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.943-K/2011 Muhammad Saleem v. Bank Al-Falah Ltd. & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
597		Civil Revision 220/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Ghulam Mustafa Shaheen Abbasi (Applicant) VS Mst Shahnaz Kaka & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
598		Suit 1107/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Work Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-SEP-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
599		Const. P. 448/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Aslam Pervaiz (Petitioner) VS Rent Controller (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-MAY-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
600		Const. P. 1689/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Imtiaz Ali Maitlo P O Sindh & Ors (Petitioner) VS P O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-MAY-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
601		Civil Revision 260/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Shah Fahad and an other (Applicant) VS Pir Ghulam Kareem and other (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-DEC-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
602		Const. P. 1354/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Shahnawaz Mahar (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
603		Const. P. 552/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Asma kaka (Petitioner) VS DEO Matiari (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	25-OCT-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
604		Election Appeal 35/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Israr Ahmed (Appellant) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-AUG-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
605		Const. P. 1598/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Lal Bux (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
606		Const. P. 6439/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Javeria (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.4396/2019 Pakistan Medical and Dental Council thr. its Secretary, Islamabad v. Javeria & others,C.A.611/2020 Pakistan Medical and Dental Council now Pakistan Medical Commission thr. its Secretary, Islamabad v. Javeria & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
607		Const. P. 302/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Asif Ali (Petitioner) VS Secretary Board of Revenue & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-MAR-20	Yes	Service Although it is not a vested right of the Petitioner to get an appointment order from the official Respondents, but at least he has a legitimate expectation, and for that matter any citizen, who is qualified and cleared different tests as prescribed by government functionary, to be dealt with fairly and considered for the post advertised, and in this regard an eligible candidate cannot be discriminated against or not considered, merely on account of extraneous consideration, which includes political consideration and nepotism.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
608		S.M.A 38/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Muhammad Aijaz Khan S/o (Late) Haji Faiz Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Sikandar Begum (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	26-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
609	2020 YLR 2188	Const. P. 620/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	The Fauji Foundation Charitable Trust (Petitioner) VS Federal Land Commission & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-APR-20	Yes	Subject: Resumption of land under MRL 115 Fauji Foundation a "Charitable Trust" operating under endowment Act 1980 was functioning through a committee formed vide notification of 08.03.1972 of federal Government. Committee after deliberation resolved that secretary to act as authorized person. Unless otherwise explained, it does not deemed to have empowered /authorized secretary to further delegate the powers by a simple authority letter signed by Secretary alone, when it's not borne out of resolution. In the earlier petition when resumption of land was questioned, the parties withdrew their lis in view of negotiation which ended as 30 years leases of subject land and the cause of resumption deemed to have exhausted by way of doctrine of election, Petitioner opted for a long term lease instead to continue litigation against resumption of land .Such right (if any) was bartered with long term lease. Such right to challenge the resumption of land thus was not available when present petition was filed. Process of execution for long term lease should have followed requirement of MLR 115 and section 17 of Act II of 1977 and since it was not transparent, the two leases were executed in an unlawful manner and which period (30 years) has already been exhausted. Scheme of recovery of land revenue includes a process of attachment of holding against arrears which are due. Unless a remedy is exhausted, immediate jump to arrest and detention would not be justified. The question of declaring MLR 115 being repugnant to injunctions of Islamic law has already been decided but with its prospective effect as highlighted in the judgment of Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner and the effective date was set as 23rd March, 1990 before which the process of resumption had already been completed yet long term leases were executed surrendering rights over the land. (if any)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.1751/2020 The Fauji Foundation, Charitable Organization under the Committee of Administration thr. Brig. (R) Sabir Ali, Fauji Foundation, Fauji Towers, Rawalpindi v. The Federal Land Commission thr. its Chairman, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
610		Const. P. 4634/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Idrees and Ors (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-SEP-21	Yes	1. Extraneous considerations keep officials of SBCA away from illegal construction being raised by the persons. 2. If exemplary punishments are awarded to these officials, issue of illegal construction can be controlled.	Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
611		Const. P. 2589/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Saddique Ali Laghari (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-MAY-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.3389/2021 Saddique Ali Laghari v. The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NAB, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
612		Const. P. 7173/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Sheikh Imran Ahmed (Petitioner) VS The D.G KDA and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-SEP-21	No	It is a settled proposition of law that an encroacher can neither claim any alternate land/plot nor is entitled for any compensation when admittedly the petitioner was an encroacher. It is also a settled proposition of law that simply on the basis of having utility bills in ones name, ownership rights could neither be claimed nor could be conferred upon a person	Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
613		R.A (Civil Revision) 34/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2003	Nandomal and others (Applicant) VS The P.O. of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	01-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
614		Const. P. 2588/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Sundor Khan (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-MAY-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.3388/2021 Sundar Khan v. The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NAB, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
615		Suit 1758/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Hilal Foods (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Danpak Food Industries (Private) Limited (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	16-AUG-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
616		First Appeal Against Order 6/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Yameen Ali (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-DEC-17	Yes		Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
617		Const. P. 1528/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani (Petitioner) VS National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-MAR-21	Yes	National Accountability Ordinance, 1999	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.3022/2022 Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani v. National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman NAB, HQ, Islamabad and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
618		Const. P. 6536/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Muhammad Bilal (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
619		Const. P. 6099/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mst. Bass Khatoon and Another (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
620		Const. P. 4107/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Perviaz Masih & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
621		Const. P. 5947/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Muhammad Ali Shahzad (Petitioner) VS IIIrd Sr. Civil Judge and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
622		Const. P. 319/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Muhammad Mubashir Qadir Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-AUG-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
623		Const. P. 1535/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Khaliq-ur-Rehman & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	13-JAN-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.222/2022 Imam Bux, Honorary Secretary of Madrass Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Karachi v. Province of Sindh, through the Secretary Cooperative Department, Sindh Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
624		Const. P. 1226/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur; attached cases: C. P. No. D-721 of 2017	2017	Kashmir Ali & Others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-FEB-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
625		Const. P. 1542/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Muhammad Siddique Pathan (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-FEB-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
626		Const. P. 5895/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Uzma Naz and Ors (Petitioner) VS The D.G Rangers & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-MAY-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.860-K/2022 The Director General Rangers Sindh through Ashraf Hussain Shah Deputy Superintendent Rangers v. The Province of Sindh through Senior Member Board of Revenue Government of Sindh & others,C.P.859-K/2022 The Province of Sindh through Senior Member Board of Revenue Sindh & another v. Uzma Naz & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned after summer vacation,Pending Adjourned after summer vacation
627		Suit 611/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	WESTERN TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (Plaintiff) VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	31-AUG-22	Yes	Undoubtedly, the provisions of OGRA Law and its purposive interpretation given by the Courts, have comprehensively elaborated the statutory scheme. However, in the present cases, issue of implementation of Policy concerning RLNG is to be considered, coupled with the fact, that Plaintiffs have seriously disputed the Undertakings given by them for supply of RLNG and the apprehended discontinuance of Gas Supply, as it was done before. Therefore, in my considered view, the facts of present case fall within the exception to the Rule laid down in the above Case Law relied upon by the learned Advocate of Defendant No.2, and the plaints of both these Suits should not be rejected at this stage.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
628		Cr.Bail 45/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Muhammad Iqbal Abbasi (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-JUL-22	Yes	The state functionaries should realise that if such incidents are not curbed with an iron hand, then public trust in Police force will be completely diminished, resulting in a chaotic situation. Such incidents can result in disturbing the civil order of the Society, if persons in uniform act with such impunity.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
629		Cr.Bail 1305/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cr Bail.A S 1306/2022	2022	MUHAMMAD SULTAN & ANOTHER (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	26-DEC-22	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
630		Const. P. 2000/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Maqsood Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
631		Suit 223/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	ARY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS INDEPENDENT MEDIA CORPORATION (PVT) LTD & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	14-MAR-23	Yes	Injunction granted for broadcasting PSL-8.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
632		Suit 1740/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	MUHAMMAD RAMEEZ KHAN & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS THE PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	06-MAR-23	Yes	Application(s) for withdrawal of Suits dismissed. Directions given.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
633		Const. P. 1969/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Saifullah Abbasi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Faiza Mughal & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-APR-23	Yes	Rule 22 W.P Family Court Act, 1964. Appellate Court decided appeal on merits, hence condoned the limitation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.695-K/2023 Saifullah Abbasi v. Mst. Faiza Mughal & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
634		Cr.Rev 128/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	MUSHTAQUE ALI (Applicant) VS MUHAMMAD ALI (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-APR-23	Yes	Owner unable to utilize his property, in effect is dispossessed, case falls within Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
635		R.A (Civil Revision) 205/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2000	Province Of Sindh & Others (Applicant) VS Ali Muhammad & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	09-MAY-23	Yes	Highhandedness in supply of water, will result in disastrous situation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
636		R.A (Civil Revision) 250/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Umed Ali and Others (Applicant) VS Ist: Additional Distt & Sessions Judge Badin & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-MAY-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
637		Suit 2195/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Sohrab Khan (Plaintiff) VS Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	26-JUN-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
638		II.A. 8/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: CP.No.S-167 of 2021 & CP.No.S9826 of 2022	2020	Muhammad Yaseen (Appellant) VS Muhammad Aslam (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-23	Yes	APPLICATION OF A JUDICIAL MIND, THAT INCLUDES, ELEMENT OF VISIBLE FAIRNESS IN A DECISION.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
639		Const. P. 1241/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Wilayat Khan thr: L.Rs (Petitioner) VS Aamir Azad & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-DEC-23	Yes	Sale of property is confirmed in writ Jurisdiction.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
640		Const. P. 277/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	Muhammad Nadeem and Another (Petitioner) VS Sumeira Nadeem Sulemani and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	27-MAR-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
641	2017 CLC 155	Suit 541/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	MST. AMTUL FATIMA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS SYED TAHIR ALI JAFRI & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	11-DEC-14	No	Order XXI, Rule 85. Application dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
642		Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1990	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-FEB-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
643	2016 SBLR Sindh 162	Const. P. 4404/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Syed Dost Ali (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-15	Yes	* In exceptional circumstances the writ jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution can be invoked, despite availability of an alternate remedy.---- * Excessive use of unlawful powers is itself unlawful.---- * Under grab of a pending civil suit, in which even no restraining order is operating and which is ex facie being not pursued, a bona fide purchaser of a property cannot be deprived of its use and enjoyment, as this violates the fundamental rights of a citizen relating to proprietary rights and guaranteed under article 23 and 24 of the Constitution. Caution note attached by the respondent-DHA to the property in question merely on the ground that some civil suit is pending as stated above, is not a proper exercise of discretion vested in Respondent-DHA, in the circumstances, as admittedly Respondent-DHA refused to even process the application for approval of the completion plan issuance of completion certificate of the Subject property on the basis of the impugned caution note it has put in its record. * A Genuine claimant can invoke section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, by notifying the concerned registrar/ responsible for registration of sale/ conveyance deed (under Registration Act, 1908) about the pendency of litigation in competent Court of Law, inter alia, to protect one * In exceptional circumstances the writ jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution can be invoked, despite availability of an alternate remedy. * Excessive use of unlawful powers is itself unlawful.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
644	2017 SBLR Sindh 105	Const. P. 4725/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Ubedullah Siddiqi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-AUG-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
645		Const. P. 755/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Muhammad Ameen & Anothers (Petitioner) VS Iqbal Ahmed & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
646		Const. P. 1647/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Soorath and an Other (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
647		Const. P. 1695/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Syed Muhammad Khalid Ali Hashmi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
648		Const. P. 1593/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Saiqa Mahwish & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
649		Const. P. 7101/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Anwar Ahmed and others (Petitioner) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	12-SEP-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.634-K/2017 Anwar Ahmed and others v. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and others,C.P.4383/2017 Clifton Cantonment Board, Karachi v. Anwar Ahmed & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
650		Const. P. 1723/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Rabia & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
651		I. A 36/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Haji Shafi Muhammad (Appellant) VS Land Acquisition Officer & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
652		Cr.Appeal 98/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Urs Zardari (Appellant) VS The State & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
653		Civil Revision 295/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Muhammad Sadiq Leghari (Applicant) VS Shamshad Ahmed & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
654		Const. P. 581/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Habib Ur Rehman (Petitioner) VS Saadullah & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-NOV-16	No	In view of above and for reasons to be record later, both these petitions are allowed and consequently rent applications filed by the respondents stand revived and the learned Rent Controller will first frame an issue with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant and decide the same before proceeding further.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
655		Const. P. 1530/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Lakhmir Mal (Petitioner) VS SSP Hyd & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
656		Cr.Misc. 421/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Shazia Syed (Applicant) VS Fida Hussain and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-16	No	It is ordered that minor Farman Ali Shah, who is of tender age (around three years), henceforth will live with applicant Shazia Syed till such time the respondent No.1 (Fida Hussain), the real father of minor, either files a proper proceeding before the concerned Guardian Court for hizanat/custody of minor and when such a proceeding is filed, the concerned Guardian Court will be at liberty to regulate the question of interim custody. However, if some order is passed under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, and the same is flouted by the applicant, the learned Guardian Court will treat such violation as disobedience.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
657		Const. P. 1408/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Faiza (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
658		Const. P. 1716/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Jamal ud Din (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
659		J.M 7/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: J. M. No. 81 of 2015	2016	Muhammad Iqbal Pirani. (Applicant) VS Khurram Ashraf & Others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-APR-19	Yes	Framing of Issues not mandatory. In exceptional cases while deciding 12(2) application, main case may also be decided.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
660		Suit 2322/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Dr. Arifa Farid and others (Plaintiff) VS Mitha Khan and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-APR-19	Yes	Exception to right of hearing; where the results can and would not have been any different. Dispute between the government departments should not affect bona fide purchasers. Judgment in rem / personam.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
661		Suit 1203/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Ehtisham Zubair. (Plaintiff) VS Ashraf Hussain & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	25-JAN-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
662		Const. P. 1689/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Shr. Seeta & another (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
663		Const. P. 1596/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Hussain (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
664		Const. P. 1646/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Danial (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
665		Civil Revision 134/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1998	Abdul Latif & ors (Applicant) VS Subedar Jamsheed (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
666		Const. P. 583/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Nasreen & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
667		Const. P. 1731/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Nazim (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
668		Const. P. 1534/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Safdar Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
669		Const. P. 1738/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Qasim (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
670		Suit 1663/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Clariant Pakistan Limited (Plaintiff) VS Deputy Commssioner Inland Revenue Service (AEC) and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-JUN-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
671		Civil Revision 69/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Abdul Ghaffar (Petitioner) VS Mst Noor Jahan @ Noor Jehan (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
672		Const. P. 1250/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Abdul Hameed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
673		Suit 358/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1985	Ghazanfar Ali and another (Plaintiff) VS Cherat Cement Limited and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	28-JUL-17	Yes	NIL Suit for Declaration, Cancellation and Damages dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
674		Const. P. 1898/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Ambar Sultana & Ors (Petitioner) VS SSP Khairpur & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
675		Execution 153/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	Party-1 (Decree Holder) VS Party-2 (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Order	13-OCT-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
676	2017 CLD 1737	Suit 1042/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Khalid Mehmood and others (Plaintiff) VS M/s Multi Plus Corporation Private Limited and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	21-JUL-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
677	2019 PLC CS 178	Suit 754/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	Mrs. Rukhsana Yahya (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-FEB-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
678	2017 MLD 200	Const. P. 424/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Shabbir Ahmed (Applicant) VS Chairman NAB and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	04-FEB-16	No	Recovery of 'amount due'---Willful default---Quashing of proceedings---Petitioners alleged to have committed offences of corruption and corrupt practice and had entered into Voluntary Return under S. 25(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Petitioners failed to deposit amount settled under Voluntary Return, therefore, NAB filed fresh reference against them---Validity---When a person did not pay entire agreed amount as determined by Trial Court, then such default did not fall within the mischief of 'wilful default' as mentioned in S. 5(r) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Remedy for NAB in such default lay in invoking S. 33-E, of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, as the same had been termed as a special provision to execute recovery of 'amount due' under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Petitioners had agreed to pay back the amounts as determined by NAB, by signing Voluntary Return agreements, therefore, subsequent filing of NAB Reference against petitioners was not justified and the same was tainted with malice---High Court directed petitioners to pay Voluntary Return amounts in four equal instalments and quashed proceedings pending before Trial Court---Constitutional Petition was allowed in circumstances. NAB Case: Recovery of 'amount due'---Willful default---Quashing of proceedings.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.3010/2016 National Accoutability Bureau thr. its Chairman, Islamabad v. Shabbir Ahmed Malik & others,C.A.621/2019 National Accoutability Bureau thr. its Chairman, Islamabad v. Shabbir Ahmed Malik & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed ,Disposed Disposed of
679		Const. P. 1668/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Azizan and an Other (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
680		Const. P. 1823/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Aniqa Khurram &another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
681		Const. P. 875/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Yasmeen (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
682		Civil Revision 150/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Ghulam Safdar Khan (Applicant) VS Sodho Khan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
683		Const. P. 1431/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Allah Dino (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	09-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
684		Suit 1682/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	MAZHAR SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS ATIF MAZHAR & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-JAN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
685	2016 SBLR Sindh 594	J.M 62/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s. Shahtaj Textile Lmited. (Applicant) VS Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd., & Others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	07-DEC-15	Yes	If triable issues are not involved, which required leading and recording of evidence, then it is not mandatory to frame issues and an application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. can be decided on the basis of available case record and undisputed facts. Ratable distribution under Section 73 read with Order XXXIV Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code; Bank having a mortgage decree in its favour has a preferential status over a money decree, which is in favour of Plaintiff. Analysis of the discussion brings forth the conclusion that neither Judgment Debtors nor Bank have actively concealed a fact, or, misrepresented certain facts in such a fraudulent way, which, if not made or committed, would have not resulted in passing of the impugned Compromise Decree. Consequently, element of fraud is not present in instant cases. By analogy a cardinal principle of administrative law, which, time and again has been enunciated by the courts and later enacted as Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, inter alia, that an authority should act reasonably, fairly and justly, is also applicable to the financial institutions. If triable issues are not involved, which required leading and recording of evidence, then it is not mandatory to frame issues and an application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. can be decided on the basis of available case record and undisputed facts. Ratable distribution under Section 73 read with Order XXXIV Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code; Bank having a mortgage decree in its favour has a preferential status over a money decree, which is in favour of Plaintiff.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
686		Suit 1306/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	DARUS SALAM C.H.S (Plaintiff) VS KBCA & OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	07-MAY-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
687	2017 CLD 508	I. A 1/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sikandar Ali (Appellant) VS Ali Akber (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
688		Const. P. 1780/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ladhiya (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
689		Suit 886/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1999	Syed Raza Haider Rizvi (Plaintiff) VS Gordon Shipping Company Ltd. and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-JUL-18	No	Plaintiff was employee of defendants (employers) who were bound to provide him proper medical treatment---Plea raised by plaintiff was that due to failure of defendants to provide medical treatment, he had suffered permanent physical disability due to injury sustained by him during duty---Validity---Defendants neither produced any document about complete recovery of plaintiff nor had questioned authenticity of documents produced by plaintiff---Expert opinion of doctors further substantiated the fact that till March-1999 plaintiff was not fully recovered from injury which inhibited his pursuit of career---Testimony of plaintiff (employee) and undisputed documentary evidence produced by him weighed in favour of plaintiff as against oral evidence of defendant that complete medical treatment was given to plaintiff---To extent of negligence shown by defendants (employers) in providing incomplete medical treatment of plaintiff stood proved---Suit for damages and compensation was decreed accordingly. Plaintiff was employee of defendants (employers) who were bound to provide him proper medical treatment---Plea raised by plaintiff was that due to failure of defendants to provide medical treatment, he had suffered permanent physical disability due to injury sustained by him during duty---Validity---Defendants neither produced any document about complete recovery of plaintiff nor had questioned authenticity of documents produced by plaintiff---Expert opinion of doctors further substantiated the fact that till March-1999 plaintiff was not fully recovered from injury which inhibited his pursuit of career---Testimony of plaintiff (employee) and undisputed documentary evidence produced by him weighed in favour of plaintiff as against oral evidence of defendant that complete medical treatment was given to plaintiff---To extent of negligence shown by defendants (employers) in providing incomplete medical treatment of plaintiff stood proved---Suit for damages and compensation was decreed accordingly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
690		Civil Revision 139/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1997	Abdul Salam thr Lrs and others (Applicant) VS Muhammad Yaqoob and other (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
691		Const. P. 4843/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Maj. Rtd. Tariq Lodhi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Khalida Jilajni and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-AUG-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.528-K/2017 Maj.(Retd) Tariq Lodhi v. Mst: Khalida Jilani and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
692		Suit 1755/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Ahmed Saeed and others (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh, through the Secretary, Education Department and two others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
693		Adm. Suit 628/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Marhaba Aviation Services Private Limited (Plaintiff) VS Real Air Travel (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	07-FEB-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
694		Const. P. 1564/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Kirshan (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
695		Const. P. 864/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Mohammad Ali Jamro (Petitioner) VS Chairman National Database and Registration Athou (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.48-K/2018 Muhammad Ali Jamro v. The Chairman National Database and Registration Authority and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
696		Election Appeal 39/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Mohib Ali (Appellant) VS Returning Officer and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
697		Const. P. 1283/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Ali Abid Bozdar (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
698		Judicial Companies Misc. 47/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Aisha Steel Mills Limited & Others (Applicant) VS Nil (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-JUN-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
699		Const. P. 4675/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Abid Hussain Solangi & Ors P O Sindh & Ors (Petitioner) VS P O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-APR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
700		Const. P. 3166/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Saima Memon (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
701		Const. P. 3381/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Mst. Fozia (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
702		Const. P. 1563/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Munwar Hussain Solangi (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-MAR-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
703		Const. P. 1407/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2013	Dr. Moiinuddin Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Federal Secretary, Water and Power, Govt. of Pakistan (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
704		Const. P. 1286/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Nabi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
705		Civil Revision 289/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Tanveer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Vth Addl Distt Judge & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	09-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
706		Civil Revision 160/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Noor Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Hussain thr: L.Rs & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
707		Const. P. 1659/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Naila Bano & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
708		Const. P. 116/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	mST nASEERAN (Petitioner) VS po sINDH (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
709		Const. P. 428/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2019	Khuda Bux (Petitioner) VS SHO P.S K.N.Shah and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-JUN-19	Yes	Parties recklessly invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of Court, which act on their part consumes valuable time of Court and litigants should be dealt with strictly and such type of petition is to be dismissed with heavy costs. Parties recklessly invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of Court, which act on their part consumes valuable time of Court and litigants should be dealt with strictly and such type of petition is to be dismissed with heavy costs.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
710		Suit 1396/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	AURANGZAIB QURESHI & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS THE CHAIRMAN P.I.A & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-MAR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
711		Const. P. 2178/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Muhammad Asif Khan (Petitioner) VS Cantonment Board Faisal (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-DEC-20	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
712		Suit 1680/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Shahzad Nabi. (Plaintiff) VS Naseer Turabi & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-OCT-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
713	2021 PCr.LJ 1270	Const. P. 2147/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Abdul Ghafar S/o Noor Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-MAR-20	Yes	Every disease, if not attended properly, would cause negative and hazardous effect to life but it doesn???t mean that its medical remedy is bail from the recovery of such diseases. His treatment in a best available hospital under a care of best team of doctors could serve the best option. These stresses and pressures discussed could only be ruled out if a patient remains away from all these stresses and strains and the best possible place for the prescribed health issues is a Hospital where a patient could be treated free from all such stress possibilities. Post Arrest Bail Application on medical ground dismissed in view of the recommendations of the Medical Board	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.363-K/2020 Abdul Ghaffar v. Federation of Pakistan & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
714		H.C.A 249/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. (Appellant) VS Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-NOV-20	Yes	principal of awarding demurrage charges and analysis of Force Majeure clause of COA	Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.A.76-K/2020 Pakistan National Shipping Corporation v. Pakistan State Oil Company, Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
715		Const. P. 8061/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Ms. Rahila Anjum Ansari (Petitioner) VS FOP & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
716		Suit 436/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1993	SHAHIMAH SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS BASE CDR PAF BASE MASROOR (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-FEB-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
717		Const. P. 1256/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Mrs. Farida Mansoor (Petitioner) VS S.B.C.A and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
718		Const. P. 355/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Muneer Ahmed Bhutto & others (Petitioner) VS Director General NAB & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-MAR-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.1376/2021 Muneer Ahmed Bhotto and others v. The Director General, National Accountability Bureau (Sindh), Sukkur Sindh and another,C.P.4153/2021 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountablity, NAB Headquarter, Islamabad v. Muneer Ahmed Bhutto and others,C.A.3034/2022 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountablity, NAB Headquarter, Islamabad v. Muneer Ahmed Bhutto and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed
719		Suit 1778/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Muhammad Iqbal. (Plaintiff) VS Zafar Hussain & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-JUN-21	Yes	With regard to the claim of damages of Rupees Two Hundred Crores, for suffering mental agony and physical torture, no evidence has been led by the Plaintiff in support of the same. If Plaintiff was physically assaulted, the first thing, which comes to mind, is that whether any complaint was lodged with the Police? Plaintiff has not led any evidence, nor brought on record anything about the fact that he was physically tortured or suffered mental agony. Thus, this claim also cannot be accepted in absence of positive evidence, as onus to prove the same is on Plaintiff, but he failed to discharge it.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
720		Const. P. 6559/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Imtiaz Muhammad Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
721		Const. P. 4028/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Tanvir Jamshed (Petitioner) VS Muhamad Hanif and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
722		Const. P. 7194/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Muhammad Tariq (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
723		Const. P. 6148/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Fahim Khan Gabol and Others (Petitioner) VS DG SBCA & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.1644-K/2021 Fahim Khan Gabol & others v. Director General Sindh Building Control Authority & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
724		Const. P. 3902/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Mst. Rukhsana Bano and Ors (Petitioner) VS KMC and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.55-K/2022 Haji Jaffer Khan v. KMC (Karachi Muncipal Coorporation) & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
725		Const. P. 1407/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Ashwar Kumar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.1675-K/2021 Ashwar Kumar v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
726		Const. P. 6989/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Farhan (Petitioner) VS SBCA and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
727		Const. P. 139/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2021	Kamran Khan Yousufzai (Petitioner) VS Mst Asma Yousufzai & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-MAR-22	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
728		Const. P. 861/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Imdad Hussain and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-JAN-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
729		Const. P. 1071/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Manzoor Ahmed Lashari (Petitioner) VS Fed of Pak & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-FEB-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
730		Cr.Rev 110/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2019	Ashique Ali Shah & others (Applicant) VS Punhal Khan Chandio & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-JAN-22	No	The issue was decided multiple times in earlier round of litigation, as discussed above, and although applicants can file an application under Section 265-H or 265-K, Cr. P. C, for a premature acquittal in the matter, but allowing such type of cases to continue would be an abuse of the process of Court, which can and should be remedied under Section 561-A, Cr. P. C.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
731		Const. P. 2387/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Jason Charles (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
732		Const. P. 3207/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Bawar Tawfiq & Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
733		Const. P. 370/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Mst Bibi Naz Bibi (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-JAN-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
734		Const. P. 6734/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Mst. Bilqis Bano and Others (Petitioner) VS Ministry of Defence and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	12-AUG-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
735		Suit 614/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2003	ZAFAR AHMED. (Plaintiff) VS ASSOCIATES PRESS OF PAK & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	22-AUG-22	Yes	The Defendants have illegally deprived the Plaintiff from the benefits of enhanced pension since 01.07.2000. Defendants should have considered the service rendered by Plaintiff to the Organization; he has given his prime years of life to Defendants No.1 and in all fairness deserves a fair treatment from Defendant No1.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
736		Const. P. 2024/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Zaffar Ali (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
737		Const. P. 2052/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Mehmood S/O Muhammad Rahim (Petitioner) VS Returning Officer Local Govt: Sanghar & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
738		Suit 41/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Shahid & another. (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Zainab & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	28-FEB-23	Yes	no Inheritable Property. Plaint Rejected.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
739		Suit 234/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	BASIRAT DAD KHAN LODHI & ORS (Plaintiff) VS FARHAT DAD KHAN LODHI & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	07-APR-23	Yes	Defendant is bonafide Purchaser for Value whose interest is to be protected. Suit dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
740		Const. P. 153/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Mst. Sheza Nawaz (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Irfan (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-APR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
741		Const. P. 22/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Khatoon Parekh (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-DEC-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
742		Criminal Miscelleneous 117/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	MUNEER ALI (Applicant) VS P.O SINDH & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-APR-23	No	Habeas Corpus Petition dismissed. Declining moral standards of Society.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
743		R.A (Civil Revision) 55/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Muhammad Tarique (Applicant) VS Director of Southern Circle of Archeology (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-MAY-23	Yes	Cause of action ceased to exist cannot be revived by a subsequent correspondence.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
744		R.A (Civil Revision) 91/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Hussaini S/o Asghar Ali (Applicant) VS Ali Tayab and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-JAN-24	No	Headnote is not a case law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
745		Const. P. 362/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Dr. Ikram Baig (Petitioner) VS 6.th Addational Session judg Hyd & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-NOV-23	Yes	In this writ jurisdiction appraisal of the evidence cannot be done, but it can be seen only to such an extent, to consider, whether the Finding / Decision of the Family Court or the Appellate Court is either contrary to the undisputed record or have completely ignored the law developed on a particular issue, by the Superior Courts.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
746		Suit 1592/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	MST.SHAMIM AKHTER & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MST.NAZAR BARI & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	28-SEP-23	Yes	Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, not applicable retrospectively. Legal Heirs of pre-deceased son will not inherit. Suit not maintainable.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
747		Suit 286/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2003	SYED WAQAR HAIDER ZAIDI (Plaintiff) VS MST.ALAM ARA (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
748	2016 PLD Pesh. 367	Suit 1030/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1991	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	07-MAR-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
749		Const. P. 1460/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Saleem (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & O rs (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
750	2016 CLC 878, 2017 CLC 1387	Suit 176/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1985	Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd (Plaintiff) VS Haji Khuda Bux Amir Umer ltd (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-JAN-16	No	??? Any shortcoming in compliance of Order 29 Rule 1 is curable, for instance, if a formal Board Resolution is not there, then the Articles of Association and / or internal record [un-rebutted one] like Note Sheets, can be taken into account to determine about the authority of a person instituting a legal proceeding / suit. Articles of Association empower the Board of Directors to institute and defend legal proceedings; Articles 106 and 113, deal with quorum and at least two Directors can pass an effective and valid Board resolution. Since Noting sheet produced in the evidence confirms that Directors of the Plaintiff Corporation had discussed the issue and authorized the filing of instant suit, which was subsequently filed by the person authorized in the above document, the conclusion is that the suit was properly and competently filed. Noting sheet can be taken as Board Resolution by Circulation. ??? If the very suit has been unauthorizedly and incompetently filed, that is, neither any authorization from the Board of Directors exists, nor the Articles of Association provide such authority, then such a defect remains incurable, even by a subsequent ratification. If the very suit has been unauthorizedly and incompetently filed, that is, neither any authorization from the Board of Directors exists, nor the Articles of Association provide such authority, then such a defect remains incurable, even by a subsequent ratification.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
751	2017 YLR 242, 2017 YLR 424	Const. P. 846/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Abdul Haq and Others (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-APR-16	Yes	Constitutional petition---Claim of petitioner was disputed by respondents and Revenue Authorities---Due process of law---Applicability---Due process of law was of wide import and its applicability varied from case to case in accordance with the set of facts and circumstances---Due process of law was also directly related to the rights, interest and entitlement of a person as recognized by law---Petitioners could not make out a prime facie case of their legal entitlement of possession of suit property---Entries in the revenue record about their alleged claim were under scrutiny before the concerned authorities---Term "due process of law" was not applicable in circumstances---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Constitutional petition---Claim of petitioner was disputed by respondents and Revenue Authorities---Due process of law---Applicability---Due process of law was of wide import and its applicability varied from case to case in accordance with the set of facts and circumstances---Due process of law was also directly related to the rights, interest and entitlement of a person as recognized by law---Petitioners could not make out a prime facie case of their legal entitlement of possession of suit property---Entries in the revenue record about their alleged claim were under scrutiny before the concerned authorities---Term "due process of law" was not applicable in circumstances---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.10-K/2017 Tariq Javed v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
752	2017 YLR 1174	Const. P. 3379/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Abdul Latif Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	13-JUL-16	No	An election for the reserved seat in a Municipal Committee without first filling up the vacant general seat in one of its Wards, will be an exercise in futility, as it will adversely affect the subsequent election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of that Municipal Committee. Consequently, in terms of Rule 47 of the Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015, relating to electoral college should be complied with. Thus propriety also demands that a political party which enjoys a majority in a Municipal Committee should at least be given a fair opportunity to elect a chairman and vice chairman of that Municipal Committee An election for the reserved seat in a Municipal Committee without first filling up the vacant general seat in one of its Wards, will be an exercise in futility, as it will adversely affect the subsequent election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of that Municipal Committee. Consequently, in terms of Rule 47 of the Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015, relating to electoral college should be complied with.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.2292/2016 Sheikh Khalid Hussain v. Abdul Latif Sheikh & others,C.P.1823/2016 Shaikh Khalid Hussain v. The Province of Sindh thr. Chief Secretary, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of
753		Const. P. 1672/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Waheed Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
754		Const. P. 586/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Shabnam & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
755		Suit 1063/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Abdul Rauf & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Amin Lakhani & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	11-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
756	2018 PLD SC 483	Suit 139/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Diamond Weld Rods (Pvt) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Messrs Stal Co GmbH and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	29-JAN-18	Yes	Suit for recovery of money and injunction---Freight, payment of---Grievance of plaintiff company against shipping company was that due to local shipping agent, a delay was caused in unloading product from vessel and it resulted in incurring of demurrage and other avoidable expenses/charges---Validity---Document produced by plaintiff as Bill of Lading was though not forged but it did not fulfil requirement of Bill of Lading and same could be considered as such--- Bill of Lading produced by shipping company was genuine as it fulfilled its statutory requirements---Plaintiff was required to pay freight to shipping company as Bill of Lading clearly mentioned that Suit for recovery of money and injunction---Freight. Document produced by plaintiff as Bill of Lading was though not forged but it did not fulfil requirement of Bill of Lading and same could be considered as such--- Bill of Lading produced by shipping company was genuine as it fulfilled its statutory requirements---Plaintiff was required to pay freight to shipping company as Bill of Lading clearly mentioned that 'freight to be collected at destination port'---Such legal and factual position was backed by Ss. 47 & 48 of Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 and goods could not be removed from public warehouse or sheds until freight in respect thereof was paid either to master or owner of vessel--- Suit was decreed accordingly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
757		Const. P. 1626/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ayaz Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
758		Const. P. 1845/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Rozina & another (Petitioner) VS SSP N/Feroz & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
759		Const. P. 1555/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mubarak Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
760		Const. P. 1613/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Sht Husna (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
761		Const. P. 1789/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ali Hassan (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
762		Const. P. 961/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst: Raheema (Petitioner) VS Noor Muhammad & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
763		Const. P. 1061/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Jamalan (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Ohers (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
764		Const. P. 1894/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Islamuddin (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.746-K/2019 M/s Star Electronics v. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-IV Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
765		Const. P. 828/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Naveed Ahmed & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
766		Const. P. 1522/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mir Muhammad (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
767		Const. P. 3553/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Niaz Ali Balouch and others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
768		Civil Revision 243/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	WAPDA,Thr:Superintending Eng,LBOD (Applicant) VS Land Acquistion Officer LBOD Project Wapda and Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
769		Suit 1417/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	MRS. ZAIBA KABLY (Plaintiff) VS TARIQ NAZIR BUKHARI (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-APR-19	Yes	Plaint will not be returned, merely because immovable property is situate outside territorial jurisdiction, when the actual relief sought is for recovery of sale price and damages against wrongful act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
770		Suit 1763/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Mrs. Farha Zafar. (Plaintiff) VS Major (R) Wasim Pasha Tajammal & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	15-JAN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
771		Const. P. 645/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Sardar (Petitioner) VS SSP Jamshoro & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
772		Const. P. 1464/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Mustafa Machi & another (Petitioner) VS IG Sindh &Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
773		Const. P. 1819/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Qasim (Petitioner) VS SHO PS Sakrand SBA & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
774		Const. P. 556/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Qadir Bux (Petitioner) VS DIG SBA and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
775		Const. P. 1660/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Kainat & Ors (Petitioner) VS SSP Khairpur & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
776		Const. P. 1151/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mumtaz Ali (Petitioner) VS Govt of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
777		Const. P. 1402/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Faiza (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
778		Const. P. 1432/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Syed Muhammad Asghar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
779		Const. P. 1726/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Manjhi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh &ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
780		Const. P. 1735/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mubin Ahmed (Petitioner) VS SSP SBA & Or.s (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
781		Const. P. 1772/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Haji Punhoon (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
782		Const. P. 1857/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Nabi Kapri (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	13-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
783		Suit 752/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1984	Cherat Cement Company Limited (Plaintiff) VS Ghazanfar Ali & two others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	28-JUL-17	Yes	Two Suits i-e, Suit for Recovery filed by the plaintiff and suit for Declaration, Cancellation and Damages filed by the defendants were decided in a single judgment. The Suit of Plaintiff was decreed whereas the Suit of defendant was dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
784	2019 CLC 583	Const. P. 1802/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Premier Battery Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-AUG-17	Yes	Petitioner had not participated in bidding process and assailed Public Notice and bidding process without fulfilling any of the conditions mentioned in the Public Notice---Validity---Petitioner had commercial motive that entire process should be started afresh--- Once the procuring authorities started bidding/ tendering process, provisions of Rr. 17(3) & 18 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, would be applicable and such stage was a subsequent one and had not reached---Petitioner did not have any locus standi to assail procurement process, as it did not even participate in first stage of the process by submitting Expression of Interest---Public Notice in question did not violate any of the provisions of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010---Basic information according to R. 73 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, contained about subject project, eligibility of participants, date of purchase of Expression of Interest document and the same could also be down loaded from Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority website and last date of submission also---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Once the procuring authorities started bidding/ tendering process, provisions of Rr. 17(3) & 18 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, would be applicable and such stage was a subsequent one and had not reached---Petitioner did not have any locus standi to assail procurement process, as it did not even participate in first stage of the process by submitting Expression of Interest---Public Notice in question did not violate any of the provisions of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010---Basic information according to R. 73 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, contained about subject project, eligibility of participants, date of purchase of Expression of Interest document and the same could also be down loaded from Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority website and last date of submission also---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.481-K/2017 Premier Barrtery Industries (Pvt) Ltd v. Karachi Water & Seawerage Board and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
785		Const. P. 1891/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Ali (Petitioner) VS Inspector Allan Abbasi & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
786		Const. P. 1832/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Imtiaz Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
787		Civil Revision 50/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Syed Ghulam Rasool Shah (Petitioner) VS Abdul Jabbar & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
788		Suit 1042/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Khalid Mehmood and others (Plaintiff) VS M/s Multi Plus Corporation Private Limited and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	05-OCT-17	Yes	The Limitation Law is a part of positive law as held in Ghulam Qadir case (ibid) and should be given due effect in the light of numerous dicta. When an action is filed after the prescribed period of limitation, it can prejudice rights and interest of opponents, which right have accrued in the intervening period, hence, time barred actions cannot be termed as a mere technicality.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
789		Suit 504/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1984	Tewfiq Fikree and others (Plaintiff) VS Umahani Fikree and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-JAN-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
790		Const. P. 1526/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhammad Hussain (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
791		Const. P. 1981/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Lachhmi (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
792		Const. P. 1861/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Khano (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
793		Const. P. 1990/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	09-JAN-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
794		Suit 1569/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	Ali Muhammad & another (Plaintiff) VS Faizullah & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-MAY-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
795		Const. P. 1776/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst Saira & another (Petitioner) VS SSP Hyderabad and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
796		Suit 2531/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	01-JUN-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
797		Const. P. 1539/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ifsar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Mst Fahmida & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
798		Const. P. 294/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Habibullah (Petitioner) VS Iftikhar Ahmed and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
799		Const. P. 686/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Altaf Hussain (Petitioner) VS Prov of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
800		Const. P. 1459/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ubaidullah (Petitioner) VS Learned 5th Addl S.J Hyd (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
801		Const. P. 741/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Muhammad Haroon (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh through Secretary [L.U], Board of Revenue & 4 others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-DEC-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
802		Const. P. 2105/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Mst. Bhalan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-MAY-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
803		Suit 2501/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Umer Sharif & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Saeed Bakhsh (Pvt) Limited. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-JAN-19	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
804		Const. P. 1850/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Syed Wilayat Shah (Petitioner) VS SSP SBA & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-NOV-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
805		Const. P. 2732/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Hayat Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	12-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.1438-K/2018 Hayat Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan thr.Secy: M/o Defence and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
806		Const. P. 65/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Mst. Razia Khatoon (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
807		Const. P. 1392/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Abdul Hameed Lashari (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
808		Const. P. 1189/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Muhammad Asif (Petitioner) VS PO Sindfh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
809		Const. P. 157/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Uroosa Kalwar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
810		Suit 595/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	INAM HAFIZ SIDDIQUI (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. & OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	19-JUL-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
811		Civil Revision 94/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2002	Muhammad Bux and others (Applicant) VS Abdul Rasool and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-DEC-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
812		Election Appeal 1/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Allah Bux Khan (Appellant) VS Mukhtiar Ahmed Sahto (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	05-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
813		Suit 665/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2003	Umar Islam Khan (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Basit and others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	23-FEB-18	Yes	Suit for Declaration and Cancellation decreed. Held that the impugned transaction/transfer in favour of Defendant No. 1 is to be struck down on three grounds. (i) Admittedly no sale price was paid by the Defendant no. 1 to plaintiffs. (ii) Even the mother could not have entered into such type of transaction, if at all it even assumed that deceased mother of plaintiffs did sign the affidavit, though no convincing evidence has been led by Defendant No. 1 with regard to this fact, and (iii) Under section 11 of Contract Act, Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, being minors at that relevant time, could not have entered into sale transaction with Defendant No. 1, again, even if it assumed that these plaintiffs had signed the documents under challenge; such kind of transaction is held void ab initio.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
814		Const. P. 375/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2012	Imtiaz Ali and others (Petitioner) VS Secretary Education & Literacy & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-NOV-17	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
815		Const. P. 1078/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Riaz Ahmed (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-MAY-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
816		Election Appeal 19/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Ghulam Hyder (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-AUG-18	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
817		Cr.Bail 275/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2019	Roshan Cholyani (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-JUN-19	Yes	Mere absondence of Applicant cannot be made ground for rejection of bail, if he is otherwise entitled to the concession of bail. Co-accused was already admitted to bail, hence, Applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. Case calls for further inquiry. Bail granted. Mere absondence of Applicant cannot be made ground for rejection of bail, if he is otherwise entitled to the concession of bail. Co-accused was already admitted to bail, hence, Applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. Case calls for further inquiry. Bail granted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
818		Suit 845/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Ashraf Hussain Khan. (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Rehman Khan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	30-SEP-19	Yes	Cases involving rights of inheritence are at higher pedestal, inter alia, in view of the Sharia Act, 1991. Cases involving rights of inheritence are at higher pedestal, inter alia, in view of the Sharia Act, 1991.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
819		Const. P. 598/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Kamran Mustafa (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-APR-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
820		H.C.A 78/2007 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Fateh Sports Wear Ltd & Ors (Appellant) VS Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	07-AUG-20	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
821		H.C.A 149/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Farhat Rashid (Appellant) VS Saba Farhat Rashid & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	31-AUG-20	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
822		Const. P. 1101/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/s Sun Metal Ind (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	01-OCT-20	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
823	2021 CLC 389	H.C.A 422/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Zafar Ali Kayani & others (Appellant) VS Ahmed Saleem Khan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-OCT-20	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
824		Const. P. 4454/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Tariq Wali & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
825		Const. P. 1317/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Farida Azam Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-SEP-21	Yes	Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The proceedings of Arbitration and that of the Appellate forum, under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, are to be executed as a decree of Civil Court, hence, the same cannot be overturned or interfered with by exercising administrative revisional jurisdiction, under Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, by the Provincial Government. Proceeding declared coram non judice and impugned Order quashed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
826		Const. P. 3222/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Abdul Aziz Bullo (Petitioner) VS N A B and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-MAR-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.3480/2021 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarter, Islamabad v. Abdul Aziz and another,C.A.2979/2022 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarter, Islamabad v. Abdul Aziz and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed
827		J.M 8/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/S. GETZ PHARMA (PVT.) LIMITED (Applicant) VS NOVARTIS AG & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-SEP-21	Yes	The Patents Ordinance, 2000. Section 27 of the Patents Ordinance, 2000, has two parts. One is relating to grant of Sealing Order about the main invention and the second part relates to Patent of Addition. There is no concept of automatic stay order, if a proceeding including that of Appeal is pending regarding the grant of patent in respect of the main invention. The Sealing Order under the Patents Ordinance, 2000, was issued after complying of fundamental requirements, coupled with the fact that there is a presumption under Article 129 Clause (e) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, that official acts are regularly performed, then, unless such official act is declared illegal in the main case, the basic ingredients for grant of injunction are not present in favour of Petitioner/Applicant. Injunction refused. Interpretation of statute: expressio unis est exclusio alterius and casus omissus explained.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.5311/2021 M/s Getz Pharma Pvt Limited, Karachi v. Novartis A.G. and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned (Next Date: 13-Feb-24)
828		I. A 9/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Nand Lal and another (Appellant) VS M/S Askari Bank Ltd.and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	15-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
829		Const. P. 3615/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Abdul Khaliq Pahinyar (Petitioner) VS NAB through its Chairman & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-MAR-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.4217/2021 Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Abdul Khaliq and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded
830		Const. P. 6377/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Meer Badsha (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
831		Const. P. 6018/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Nawabzada Fatehullah Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-NOV-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
832		Const. P. 145/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Goth Wasand Khan Kalmati Baloch Welfare Associatio (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
833		Const. P. 3091/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Shahid Pervaiz (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-DEC-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
834		W.T.A 938/2000 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: WTA 939 of 2000	2000	Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) VS M/s Hashwani Services (Pvt) Ltd (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-SEP-20	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
835		Const. P. 4886/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/s Amadeus I.T Group S.A (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
836		Civil Revision 74/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Ameer Ahmed Jagirani (Applicant) VS P.O. Sindh & others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	14-MAR-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
837		Const. P. 181/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2021	Kamran Khan Yousufzai (Petitioner) VS Mst Asma Yousufzai & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-MAR-22	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
838		Const. P. 1146/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Muhammad Irshad (Petitioner) VS SBCA & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	01-SEP-21	No		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
839		Const. P. 2116/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Mst. Nighat Naeem (Petitioner) VS K.D.A and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-APR-22	Yes		Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
840		Const. P. 1568/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2020	Mst Rehana Hamid Lodhi (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-FEB-21	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
841		Const. P. 2001/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Karim Bux Rind (Petitioner) VS Regional Election Commission SBA Div & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-JUN-22	No		Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
842		Suit 1202/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	MRS.TARANUM SABIH (Plaintiff) VS KBCA & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	13-SEP-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
843		Suit 424/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	MADNI AHMED ALI ARFAT SIDDIQUI (Plaintiff) VS SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	03-OCT-22	Yes	Length of service only is not a criteria for promotion; present qualification of plaintiff should have direct nexus with the Posts advertised.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
844		Suit 1228/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mst. Shahnaz Abid. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Visionary Baluchistan Media Corp. (Pvt) Ltd. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	06-SEP-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
845		R.A (Civil Revision) 72/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Muhammad Ramzan andothers (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
846		Cr.Bail 193/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	MUHAMMAD UMAR (Applicant) VS THE STATE489 (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-MAR-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
847		Suit 1189/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Captain Adnan Andalib Siddiqui & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Mrs. Shahnaz Hyder & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	24-OCT-22	Yes	The other undisputed but crucial fact is that since decades both Plaintiffs and their families are residing in the Suit Property, although the lease is in the name of Claimant. It is to be determined through a proper trial that whether the Suit Property was given to the Claimant as her exclusive Property or the same was the compensation given to the Family of Deceased	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
848		F.R.A 1/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 2023	2023	Mirza Nadeem Baig (Appellant) VS Pakistan Kaimkhani Education Trust (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-MAY-23	Yes	Rent Controller determined unfair rent instead of fair rent. Order set-aside.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)	C.P.1004-K/2023 Pakistan Kaimkhani Education Trust v. Mirza Nadeem Baig Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
849		Const. P. 206/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Wateen Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Hyd (Petitioner) VS Abdul Sattar Khoso & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	06-NOV-23	Yes	No inquiry done under section 15 of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act 2015. Case remanded.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
850		J.M 51/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Humayun Kabir Khan and another. (Applicant) VS Mst.Gulshan Naseem Akhtar and another. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-JUL-23	No		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
851		Const. P. 1716/2024 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	P&T Coop Housing Society (Petitioner) VS Sect: Coop Department and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	08-APR-24	Yes	Impugned Notification set-aside. The Society should not be subject to unnecessary scrutiny by the officials.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
852		Const. P. 1242/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: C.P.No.D-1385 of 2023	2023	Faisal Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-NOV-23	Yes	Human Capital Development is the need of the hour.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)