Is not easy for me

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Jail Appeal No. D-251/08

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

17.4.2009

Appellant present in custody.

---

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I for three years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to pay the fine, further R.I for one month, on the basis of his admission.

Since the trial Court has already taken lenient view , we find no justification for taking more lenient view. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P No. D-894/06

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

16.4.2009

Mr. Rasheed A.Razvi, Advocate for petitioner.

Ms. Sikandar Khatoon, Advocate for CDGK.

Mr.Aslam Butt, Addl. Deputy Prosecutor General, NAB.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that inspite of the fact that the original allottee of the disputed plot settled the matter before the Accountability Court under the plea of bargain, yet appeals have been filed.

Learned ADPG, NAB states that the “plea bargain” was initiated by the Accountability Court and not by the Chairman, NAB, therefore, there was a procedural illegality. He, however, states that the Chairman, NAB had granted post facto approval of the “plea bargain” that was directed by the Court. He further states that the amount that was deposited pursuant to the direction of the Court towards “plea bargain” has already been withdrawn by the NAB and that the proceedings initiated against the official functionaries, involved in this case, have been terminated . Learned ADPG is directed to place on record a copy of the post facto approval of “plea bargain” before the next date.

To come up on 6.5.2009 at 11 am.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P No. /

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

15.4.2009

Mr.Aslam Butt, Addl. Deputy Prosecutor General, NAB.

Learned ADPG, NAB states that the NAB Authorities do not intend to arrest the petitioners and they are investigating the matter and if a case is made out against the petitioners, a Reference shall be filed in the NAB Court and it will be for the Court to decide for issuance of Warrants of Arrest or not. He further states that the NAB Authorities shall not harass the petitioners in any manner whatsoever.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the above statement. Accordingly this petition is disposed of in view of the above statement.

JUDGE

Sh
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Acqt. Appeal No. /

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

15.4.2009

Mr.Aslam Butt, Addl. Deputy Prosecutor General, NAB.

Learned ADPG, NAB does not press this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.40/09

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. For order on office objection

2. for katcha peshi.

3. for hg. Of Misc. 1432/09

4. for hg.of Misc. 126/09

14.4.2009

Mr.Rasheed A.Razvi, Advocate for petitioner.

Sardar Abdul Latif Khosa, Attorney General for Pakistan.

Mr.Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, Advocate General Sindh

Mr.Yawar Farooqi, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

Mr.Javed Alam, Advocate for Respondent No.5

- ----

Misc. No.1432/09 & Misc. No. 126/09- Through these applications the Petitioner has sought direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and the Registrar of this Court, to place before this Court the entire record of consultation proceedings regarding appointment and extension of Respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 as permanent and Additional Judges of this Court by Notification dated 12.12.2008, in order to ascertain whether there was affective purpose and meaningful consultation within the contemplation of Article 193 (1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

After having heard the learned Counsel, we are tentatively of the view that availability of record of consultation for the appointment of Respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 in terms of Article 193 of the Constitution of Pakistan would be relevant to examine the Constitutional questions raised in this Petition. The record to be made available on next date and adjourned dates for examination of this Court. The record should be kept with the Attorney General for Pakistan so that it may be examined as and when deemed necessary and appropriate. The record of appointment of Respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 may also be made available with the Registrar of this Court and Advocate General Sindh. The question whether the said record to be examined by the Court or by learned counsel or made public would be examined later when this Petition would be heard on merits.

Applications stand disposed of.

The question raised by the learned Advocate General Sindh as to the constitution of this Bench under Rule 12 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (AS), the jurisdiction of this Court and the maintainability of this Petition will be examined after hearing the learned Counsel, who wish to address the Court on the said questions.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file amended title within two days.

At the request of the learned Advocate General Sindh the matter is being adjourned for hearing of preliminary objections followed by hearing of main case.

To come up on 21.4.2009 at 8.30 am. The case will proceed day to day.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.1001/08

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. For hg.of CMA 7285/08

2. for issues.

13.4.2009

Mr. Mushtaq A. Memon, Advocate for Defendants 1 & 2.

Mr. Noman, Advocate holding brief for Mr.A.H.Mirza, Advocate.

Learned counsel for the defendants No.1 & 2 points out that the scope of dispute in the suit is only limited to dispute of the encashment of mobilization fund and in this regard letter dated 15^th July, 2005 was impugned. The said letter also mentions award of contract to some other bidder and vide order dated 18.7.2008 the operation of the entire letter was stayed , thereby the defendants stood restrained from awarding the contract to anyone else. He submits that the plaintiff is only interested in encashment of mobilization fund, the order dated 18.7.2008 insofar as it suspends the award of contract to anyone else be recalled. As the scope of award of contract to anyone else is not the subject matter of this suit, the Defendants shall be at liberty to award the contract to nay other contractor. However, they are restrained from encashing the guarantees.

2. Deferred.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.1425/2007

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

For hg.of CMA 835/09

13.4.2009

Mr.Tanveer Ashraf, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Saleemuz Zaman, Advocate for Intervenor

Mr.Tahawar Ali, Advocate for CDGK.

Mr.Rahimullah, Advocate for Mr. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate.

----

This application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeks impleadment of the Intervenor as a party on the basis of which the Intervenor claims that he holds right from CDGK. Intervenor is also present and states that he is in occupation of the suit property since December 2008. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the building is still under construction and has not been occupied.

Be that as it may,the application is granted and the Intervenor is joined as Defendant No.4 in this case.He is, however, restrained from carrying on any alteration or construction in the suit property.

Nazir is appointed Commissioner to inspect the suit property and submit report about the present state of construction. His fee is fixed at Rs. 7000/- . No notice is required by the Nazir as the parties are present. Nazir to inspect the suit property on Saturday (18.4.2009). Parties or their representative may appear before the Nazir at 11.00 am. CDGK may also place on record material as issue has also cropped that the Intervenor who has been joined as a Defendant in these proceedings claims ownership of Plot No. 76/1, Block-3, whereas the Plaintiff claims to be owner of Plot No. 75/1. CDGK to identify the location of both the plots before the next date.

To come up on 4.5.2009.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.462/2008

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. For hearing of CMA 2621/08

2. For hg.of CMA 10431/09

3. For issues.

13.4.2009

Mr.Zaheer H.Minhas, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Muhammad Zubair Qureshi, Advocate for defendant No.2

The Case of the plaintiff is that Defendant No.1 constructed building in three portions and subleased the same to the Plaintiff. It is submitted that at the time of execution of the sub-leases the representative of Defendant No.2 appeared before the Sub-Registrar with the original documents for executing sub-leases, who, after verifying the same made an endorsement on the lease deed. It is further contended that if Defendant No.2 is directed to produce the original title documents/lease deed the endorsement will confirm this position. Counsel for Defendant No. 2 seeks time to produce these documents on the next date.

To come up on 20.4.2009. Till then parties are directed to maintain status quo.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.487/09

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. for order on CMA 3457/09

2. for order on CMA 3458/09

13.4.2009

Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, Advocate for Plaintiff.

---

1. Granted but subject to all just exceptions.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that Bottling & Distribution License was awarded to the Plaintiff by Defendant No.2. He submits that though the original term of the license expired but subsequently it was extended from time to time upto December, 2008. He submits that under the license a large quantity of concentrate has been supplied by Defendant No.2 which has not yet been consumed but the Defendant No.2 has malafidely cancelled the license of the Plaintiff on 5.03.2003. He further states that at this stage, the plaintiff’s only anxiety is that he should continue with the bottling and distribution of the products as long as the stocks of concentrate lasts.

Issue notice to the Defendants for 5.5.2009. Till then the Plaintiff shall continue to utilize the unconsumed concentrate.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

I.Appeal No. 60/07

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. for hg.of CMA 2083/07

2. for katcha peshi.

3. for hg.of CMA 2086/07

9.4.2009

Mr.Haleem Siddiqi, Advocate for appellant.

None for respondent.

------

The case of the appellant is that the Respondent is not its customer and that the suit filed against it was not maintainable in the Banking Jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that neither the appellant extended any financial facility to the Respondent nor the Appellant stood guarantor for issuance of Letters of Credit on behalf of the Respondent.

The contentions raised require consideration. Admit. Notice.

JUDGE

jJUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Appeal No. 89/08

______________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

______________________________________________________________

8.4.2009

Mr. S.Amjad Ali Shah, Advocate for appellant.

Mr.S. Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi, Spl. Prosecutor ANF.

------

For reasons to be recorded separately, this appeal is dismissed. Conviction is maintained. However, the sentence is reduced from five years to three years and fine is reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-and in default to pay the fine, the appellant shall suffer S.I. for three months.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

I.A. No.49/2001

______________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

______________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 433/09

2. for order on CMA 91/09

7.4.2009

Mr. Anwar Muhammad Siddiqi, Advocate, for CIRC.

Learned counsel for the CIRC has contended that on 15.1.2009 this appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and while doing so this Court did not consider that CIRC is the main party in this case as non-performing loan from HBL stood transferred to NBP and from NBP to CIRC. He contends that on the said date of hearing he was present in Court and until the tea break the case was not called. He then left for medical check up but deputed his junior to hold his brief but the Court did not consider the representation of CIRC in the present case as it was not a party. The counsel in support of his contention has filed Transfer Agreement on the basis of which CIRC became successor in interest of non-performing loan, whch is the subject matter of this Appeal.

Issue notice to the Respondents for 14.4.2009.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

J.M. No.09/09

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For order on main application.

6.4.2009

Mr.Abdul Karim Khan, Advocate for applicant.

The case of the applicant is that she entered into a Sale Agreement with Respondent No.1 on 18.12.1999 and subsequently on 2^nd July 2003 she entered into another Sale Agreement with Respondent No.1. In order to seek specific performance of the contract, she filed a suit in Lahore, where the suit property is situate. It is submitted that subsequently another suit was filed in this Court, which was disposed of by way of compromise, wherein half of the share in the property, which was subject matter of the Agreement of Sale, was transferred in the name of Respondent No.2. Counsel further submits that this has been done to deprive the Applicant from her right under the Agreement of Sale.

Issue notice to the Respondents for 20.4.2009.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Ist. A No.07/08

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

1.4.2009

Ms.Samia Durani, Advocate for appellant.

Syed Tauqeer Hasan, Advocate for respondents.

---

The grievance of the appellant is that while decreeing the suit the Banking Court did not award cost of funds though the same was specifically prayed for in the prayer clause. Counsel for the appellant relying upon Section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, states that the appellant was entitled for the award of cost of funds.

Counsel for the respondents has opposed this appeal on the ground that in the Agreement there is no stipulation that the Respondents would also pay cost of funds. He further argues that no material was placed on record to show as to at what rate cost of funds was to be awarded and hence the Banking Court rightly denied cost of funds to the Appellant.

It was pointed out to the counsel for the respondents that liability to pay the cost of funds emanates not from the contract but from the provisions of law itself i.e Section 3 of the Ordinance, 2001. With regard to the rate, at which cost of funds is to be awarded, in our view, it is for the decree holder to place before the Executing Court the applicable rates of cost of funds. The Counsel for the Respondents very candidly concedes to this legal position. Hence the impugned judgment and decree are modified to the extent that the appellant shall also be entitled to the cost of funds from the date of decree till realization of the decreetal amount.

This appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr,Misc. No. 318/02

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For hearing.

31.3.2009

Mr. Ali Bin Adam Jafri, Advocate for applicant.

Mr.Mian Khan Malik, DAG.

While deciding Cr. Misc. No.74/2003 the learned Single Judge made observation in para 28 of his order dated 24.9.2007 which is reproduced as under:-

“28. For all the foregoing facts and reasons, in my opinion this Cr.Misc. Application has no merit and hence is dismissed. The R&Ps are returned with the direction to the learned trial Court to immediately write to the Federal Government for the necessary permission to proceed with the case against the official accused in terms of Section 6(5) of the Criminal Laws Amendment Act, 1958 and where this is not forthcoming within a period of sixty days to proceed with the trial. In so far as Cr.Misc. 318/2002 entitled Ali Zahir Jaffery vs.The State filed by the Co-accused, the same was allowed by myself erroneously as the provisions of Section 6(5) ibid, were not brought to my attention. Hence, the office shall put up this case before myself for further consideration after notice to the parties.”

It appears from the above quoted para that the learned Single Judge intended to review his order dated 20.1.2003 as according to him the provisions of Section 6(5) of the Criminal Laws Amendment Act,1958, were not taken into consideration.

Learned counsel for the applicant is put on notice to address on the point whether a case that has been finally decided can be re-opened on the ground that some provision of law was not considered.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-993/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

31.3.2009

Mr.Shaukat H.Zubedi, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Choudhry, ADPG, NAB.

The case of the petitioner is that he is being harassed by the NAB authorities for the last one year and is being called by them for certain information.

Learned ADPG, NAB states that the petitioner is being called in connection with an inquiry initiated against him in March,2008.

The NAB Authority cannot be allowed to harass citizens without any justification. If there is any material against the petitioner, the inquiry should be finalized as soon as possible. The NAB authority is, therefore, directed to finalize the inquiry within four weeks. If any information is required from the petitioner, he may be called but he should not be unnecessarily harassed.

To come up on 5.5.2009. A copy of this order be supplied to learned ADPG, NAB.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.78/05

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For hg.of CMA No.439/05

2. for hg.of CMA 440/05

3. for issues.

30.3.2009

Mr.Umer Lakhani, Advocate for the plaintiff.

Mr.Haroon Shah, Advocate for Defendants

1 & 2. The first application is under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking restraining order against the Defendants while the second application is under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC seeking appointment of Receiver.

The suit is for specific performance of contract. Admittedly the plaintiff was not put in possession in part performance of the contract but the case of the plaintiff is that after execution of the Sale Agreement, Defendant No.1 put Defendant No.3 in the possession of the suit property.

Vide order dated 2.4.2007 the defendants were restrained from creating third party interest. On the said day the Defendant No.3 was already in possession of the property in question and this Court while confirming his possession restrained him from parting with the physical possession of the same.

After hearing the counsel at some length, counsel for the plaintiff states that he would be satisfied if defendant No.3 is further restrained from making alterations in the suit property or handing over its possession to some one else or creating third party therein.

Counsel for the defendants does not oppose this position. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 is restrained from executing any transfer document in favour of Defendant No.3 or any one else till pendency of the suit. Defendant No.2 is restrained from mutating or transferring the suit property to any one till pendency of the suit. Defendant No.3 is also restrained from creating third party interest or handing over the suit property to any one during pendency of the suit or making any alterations.

The above applications stand disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Sh
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.394/06

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

4. For hg.of CMA No.2885/06

5. for hg.of CMA 4823/06

6. for issues.

30.3.2009

None for the plaintiff.

Mr.Shaukat Ali Shaikh, Advocate for Defendants 1,3 and 4.

Mr.Ahmed Pirzada, Advocate for Revenue Department.

This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, on the ground that no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff against the Defendants 1,3 and 4. Learned counsel for the Defendants 1,3 and 4 in support of his case has relied on the case of PLD 1997 Karachi 292. This case is not attracted in the instant case as the Defendants are themselves not claiming entitlement to the suit property.

After going through the contents of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiff is claiming ownership of Survey Nos. 43 and 44, situated in Deh Mehran, Tapo Malir, on the basis of Entry made in the Village Form VII, maintained by the Revenue Authorities. The Defendants 1,3 and 4 do no claim these survey numbers. The contents of the plaint further show that the cause of action accrued to the Plaintiff on account of fraud and forgery alleged to have been committed by private Defendants. The official Defendants state that the suit property belongs to the Government of Sindh and the plaintiff is not the owner of the same. Though the cause of action accrues to the Plaintiff but the question is whether the plaintiff or the Govt.of Sindh is the owner of the property in question would be decided only after evidence led by the parties.

In the circumstances, the application merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Bail No.190/2009

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

25.3.2009

Mr.Khaleeq Ahmed, Advocate for applicant with applicant.

Mr.Mian Khan Malik, DAG alongwith Inspector Abdul Jabbar, FIA.

The applicant is booked in Crime No. 01/2009 under Section 23 and 27 read with Section 30 of the Drug Act 1976 of Police Station FIA Crime Circle, Karachi. The Co-accused Saleem Shah, brother of the present applicant, was granted bail after arrest in the same crime by the Drug Court, while the present applicant was refused bail only on the ground that the applicant is seeking bail before arrest but no case for bail before arrest has been made out.

There is no dispute about this fact that Co-accused against whom similar allegations were leveled has already been granted bail by the trial Court.

Pre-arrest bail application of the applicant/accused was rejected on the ground that Co-accused was granted bail after arrest, whereas he is seeking pre-arrest bail.

However, from the perusal of the case papers, it is evident that the recovery of spurious drugs has already been affected from Co-accused at the time of his arrest and it appars that no recovery was made from the applicant/accused. As Co-accused has already been granted bail, therefore even if the applicant/accused is remanded to custody even then he would be entitled to the grant of bail under the rule of consistency.

Therefore for the sake of keeping him in custody and then releasing him on bail will be an exercise in futility therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that a case for confirmation of interim bail, earlier granted to the applicant/accused has been made out. We therefore confirm interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused on 24.2.2009.

JUDGE

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Suit No. 1527/2008

Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

Date

For hearing of CMAs No.

1. 2300/09

2. 2617/09

3. 2618/09

27.3.2009

Mr. Nadeem Akhtar, Advocate for the plaintiff.

Mr.Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, Advocate for Defendants

alongwith Farooq, Secretary of the Society

1. The plaintiff has filed this application seeking review of the order dated 2.3.2009, whereby the entire suit was disposed of directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.102,525,000/- with the Nazir of this Court within 30 days. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that though the plaintiff has been directed to deposit this amount but no consequence for the defendant’s failure to transfer the plots has been stated in the order.

2. Without considering the scope of review, learned counsel for the Defendants, upon instructions, states that in case the amount as directed in the order dated 2.3.2009 is deposited within the specified period, the defendant No.1 shall commence the process of transferring the remaining 143 plots in favour of the Plaintiff from the first week of April, 2009 and conclude the same by 30^th April, 2009. As and when leases/sale deeds are executed with regard to the 143 plots, the proportionate amounts shall be released by the Nazir in favour of defendant No.1.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further states that the development work as undertaken under the terms of the Sale Agreement has not been carried out by Defendant No.1. Learned counsel for defendants, on instructions, states that the development work, which is the responsibility of Defendant No.1, shall be completed within three months.

4. Learned counsel for the defendants states that apart from the sale consideration, which is to be deposited by the plaintiff pursuant to the order dated 2.3.2009, the Plaintiff has not delivered the pay orders as mentioned in para 8 of the plaint, copies whereof have been filed as Annexures P/6 and P/7 to the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the pay orders have been delivered but the same, to their knowledge, have not been encashed so far.

5. Be that as it may, without going into this controversy, let these pay orders be considered as cancelled and the plaintiff shall obtain fresh pay orders of the same amount in favour of the defendant No.1 and shall deposit them with the Nazir of this Court. Let this exercise be completed by 30^th April, 2009. The Nazir shall retain the pay orders to the ‘extent of Rs.12,650,000/- until such time the development work is completed by Defendant No.1. However, the remaining amount of pay order of Rs. 6,90,000/- shall be released upon execution of leases/sale deeds as stated earlier Rs.12,650,000/- shall be gradually released to Defendant No.1 as and when development work proceeds and progress is duly acknowledged by the plaintiff. All listed applications stand disposed off in the above terms.

JUDGE

sh
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Actt. Jail Appeal No. 01/06

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. for order on MA 947/09

2. for order on M.A No.948/09

3. For regular hearing.

26.3.2009

Applicant/surety present in person.

Mr.Mian Khan Malik, DAG.

1. Granted.

2. This is an application seeking return of the surety documents and to substitute the same with another surety. Learned DAG has no objection to the substitution of the surety.

The application is allowed. The Nazir is directed to receive fresh solvent surety and return the earlier surety documents to the surety on proper identification.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.470/92

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For hearing of CMA No.

18.3.2009

Mr. Hamza I.Ali, Advocate for Defendant No.1.

Mr.Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocate for defendant No.4.

---

This is an application for bringing the legal heirs of Defendant NO.4 on record. Admittedly defendant No.4 expired in the year 1998 and this application has been moved in the year 2009 i.e. after eleven years of the death of deceased defendant NO.4. This application would have been out rightly granted had the defendant No.4 filed list of her presumptive legal heirs with her written statement but she did not file the same.

Article 177 of the Limitation Act prescribes 90 days period for moving application for bringing the L.Rs. on record. Learned counsel for the L.Rs. of Defendant No.4 has relied upon the case reported in PLD 2000 Karachi 354 , wherein the delay in bringing the L.Rs. on record was condoned on equitable grounds.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand, has relied upon the judgment reported in PLD 2006 Karachi 258 in which relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1999 MLD 1781 this Court held that application for bringing the L.Rs. on the record is to be moved within the limitation period and applied Article 177 of the Limitation Act for such purpose. Learned counsel has also shown a copy of SMA No. 166/99 filed by the L.Rs. of defendant No.4 to demonstrate that even the death of defendant No.4 was in the knowledge of her legal heirs as far back as 1999 yet they failed to join in these proceedings. This SMA demonstrates the lethargy and indolence on the part of the L.Rs. of Defendant No.4 to make efforts for their joining in the present suit in place of deceased Defendant No.4. They allowed eleven long years to elapse.

The judgment reported in 1999 MLD 1781 is prior in time then the decision reported in PLD 2008 Kar. 354. In any case, in order to consider the equities for condoning the delay it is necessary to examine as to what prejudice would be caused to the L.Rs. of defendant No.4 if they are not allowed to be joined as party.

The scope of this suit is basically limited to the controversy with regard to the title dispute between the plaintiff and Defendant No.1. All that Defendant No.4 in paragraph 5 of her written statement has stated is that she is tenant in the suit property. She raised no claim of her own with regard to the ownership in the suit property. Hence defendant No.4 was only one of the tenants of the disputed property. The L.Rs. of Defendant No.4, at best, can seek protection of their tenancy rights but the same is not the subject matter of the dispute in the present suit. In any event, learned counsel for Defendant No.4 has submitted that tenancy rights stands terminated on account of eviction proceedings, which were initiated by Defendant No.1, against Defendant No.4. These proceedings went upto the Supreme Court and hence the L.Rs. of Defendant No.4 now cannot even claim tenancy rights, much less title to the suit property. The decision of this suit, either way, therefore is of no consequence for the legal heirs of defendant No.4.

In view of the above, this Court finds that there are no equitable grounds on the basis of which L.Rs. of defendant No.4 could have been allowed to be joined as party in place of deceased defendant No.,4. Hence the application is dismissed.

Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that a date for final arguments be given as the matter was also fixed today for final arguments. To come up on 3.4.2009 for final arguments.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 267/2007

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For hg of CMA 1897/09

20.3.2009

Mr.K.A.Wahab, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Ishtiaq Memon, Advocate for defendant.

Through this application the plaintiff seeks withdrawal of the suit with permission to file afresh. The application is objected to by the counsel for the defendant on the ground that the purpose for doing so is to avoid the consequences of the order dated 7.10.2008, whereby this Court had directed the plaintiff to demolish the wall. Subsequently when the directions were not carried out, the Nazir was appointed Commissioner to inspect the property, who on inspection found that 50% of the wall has been demolished. Counsel for the plaintiff states that the remaining portion of the wall shall be demolished within 15 days. He further submits that the issue of demolition being a matter of contempt remains open for adjudication even after withdrawal of this suit.

In the circumstances, this application is granted. The suit stands withdrawn with permission to file afresh. The compliance of the order dated 7.10.2008 be made within 15 days.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Admn.Suit No.05/2009

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For hg.of CMA 307/09

18.3.2009

Mr. Mazhar Lari, Advocate for plaintiff.

Gopal Gohil, Manager of Defendant.

Counsel for the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of the suit as the plaintiff has settled his claim with the Defendant. The representative of the Defendant is present and confirms the same.

The suit is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. nil/2009

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

2. For hg.of CMA 1765/09

17.3.2009

Mr.Irfan Taj, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Iqbal Khurram, Advocate has filed power on behalf of Defendant No. 5.

Mr.Qazi Majid, AAG.

This application has been moved by the plaintiff that the order dated 2.11.2009 passed by this Court has not been complied with by the defendant. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-

“ Consequently , by consent the D.D.O. (Revenue) , Gadap Town, Karachi is directed to examine the case of the plaintiff as to his entitlement to the land claimed by him and after hearing him pass an order. Such exercise will be completed by the DDO (Revenue) Gadap Town, Karachi within a period of 30 days. In the event where prima facie it is found that the plaintiff is entitled to the land, the DDO (Revenue) will take all reasonable steps for having the construction stayed on it.”

Learned AAG seeks time to comply with the said direction in letter and spirit within a week and the concerned DDO shall also take appropriate steps for staying the construction as contained in the said order.

Adjourned to 26.3.3009. The concerned DDO shall appear in person on the next date of hearing.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 109/2009

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 2474/09

3. for order on CMA 2475/09

4. == 2776/09

5. == 2477/09

17.3.2009

M/s Abid S.Zuberi and Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocates for Defendant

---

1. Granted.

2 to 4. Notice for 7.4.2009. It is contended that as the Plaintiff, after obtaining the order at the back of the Defendant, has occupied one of the suit properties located in Larkana and construction is being raised thereon and rent is being recovered from tenants through intimidation, the Nazir is appointed Commissioner to inspect the suit properties and submit his report with regard to the present state of construction and since when the Plaintiff is recovering rent from the tenants. Nazir’s fee is fixed at Rs. 25,000/-. The traveling expenses shall also be borne by the Defendant separately. Nazir shall be free to depute Deputy Nazir in his place.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 30/2004

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For hg.of CMA 4109/07
for hg.of CMA 7605/04

17.3.2009

Mr.Mushtaq A. Memon, Advocate for plaintiffs.

Mr.Abdul Qayum Abbasi, Advocate for Intervenors

---

1. Through this application the plaintiffs seek release of the amount of mark up which has accrued on the amount deposited by the Plaintiffs towards regularization charges of the land under Sindh Ordinance III of 2001. The regularization charges have already been remitted by the Nazir and the excess amount which has accrued as mark up has been sought to be released. This application was moved two years back and no opposition has been entered by any of the Defendants. It is stated that a sum of Rs.2,90,700/- being mark up is lying with the Nazir. As more amount may have accrued thereon, the same is ordered to be released by the Nazir to the Plaintiff. Order accordingly.

Application stands disposed of.

2. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit claiming monetary compensation for the loss which, according to them, has been caused on account of laying of pipe lines by Defendant No.1 which are passing beneath the suit property. The Intervenors, who have sought to be joined as a party holds Agreement to Sell in respect of a part of the suit land .The Intervenors claim that in case they succeed in the proceedings for seeking specific performance of the contract, they would also become entitled to a part of the compensation which the plaintiffs may receive in this suit, therefore, they may be allowed to be joined as party to the suit.

Counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that the claim made in the suit has nothing to do with the right of the intervenors arising from the agreement to sell. The agreement to sell does not create title in favour of the purchaser in the property which is subject matter of the agreement unless transaction is complete or suit for specific performance is decreed. In any case, the suit filed by the Intervenors has been dismissed against which appeal has been filed, which is pending adjudication, mere claim on the basis of agreement to sell does not entitle the intervenors to seek any right arising from the property. A valid title in favour of the Intervenors in the suit property would be created only when they succeed in their appeal and suit for specific performance is decreed in their favour.

The main argument of the intervenors is that if they are not joined in this suit as party they may not become aware of the outcome of this case and the compensation which may be received by the plaintiff in this suit might quietly be pocketed by the plaintiff and the Intervenors would be left with no remedy.

At this stage, the counsel for the plaintiff has proposed that without prejudice to its right upon disposal of this suit the plaintiff would inform the intervenors the outcome of this case. Such information shall also be placed before the Court seized of the case with regard to specific performance of the contract.

Counsel for the Intervenors is satisfied with such statement and does not press this application, which is disposed of as not pressed.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 340/2009

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 2411/09

2. for order on CMA 2412/09

3. for order on CMA 2413/09

14.3.2009

M/s Abid Zuberi, Umer Lakhani and Haseeb Jamali, Advocates for plaintiffs.

---

1. Granted.

2 & 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that title to the suit property was acknowledged and accepted by CDGK in Suit No. 1131/07 but they are attempting to utilize the suit property for the purpose of a Park. He submits that the park is being constructed on the property belonging to the CDGK but while doing so they have attempted to encroach upon the plaintiffs’ property on the assumption that the suit property is also a part of the property of CDGK.

Issue notice to the Defendants for 20.3.2009. In the meantime, Defendants are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 211/2009

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

4. For order on CMA 2405/09

5. for order on CMA 2406/09

6. for order on CMA 2407/09

14.3.2009

M/s Abid Zuberi, Umer Lakhani and Haseeb Jamali, Advocates for plaintiff.

---

1. Granted.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the injunctive order passed on 18.2.2009 has been violated by the functionaries of Defendant No.2 by placing a container on the suit property and they have also started excavation of the foundation.

In the first place, let notice be issued to the alleged Contemnor No.2 for 19.3.2009.

3 . Notice. In the meantime, the Nazir of this Court is appointed Commissioner to inspect the suit property and submit report with regard to the construction thereon. Nazir’s fee is tentatively fixed at Rs. 25,000/- which shall also cover the connected suits.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 209/2009

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

6. For order on CMA 2397/09

7. for order on CMA 2398/09

8. for order on CMA 2399/09

9. for order on CMA 2400/09

14.3.2009

M/s Abid Zuberi, Umer Lakhani and Haseeb Jamali, Advocates for plaintiff.

---

1. Granted.

In the first place, let notice be issued to the alleged Contemnor No.2 for 19.3.2009.

3 & 4. Notice. In the meantime, the Nazir of this Court is appointed Commissioner to inspect the suit property and submit report with regard to the construction thereon. Nazir’s fee is tentatively fixed at Rs. 25,000/- which shall also cover the connected suit.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 210/2009

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 2401/09

2. for order on CMA 2402/09

3. for order on CMA 2403/09

4. for order on CMA 2404/09

14.3.2009

M/s Abid Zuberi, Umer Lakhani and Haseeb Jamali, Advocates for plaintiff.

---

1. Granted.

In the first place, let notice be issued to the alleged Contemnor No.2 for 19.3.2009.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 1146/2007

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

2. For order on CMA 2361/09

3. for order on CMA 2362/09

13.3.2009

Mr.Nadeem Akhtar, Advocate for plaintiff.

1. Granted.

2. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that vide order dated 21.5.2008 the Plaintiff was allowed to run his Clinic for the duration mentioned in the said order, which order was appealed and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal, against which the Plaintiff preferred Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which too dismissed the same but in paragraph 6 of the order it was clearly stated that the Plaintiff shall not be dispossessed without due process of law. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed Annexuree-D to this application, wherein Defendant No.1 Trust is seeking use of the suit premises for the personal use of Defendant No.3. this is being done with the intention to jointly use the suit property with the plaintiff for the duration when the plaintiff is not running the Clinic. Counsel further submits that this is contrary to the injunctive order passed by this Court which was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court .

Issue notice to the Defendants for 9.4.2009. In the meantime, the Defendants are restrained from acting upon the letter dated 9.3.2009 till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit no. 329/09

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For order on CMA 2331/09
for order on CMA 2332/09

---

12.3.2009

Mr.K.A.Wahab, Advocate for plaintiff.

1. Granted.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is using the suit plot for commercial purpose as Marriage Lawn. Counsel further submits that about six years ago the Plaintiff had applied for regularization of his Marriage Lawn to the Defendant but the Defendant has not taken any decision on such application. He further submits that on both sides of the suit plot properties are being used for commercial purposes. He has referred to Anenxures P-2 and P-3 which are next to the suit plot and the same have been regularized for the purpose of running Marriage Lawns. He further submits that the entire area on the main road is being used for commercial purpose and in the entire vicinity there are shops and plots situated on 400 ft wide road. It is contended that instead of processing their application for regularization of the plot, the Plaintiff is being harassed and without any notice or decision on his application the defendant’s functionaries are threatening him of coercive action.

Issue notice to the defendant for 24.3.2009. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

EX. NO. 21/08

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

FOR HG.OF NAZIR REPORT DATED 20.11.08

---

11.3.2009

Decree holder in person.

---

Through this Execution application the Decree Holder seeks recovery of money decree that was passed against the J/Ds, who were running Book Shops in Urdu Bazar. After coming to know about these Execution proceedings, as per the Nazir’s report, the J/Ds have abandoned their shops leaving behind only Books which are of no worth, hence only fraction of the decree could be recovered through the sale of the said books.

The Nazir has also reported that the J/Ds were tenants of Shops No. 34 and 38 on the ground floor and Shops No. 41 and A-15 on the first floor of Hashmi Charitable Trust Building, Urdu Bazar, Karachi, which they obtained on payment of goodwill.

The Decree holder present in person points out that he is not aware of any other property of the J/Ds and tenancy rights in the above mentioned shops may be transferred in his name so that he may adjust the decreetal amount.

Since the shops obtained by the J/Ds have been abandoned in fear of recovery of decreetal amount, let the tenancy rights in the said shops be transferred in the name of the Decree Holder. In this regard, the Nazir is directed to issue notice to the landlord of the shops and seek transfer of tenancy rights in favour of the decree holder. In case, the landlord fails to do the needful, the Nazir may hand over the possession of the shops to the decree holder and direct the Decree holder to tender rent directly to the landlord.

With the above observation, this Execution Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 320/2009

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For order on CMA 2231/09

---

12.3.2009

Mr. Mushtaq A. Memon, Advocate for plaintiff.

The case of the plaintiff is that the excess plot adjacent to their plot was allotted to them which was subsequently sub-leased and all charges were paid by them to the concerned Society. The excess land was amalgamated with the plot of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the entire process of amalgamation was duly approved by the CDGK from the Master/Town Planning point of view and after execution of the lease series of show cause notices were issued to the Plaintiff, which were duly replied. The main reason for issuance of show cause notices, as disclosed by the CDGK, was that the excess land was earmarked for 40 ft wide road, whereas from the lay out plan it is evident that only 12 ft wide road has been allocated and after taking out 12 ft the remaining excess land was released to the plaintiff. Apprehension of the plaintiff is that the Defendants would cancel the lease of this excess land.

Issue notice to the defendants for 23.3.2009. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

sh
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 1487/2000

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For hg. Of CMA No. 2177/09

2. For hg of CMA No. 9002/07

---

12.3.2009

Mr.Mushtaq A Memon, Advocate for plaintiff.

Ms. Rizwana Ismail, Advocate for Defendant No.3.

Ms. Naheed Naz, Advocate for State.

---

1. This application is granted but subject to all just exceptions.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Through this application Defendant No.3 seeks recall of order dated 30.10.2007 through which suit was disposed of on the basis of a statement made by the Addl. Advocate General.

Counsel for Defendant No.3 states that this order was passed in her absence and as Defendant No.3 claims title to the suit property the order dated 30.10.2007 may be recalled and the suit may be decided on merits.

In reply, counsel for the plaintiff submits that in the written Statement, Defendant No.3 is basing its claim only on Article 12 of KDA Order 1957 and Notification dated 3.3.1959, which only prescribes controlled area which were issued in order to avoid haphazard development in the area earmarked for Korangi Township Scheme. According to him, Article 12 of the KDA Order and the Notification dated 3.3.1959 do not confer any title to the land which falls within the controlled area. In support of his contention, counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Suit No.605/92 which was appealed and in appeal too the same was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. He has also relied upon the case reported in 2001 SCMR 1277.

Counsel for Defendant No.3 has been supplied copies of the above referred unreported judgments, who seeks time to confirm from her client as to whether Defendant No.3 claims any title to the suit property and if so, then relevant documents, other than already placed on record, shall be placed on record before the next date.

To come up on 26.3.2009. Interim order already passed shall remain operative till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.nil/09

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 2267/09

2. For order on CMA 2268/09

3. for order on office objection no.2.

4. For order on CMA 2269/09

5. For order on CMA 2270/09

11.3.2009

Mr.Malik Naeem Iqbal, Advocate for plaintiff.

1. Granted.

2. Three days time is allowed for deposit of court fee.

3. Deferred.

4. This is an application for inspection of the suit property. The Nazir is appointed as Commissioner to inspect the suit property and report as to whether the access to the plaintiff’s land has been blocked. His fee is fixed at Rs.7000/- to be borne by the Plaintiff.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property comprising of 4 acres was leased out for 30 years to Mst. Fatima, from whom the plaintiff purchased the same and in this regard Mutation entry has also been made in Deh Jo Farm VII. It is further stated that 30 years lease was granted in the year 1985 and the same still subsists but without any notice from the lessor Defendant No.5, claiming to be the Secretary of New Sabzi Mandi is claiming that the land has been allotted to New Sabzi Mandi. Counsel for the plaintiff further submits that Defendant No.5 has started construction around the suit property, which has blocked the passage of the suit property.

Issue notice to the Defendants for 17.3.2009. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

6. ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.668/0

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

11.3.2009

Mr.

Ms.Saba Siddiqi, Advocate

Through CMA the plaintiff seeks impleading Kamran as Defendant No.9 in the suit as Defendant No.1 in his written statement has mentioned that the suit plot was allotted to him. Counsel for the defendant has no objection for impleading Kamran as Defendant No.9. Therefore, the application is granted. Amended plaint be filed within two weeks.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.667/0

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

11.3.2009

Mr.

Ms.Saba Siddiqi, Advocate

Through CMA the plaintiff seeks impleading Shahneela as Defendant No.9 in the suit as Defendant No.1 in his written statement has mentioned that the suit plot was allotted to her. Counsel for the defendant has no objection for impleading Shehneela as Defendant No.9. Therefore, the application is granted. Amended plaint be filed within two weeks.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.666 /0

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

11.3.2009

Mr.

Ms.Saba Siddiqi, Advocate

Through CMA the plaintiff seeks impleading Shafaq Bano and Munir Hussain as Defendants No.9 & 10 respectively in the suit as Defendant No.1 in his written statement has mentioned that the suit plot was allotted to them. Counsel for the defendant has no objection for impleading the above named persons as Defendants No.9 & 10. Therefore, the application is granted. Amended plaint be filed within two weeks.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.665/0

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

11.3.2009

Mr.

Ms.Saba Siddiqi, Advocate

Through CMA the plaintiff seeks impleading Shazia Aziz as Defendant No.9 in the suit as Defendant No.1 in his written statement has mentioned that the suit plot was allotted to her. Counsel for the defendant has no objection for impleading Shazia Aziz as Defendant No.9. Therefore, the application is granted. Amended plaint be filed within two weeks.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.30/08

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

1. for hg of CMA 2726/08

2. for hg.of CMA 10007/08

3. for hg.of CMA 3552/08

11.3.2009

Mr.Almas Faiyaz Farooqi, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Khalid Mehmood Siddiqi, Advocate for Defendant No.2.

---

1 & 2. On the last date of hearing counsel for the plaintiff was absent. Today is the same position. Dismissed for non-prosecution.

3. This is an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Counsel for Defendant No.2 states that the suit property is mortgaged with the Bank and upon clearance of all the outstanding amount the defendant No.2 shall release the title documents to Defendant No.2. In case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit then in that case Defendant No.2 shall abide by the order that may be passed by the Court. He further states that Defendant No.2 has filed recovery suit before the Banking Court.

This Court is of the opinion that any decree that may be passed in this suit in favour of the plaintiff, the same shall be subject to the claim of the Defendant No.2 as determined by the Banking Court, which is pending in Banking Court No. V.

In view of the above, counsel for defendant No.2 does not press this application, which is dismissed as such.

Counsel for Defendant No.2 further states that Defendant No.2, who is only mortgagee and not directly concerned with the controversy in this suit be deleted from the array of the Defendants. Order accordingly.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Cr.Misc. Appln No. 46/09

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

4. for order on MA 818/.09

5. for order on MA 819/09

6. for katcha peshi.

7. for order on MA No. 820/09

9.3.2009

Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, Advocate for applicants.

1. Granted.

2. Granted but subject to all just exceptions.

3. Through this application under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. applicants have challenged two orders dated 28.2.2009 and 7.3.2009 passed by District & Sessions Judge/Ex Officio Justice of Peace, Karachi (Central), whereby initially directions were issued to the SHO P.S Sir Syed, Karachi for recording statement of applicants under Section 154 Cr.PC and by subsequent order such view was reiterated despite the report of the SHO concerned.

Submission of the learned counsel for applicants is that the lodging of such FIR against the applicants is a counter blast to the lodging of earlier FIR by Applicant No.1 against the brother of Respondent No.1 being Crime No. 1/09, P.S. ANF Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, therefore, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace/District Judge, Karachi Central, was not justified in issuing direction to the SHO concerned for recoding of such statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In support of her submission, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the order of this Court dated 4.8.2005 passed in Cr. Revision No. 73/05 and four other connected Petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the case record as well as the judgment cited at the bar.

There is no cavil to the proposition of law propounded in the said order of learned Single Judge of this Court but the fact remains that the learned District & Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Karachi Central has issued direction to the concerned SHO for recording statement of the petitioner/complainant, which is to be recorded, whereafter investigation is to be conducted about the allegations made in such statement. In case, after investigation, the allegations are found false, concocted or malicious, the course open to the Investigating Officer will be for disposal of such complaint in Class-B and also to prosecute the complainant under section 182 PPC, to set an example for other such type of person, and to protect the government officials in a more effective and lawful manner.

With these observations, this Cr. Misc. Application is disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Cr.Suo moto Revision Appn. No.110/09

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

9.3.2009

Mr.Zafar Ahmed, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh for State.

Accused Gul Hasan alongwith complainant Ghanwar in Crime No.6/08 P.S. Drigh Bala have submitted copies of application for compromise arrived at between the parties alongwith applications under Section 345 (II) Cr.P.C. and Section 345(VI) Cr.P.C. and say that the matter in issue has been compromised between them and the case has been disposed of.

In order to examine the legality of the order, which is subject matter in this Cr.Suo Moto Revision Application , let R&Ps of S. C No. 161/08 (State vs. Gul Hasan and others) be called from the Court of IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Dadu.

To come up on 30.3.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Civil Transfer Appln.No. 15/09

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

8. for order on CMA No. 656/09

9. for order on CMA No. 657/09

10. for katacha peshi.

9.3.2009

Hafiz Safdar Nawaz, Advocate for applicant.

---

1. Granted.

2. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exceptions.

3. Through this application under Section 25-A of the Family Court Act, 1964, applicants have sought transfer of Suit No. 210/05 from the Court of Vth Civil & Family Judge, Karachi(South). The said learned Judge has also himself made a reference in this case dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure-D to the transfer application).

The pendency of suit for recovery of dower articles instituted on 28.3.2005 is prima facie sufficient to conclude the inefficiency of the learned Judge who is seized of that matter. Let parawise comments be called from the Court of Vth Civil & Family Judge, Karachi (South) so as to reach this Court on or before the next date of hearing. Notice of this application be also issued to Respondent No.1 for 30.3.2009 for which date the R&Ps of Family Suit No. 210/05 be also called.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Cr.Bail No. 110/09

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

for hearing

9.3.2009

Applicant is present alongwith his counsel Mr. Nayyar Ziauddin.

Mr.Zafar Ahmed, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh on behalf of Respondent.

---

This Criminal Bail Application was received through Superintendent of Jail, Karachi, upon which notice was issued to State Counsel and P.O was issued for the applicant. Applicant has engaged a counsel, who is present in Court.

To a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record copies of two orders dated 18.9.2007 and 13.11.2007, whereby applicant was twicely refused bail by the Court of Sessions Judge Karachi (east) and IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) respectively in S.C No. 481/07, arising of Crime No.325/07,P.S.Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi.

On hearing the learned counsel for applicant and perusal of the case record, I am satisfied that at this stage it cannot be said that the applicant is not involved in the commission of offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. as three prosecution witnesses, including the injured, in their 161 Cr.P.C statement have stated against the applicant, involving him in the commission of offence under Section 324 PPC.

In these circumstances, no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage. However, agreeing with the view of learned Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh I direct the trial Court to examine the complainant and one witness within two months from the date of communication of this order, whereafter applicant will be at liberty to move fresh bail application, which will be decided on merits and in accordance with law.

Disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Cr.Bail No. 117/09

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

11. for order on MA 408.09

12. for hearing

9.3.2009

Abdullah J. Narejo, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr.Zafar Ahmed, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh.

---

One of the grievances voiced in this Bail Application for grant of bail is that though Sessions Case No.200/06 is pending for over three years but as yet charge has not been framed in the matter. Report be called from the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Naushero Feroz about the proceedings in S.C No. 200/06 and in case charge has not yet been framed in the case, the reasons for such delay should be communicated. In the meantime, learned Addl. Prosecutor General is also required to verify from the record as to what role has been attributed to the applicant in the present case, which formed the basis of lodging of FIR No. 218/05, P.S Moro and what material evidence is available to connect the applicant with the commission of such offence.

To come up on 20.3.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Cr.Bail No.150/09

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

9.3.2009

Mr.Saadat Hassan, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Zafar Ahmed, Addl. Prosecutor General.

---

Learned counsel for the applicant, making reference to the affidavits of complainant Abdul Hanan and injured Abul Qasim, submits that the parties have patched up their dispute which has resulted in the lodging of FIR No. 241/06,P.S Docks, Karachi. He further submits that the offence for which the applicant has been charged is compoundable. Therefore, now the parties intend to move jointly before the trial Court for disposal of the case by way of compromise but due to issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant against the applicant, he is unable to avail this opportunity.

Without touching the allegations and looking into the compromise between the parties, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh agrees for granting interim pre-arrest bail to the applicant for a short period to enable him to submit compromise application before the trial Court seeking disposal of Sessions Case No. 768/08.

In view of the above and without touching the merits of the case, applicant is admitted to interim pre-arrest bail for two weeks from today on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. During this period, the NBW issued by the trial Court shall also remain suspended.

To come up on 30.3.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.235/09

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

13. for order on CMA 2174/09

14. for order on CMA 1860/09

7.3.2009

Mr.Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate for plaintiff.

---

1. Granted.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Defendants, without fulfilling their obligation under the Sale Agreement, have demanded payment of the balance sale consideration and on failure to do so, they have threatened to cancel the Agreement. He further submits that it was the obligation of the Defendants to seek demolition permission from the Heritage Department and KBCA under the Supplementary Agreement without which the sale transaction could not be finalized which the Defendants have failed to obtain. The Plaintiff on his part is ready and willing to complete the transaction in case the defendants fulfill their obligation under the Agreement.

Issue notice to the Defendants for 27.3.2009. In the meantime, parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.328/06

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

15. for HG.OF 1708/09

16. FOR FURTHER ORDER IN VIEW OF ORDER DATED 12.2.09

6.3.2009

Mr. Abid S.Zuberi, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Ali Adam, Advocate .

Ms.Zahida Naqvi,Advocate.

Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Liyari present.

1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 12.2.2009, whereby the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Counsel for the Defendants have no objection. Application is allowed and the suit is restored to its original position.

2. Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Liyari tenders his reply to Show Cause Notice issued to him on 12.2.2009. He states that he had reached the Court at 8.50 am.on account of traffic congestion but this matter was taken up earlier. He has further submitted that the record of the suit property is not in his possession as the same relates Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Keamari Town.

In the circumstances, notice be issued to the Mukhtiarkar (revenue) Keamari Town, Karachi to produce the relevant record on the next date of hearing. To come up on 3.4.2009. Suit No. 996/08 be tagged alongwith this suit.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 642/06

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

1. for order on CMA 2102/09

2. for order on CMA 2103/09

6.3.2009

Mr.Mushtaq A. Memon, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Haq Nawaz Talpur, Advocate for defendant.

Mr.Abdul Hameed Shaikh, Advocate for Defendants 2 and 3.

---

1. Granted.

2. This is a compromise application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC duly signed by the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and their respective counsel.The parties have settled their dispute in the terms which are reproduced as under:-

1. That the defendant No. 1 admits and acknowledges having entered into an agreement for sale of plot No. 23/1 and 23/2, Mahmoodabad Road, Defence Housing Authority, Phase-I, Karachi at the rate of Rs. 19,3000.00 per squre yard.

2. That the defendant No. 1 further acknowledges that residential Plot No. 23/1, Mahmoodabad Road, Defence Housing Authority, Phase-I, Karachi has yet to be transferred by her to plaintiff in terms of the said agreement dated 7^th August, 2004 and the present suit has been filed for specific performance respect of the last mentioned plot of land.

3. That the defendant No. 1 does hereby acknowledge receipt of a sum of Rs. 2.00 million and balance sum of Rs. 16,450,800.00 is to be paid by the plaintiff to her.

4. That another suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction being suit No. 426 of 1987 was filed by one Lieutenant Colonel ® G.M. Nizamuddin (since deceased) before this Hon’ble Court against the defendant No. 1 which is now pending before the VIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction and is numbered as 2227 fo 1996. Due to demise ofhte above named Colonel G.M. Nizamuddin, his legal representatives have been impleaded in the suit.

5. That during pendency of the Suit no. 426 of 1987 (now suit No. 2227 of 1996), the sale agreement dated 7^th August, 2004 was entered into between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 which was duly witnessed by one of the legal representatives of Lieutenant Colonel ® G.M. Nizamuddin in token of consent by all the legal representative of Lt. Col. ® G.M. Nizamuddin.

6. That during pendency of present proceedings the parties hereto have agreed and seek disposal ofht e present suit in the following terms: -

A. That the defendant No. 1 shall execute transfer documents in respect of Plot No. 23/1, Mahmoodabad Road, Defence Housing Authority, Phase – I,Karachi, in favour of plaintiff in terms of requirements of defendant NO.2 after obtaining appropriate orders in Suit No. 2227 of 1996 pending before Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Wouth, within three months from the grant of this application and shall thereupon receive the balance sum of Rs. 16,450,800.00 from the Nazir of this Hon’ble Court without any further orders or reference.

B. That upon receipt of certified copy of order in Suit No. 2227 of 1996, passed by the learned VIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South and transfer of subject plot in favour of plaintiff, the Nazir of this Hon’ble Court may encash the defence Saving Certificates of the above face value deposited by the plaintiff duly pledged in his favour.

C. That the title documents pertaining to plot No. 23/1, Mahmoodabad Road, Defence Housing Authority, Phase-I, Karachi, shall forthwith be delivered by the Defendant No.1 to the plaintiff who shall be responsible for the dues of defendant No.2 as well as Clifton Cantonment Board as would accrue and become due from the date of delivery of physical possession to him. However, all the dues, taxes and cases of defendant No.2 and Clifton Cantonment Board up to the date of delivery of physical possession will be payable by the Defendant no.1.

D. The suit is not pressed against Defendant No.2 and may be disposed of accordingly.

E. The parties shall bear their own costs”

The parties and their counsel admit the contents of the compromise. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in the terms of the compromise.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Ex. No. 21/08

___________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________

3. for hg. Of Nazir ref. dated 26/08

4. for order on CMA 40/08

6.3.2009

Decree Holder present in person.

None for J.D.

---

On 29.9.2008 CMA No. 588/08 moved by the Objector was dismissed for non-prosecution, which was then restored on 24.11.08. It was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.12.2008. Again on the Objector moved CMA No. 40/09 but he failed to appear. On the last date viz. 4.3.2009 the Objector again remained absent. Today is the same position. It is now 10.25 am. No intimation is received. Therefore, CMA No. 340/09 is dismissed for non-prosecution

The Decree Holder requests for a fixed date for disposal of the main application. Adjourned to 11.3.2009.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 125/09

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

for hearing of CMA 611/90
for hg.of CMA 1612/09

6.3.2009

Mr.Sohail H.K.Rana, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Kazi, A.A.G

Mr.Abdul Hameed Shaikh, Advocate for Defendants 2 and 3.

---

Counsel for defendants 2 and Intervener has pointed out that the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit in respect of land comprising of 7 acres and 100 ghuntas as, according to him, the plaintiff has surrendered this land in exchange of some other land.

Counsel for the plaintiff disputes the above position and seeks time to place on record relevant documents. Learned A.A.G is also directed to place on record the latest position on the basis of which the plaintiff claims title on the suit land.

Adjourned to 27.3.2009. Interim order earlier passed shall remain operative till the next date of hearing. No further construction shall be raised by the parties.

JUDGE

sh.
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 293/09

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

for order on CMA No. 2019/09
for order on CMA 2020/09

4.3.2009

M/s Rasheed A.Razvi and Tahmas Rizvi, Advocates for the plaintiffs.

---

1. Granted.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the election of the Vice Chairman of Sindh Bar Council was held on 30.1.2009, which has been called in question by Defendants No. 4 and 5 through Petition moved before the Executive Committee of Pakistan Bar Council on the ground that the meeting, in which elections were held, was not properly convened and therefore the election of the Vice Chairman and the constitution of Committees that were formed in the said meeting be declared as unlawful. It is further contended that under Rule 82 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976, the election of Vice Chairman can be called in question only by way of Petition to the Chairman Pakistan Bar Council, who shall then refer the Petition to the Election Tribunal for disposal. It is explained that without referring the Petition to the Election Tribunal, as envisaged under Rule 82 supra, the Executive Committee has passed orders restraining the Vice Chairman and the Committees from functioning, which order is without any justification. In this regard he referred to the definition of “ Election Tribunal” as provided in Rule 3(c) of the afore-mentioned Rules. In the said definition “Election Tribunal” means Judge of the High Court and the Executive Committee has no jurisdiction to pass any order in this regard.

Issue notice to the Defendants for 11.3.2009. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order dated 23.2.2009 passed by Executive Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council is suspended.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 292/09

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

for order on CMA No. 2016/09
for order on CMA 2017/09
for order on CMA 2018/09

4.3.2009

Mrs. Soofia Saeed Shah, Advocate for plaintiff.

1. Granted.

2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3. Counsel for the Plaintiff contends that an area of 2500 sq.yds. was allotted to the Plaintiff in the year 1991 and possession was also handed over to them. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that infront of the plot in question there is excess land for which the Plaintiff initially applied to the KDA in the year 1994 and such process is still continuing. In the meantime, the excess area was under the occupation of the Plaintiff, who set up car parking thereon. It is contended that without completing the process of granting or otherwise of the excess land, Defendant No.2 has already demolished the boundary wall without formal notice to the plaintiff and they may occupy the land which will cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.

Issue notice to the Defendants for 11.3.2009. In the meantime the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. In case the plaintiff failed to appear and proceed with the matter, the status quo shall stand vacated.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO. D-1571/08

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

for order on office objection.
for hg.of Misc. 7457/08
for katcha peshi.

27.2.2009

Mr. Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi, Advocate for the petitioners alongwith the victim.

Mr.Muhammad Shafi Memon, Addl.A.G. Sindh for Respondent No.2.

Junior of Mr.M.A Kazi, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

Mr.S.Khalid Shah, Advocate for proposed accused No.1.

---

The victim Mst. Saira Jatoi present in Court complains that she is feeling severe kidney pain and needs medical attendant.

Learned Addl.A.G. has no objection for providing necessary medical facility. We, therefore, direct that the victim shall be produced before the SUITE for check up and for providing necessary medical treatment as she may require.

It is stated that someone is trying to enter the hall where parents of the victims are residing. Learned Addl.A.G. states that DIG Sukkur has already filed his affidavit undertaking to provide required security.

If any one has any apprehension about the security, he can approach the I.G. Police who will take necessary steps in this regard.

Adjourned to 20.3.2009.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO. D-317/09

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

for order on Misc. 1337/09
for order on office objection.
for order on misc. 1348/09
for katcha peshi.
for order on Misc. 1349/09

26.2.2009

Haji Abdul Majeed, Advocate for petitioners.

---

The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 31.1.2009 passed by learned Xth Judicial Magistrate East, Karachi, directing the I.O to submit challan .

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order is non-speaking as the learned Magistrate has to pass a judicious order giving reasons. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the cases of Bahadur and others vs. The State and others( PLD 1985 SC 62) and Soofi AbdulQadir vs. The State and others ( 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 520).

We have gone through the cases relied upon by the learned counsel. The principles laid down in those cases are not attracted to the facts of the present case. In the case of Bahadur (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that when a Magistrate while concerning in cancellation of a case is required to act judicially and while concerning with a report submitted u/s 173 Cr.P.C. he does not function as a criminal Court.

Since in the instant case the learned Judicial Magistrate directed submission of challan, the parties are free to seek remedy under the law after submission of challan . If no case is made out on the basis of challan, the petitioner can call in question the same before appropriate forum.

The petition being misconceived, dismissed in limine alongwith the listed applications.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO. D-49/09

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

for katcha peshi.

26.2.2009

Mr.Wasique Ahmed Kehar, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Shafi Memon, Addl. A.G alongwith Khalid Pervez, Dy.Suptd. Central Prison, Karachi.

The detenue namely Munir Hasan Shah is facing trial in five cases pending in different Courts at Karachi, whereas on case is pending before learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Larkana. The detenue was convicted by judgment passed by learned Special Judge, Narcotics , Hyderabad.

The grievance of the petitioner is that after conviction of the detenue, he was transferred to Central Jail Shikarpur, where no case is pending against him, resulting trial of various cases pending at Karachi has been hampered .

Since, as per the Learned Addl.A.G one case is pending at Larkana, let the same be tried and be finalized within two months from the date of this order. After completing such trial within the above stipulated period, the petitioner will be transferred to Malir Jail, Karachi for facing trial of five cases pending at Karachi.

The above order is passed by consent of the leaned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.A.G.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO. D-313/09

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

1. for order on Misc. 1335/09

2. for order on office objection.

3. for order on misc. 1336/09

4. for katcha peshi.

26.2.2009

Mr. Muhammad Azam Makhdoom, Advocate for petitioner .

Petitioner has filed this petition to summon the respondents and restraining them from issuing threats of murder and loss of his life. Such relief cannot be granted under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. If anybody is extending threats in a cognizable offence, the petitioner can approach the proper forum for redressal of his grievance.

Petition having no merits is dismissed alongwith the listed applications.

JUDGE

Sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO. D-542/08

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

for katcha peshi.
for hearing of Misc. 10720/08

25.2.2009

Mr.Irfan Mir Halepota, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr.Muhammad Shafi Memon, Addl.A.G.

Mr.Muhammad Arshad Khan Tanoli, Advocate for intervenors.

---

The petitioners have approached this Court through this Petition for direction to the Accountant General Sindh to implement the order of Executive District Officer, CDGK, dated 23^rd November, 2005.

An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (CMA No. 10720/08) has been filed by some Iintervenors as they apprehend that if the petition is allowed, their seniority may be affected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that so far as the seniority of the Intervenors is concerned, the same is safeguarded not only by the Sindh Service Appellate Tribunal but also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, where the order passed by the Service Tribunal was called in question by the petitioners in C.P. O. 613-K/2005.

The perusal of the said order reveals that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has refused to grant relief while reproducing the safeguard about the seniority provided to the intervenors by the Service Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has again reiterated that so far as intervenors’ seniority is concerned, the same cannot be disturbed in view of the safeguard provided by the Service Tribunal.

In view of the above circumstances, the listed application having no merits is disposed of in the above terms.

So far as the merit of the case is concerned, learned Addl.A.G. has drawn our attention to the parawise comments filed by the Accounts Officer, wherein it has been stated that the grievance of the petitioners will be redressed and the order passed on 23.11.2005 will be implemented in letter and spirit within three months’ time.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is satisfied with the above statement made by the learned Addl.A.G.

Petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

HCA NO. 243/08

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

1. FOR ORDER ON OFFICE OBJECTION.

2. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

3. FOR ORDER ON CMA 1509/08

25.2.2009

M/s Ghulam Ali Kokhar and Muhammad Younis, Advocates for appellant.

---

Aggrieved by order passed on application under Section 24 CPC for transfer of Suit No. 361/80 (new No. 35/03), the appellant has preferred this appeal.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that since suit was disposed of long ago, therefore, the order for transfer of the suit cannot be passed.

We have called the file of the said suit from the office and called upon the Learned counsel for the appellant to point out the judgment and decree passed in the said suit, which are not available therein. Learned counsel for appellant states that perhaps the judgment and decree have been removed from the file by some one.

Be that as it may, if the suit, as alleged, has already been disposed of, the fact can be pointed out to the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of J.Ms.

In view of above, appeal has no merits and according disposed of.

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO. D-1098/08

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

1. for order on office objection.

2. for order on Misc. 5300/08

3. for katcha peshi.

4. for order on Misc. 5301/08

25.2.2009

Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for petitioners.

1. Office objection to be complied with within two weeks.

2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3. It is, inter alia, contended that an application under Human Rights Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge, Thatta, was registered as Human Rights Application No. 235/08 aggrieved by dishonouring of cheque for an amount of Rs. 4,32,400/-. Notices were issued to the parties. After issuance of notice petitioners were directed on application of contempt filed by the Respondent to deposit the amount of cheque, which was deposited by the petitioners under protest. The Learned District & Sessions Judge, without deciding the question whether the Petitioners are liable to be pay this amount in respect of the work carried out by the Respondent ordered for release of the amount in favour of the Respondent.

Issue notice to the Respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this application, which is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO. D-1121/08

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

1. for order on office objection.

2. for KATCHA PESHI.

25.2.2009

Mr. Hashmat Habib, Advocate or petitioner is reported to be busy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan at Islamabad.

Mr.Muhammad Shafi Memon, Addl. A.G. states that only order of detention was passed for 30 days only under MPO, 1960, against the Petitioner and no extension in order of extension has been given in the matter.

The petition in view of this statement appears to be infructuous. However, since the day of filing of this petition Mr. Hashmat Habib, Advocate has not put his appearance and the matter was being adjourned from time to time, the petitioner appears to have lost interest in the matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution.

JUDGE

Sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO. D-1537/08

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

25.2.2009

Petitioner in person.

Mr.Muhammad Shafi Memon, Addl.A.G.

It is stated by learned Addl.A.G. that despite repeated letters issued by him, the concerned officer has not provided the parawise comments. In this regard, he stated that letters have also been addressed to the Chief Secretary and the Secretary Home. He expresses his inability to argue the petition in absence of parawise comments to the petition.

This petition has been filed by a police officer in respect of arrears of his salary upto the rank of DSP.

We are adjourning this Petition to 4.3.2009 as requested. In case the parawise comments are not filed by the concerned officer before the next date of hearing, the concerned officer should attend Court in person. Learned Addl.A.G. is directed to inform the concerned officer.

JUDGE

Sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

SUIT NO. 969/97

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

For HEARING OF CMA 936/08

23.2.2009

Mr. Asif Ali, Advocate for plaintiff

Mr. Zafaruddin Khan, Advocate for defendants.

Present suit for administration is filed by a daughter against co-sharers, which they jointly inherited from the estate left by deceased Muhammad Haneefji. In this regard preliminary decree was passed on 15.3.1999 and the plaintiff received her entire share which she inherited in her capacity as one of the daughters of the deceased. Subsequently before the suit could be disposed of and final decree is passed, Defendant No.4, widow of the deceased and mother of the plaintiff died in the year 2005 and the plaintiff also became entitled to a share which Defendant No.4 let behind in the suit property.

Through this application the plaintiff seeks distribution of her share which she inherited from Defendant No.4.

Learned counsel for Defendant No.1 submits that this is entirely a new cause of action arising during the pendency of the suit as the suit for administration was filed for distribution of shares of the deceased Muhammad Haneefji and the relief in this suit cannot be extended for distribution of shares of any litigant party who expired during the pendency of the suit. He further submits that since new cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff, she should file fresh proceedings in accordance with law to claim her share.

This suit is basically for administration and distribution of properties left by deceased Muhammad Haneefji and before its final disposal one of the shareholders i.e Defendant NO.4 has expired and her share which she inherited from late Muhammad Haneefji has also become available for distribution amongst the parties to this suit in accordance with Law of Inheritance. Courts do not favour multiplicity of proceedings . In the case reported in PLD 1978 SC 220, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court can take into consideration subsequent events and mould the relief according to changed circumstances. As the question of distribution is of the property which is already subject matter of dispute, then variations of shares therein that has taken place on account of death of a party i.e. Defendant No.4, is also to be taken into account before finally deciding the shares of all the co-sharers in the suit property. In the circumstances, the application is allowed. Nazir is directed to ascertain the shares of all the parties which they stand to inherit from Defendant No.4 and submit his report.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. NO.D-2159/2008

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

1. For katcha peshi.

2. for hg.of Misc. 10040/08

24.2.2009

Ms. Tabassum Ghazanfar, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Muhammad Ashraf Khan Mughal, DAG for respondent No.1.

Mr.Kashif Hanif, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 4.

---

Through this Petition M/s Direct Media Corporation (Pvt)Ltd. have approached this Court with the grievance that despite their application, the Respondents are not issuing up-linking license for broadcasting of Roshni Television.

Today during the course of his argument, Mr.Kashif Hanif, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 to 4 submitted that the Petitioner has not been issued up-linking license for the reason that there are a number of formalities which have not been complied by them. This position has been strongly disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Be that as it may, to cut short the controversy, Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to communicate, in writing, within one week all the deficiencies, which are to be met by the Petitioner for obtaining up-linking license from the Respondents. On such information, the deficiencies will be met by the petitioner within next one week. Thereafter Respondents No. 2 to 4 will either issue up-linking licence or will communicate to the Petitioner the reasons for refusal in writing, in case the up-linking license is not being issued to them.

To come up on 20.3.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. NO.D-2159/2008

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

3. For katcha peshi.

4. for hg.of Misc. 10040/08

24.2.2009

Ms. Tabassum Ghazanfar, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Muhammad Ashraf Khan Mughal, DAG for respondent No.1.

Mr.Kashif Hanif, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 4.

---

Be that as it may, to cut short the controversy, Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to communicate, in writing, within one week deficiencies, which are to be met by the Petitioner for broadcasting up-linking license from the Respondents. On such information, the deficiencies will be met by the petitioner within next one week and thereafter Respondents No. 2 to 4 will communicate to the Petitioner. In case the up-linking license is not issued to the Petitioner, the reasons for refusal, in writing, shall be communicated to them.

To come up on 20.3.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-82/08

____________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

____________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

24.2.2009

Ms. Tabassum Ghazanfar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Muhammad Ashraf Khan Mughal, DAG.

Mr.Khalid Mehmood Siddiqi, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

On behalf of Respondent No.1 Bank details of four accounts of deceased Qazi Muhammad Asif have been submitted. However, the learned counsel for such Respondent has agitated his grievance against filing of the present Petition by an Advocate without disclosing his authority on behalf the widow of Qazi Muhammad Asif. Such submission of the learned counsel seems to have force. We, therefore, direct the Petitioner to place on record some documents to show his authority as Advocate on behalf of the widow of Qazi Muhammad Asif.

Adjourned to 5.3.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. No. D-53/09

_________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

19.2.2009

Mr.Muhammad Masood Khan, Advocate for petitioner

Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl. A.G.

Learned Addl.A.G has placed on record further details of the Jail Roll of the Petitioner. After going through the contents of such detailed report about the period of detention of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the case of Abid Hussain and another vs. Chairman Pakistan Baitul Mall & another (PLD 2002 Lah. 482) and contends that the Petitioner due to non-payment of fine and diyat cannot be detained in custody for indefinite period.

The issue raised by the learned counsel for petitioner seems to be of public importance having effect on many other cases of similar nature. We accordingly fix this petition for further detailed hearing on 12.3.2009. In order to have proper assistance in the case, we also nominate M/s M.Ilyas Khan and M.A.Kazi, two senior counsel as Amicus Curaie. Issue intimation notices to them.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. No. D-2467/08

_________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For katcha peshi.

2. for hearing of Misc. 11288/08

19.2.2009

Mr.Shamshad Ali Qureshi, Advocate for petitioner.

On the last date of hearing viz. 13.2.2009, when this Petition was taken up for katcha peshi, learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to satisfy this Court about its maintainability. In this regard today he has made reference to office objection No.1 with its reply and contended that since Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are being controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum, Govt.of Pakistan, therefore, this Petition with the addition of Respondent No.3 is now maintainable. Submission made by the learned counsel seems to be correct.

Arguing the petition on merits, submission of the learned counsel is that recovery of Rs. 1,24,104/- from the petitioner made by Respondents No.1 & 2 viz-a-viz removal of his Gas meter on the allegation of tampering, is entirely illegal, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appropriate relief in this regard.

When confronted with the contents of paragraph 9 of the Petition, the learned counsel conceded that the Petitioner has already filed Suit No. 753/07 against the Respondents, which is still pending for adjudication and in that suit he has challenged the illegal demand of Respondents No. 1 & 2 from him.

It seems that during the pendency of such Suit, recovery of the disputed amount was made from the petitioner, after disconnection of his Gas on the allegations of tampering and it is in this background that the petitioner has opted to file this Petition. In our view, the relief claimed in this Petition can conveniently be prayed for he pending suit by seeking necessary amendment in the pleadings as regards the developments which have taken place during the pendency of the said suit. Similarly, the relief of declaration, as claimed in prayer clause (a) of the Petition can be sought from the Civil Court by seeking such amendment in the prayer clause of the pending suit, being in continuation of the same controversy between the petitioner and Respondents No.1 and 2. As regards prayer clause (c) again for such relief remedy is available to the petitioner by way of filing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC in the suit.

Forming the above view about the availability of an adequate, efficacious and alternate remedy with the petitioner, we dismiss this petition in limine alongwith the listed application.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. No. D-1575/08

_________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. for katcha peshi.

2. for order on Misc. 7468/08

17.2.2009

Mr.Noor Muhammad Dayo,Advocate for petitioners.

Mr.Shafi Memon, Addl. A.G.alongwith Hussain Bux, Conservator Wild Life Department.

Parawise comments on behalf of the Respondents have been submitted and copy thereof has been supplied to the other side.

The main plea raised on behalf of the Respondents is that on 3^rd July, 2007, when the offer letters were issued to the Petitioners on 3^rd July, 2007, no such vacancies were available in the Department, except for two Game Watchers.

In order to verify that in case no vacancy was available in the Wild life Department then why and in what circumstances offer letters were issued to the Petitioners by the concerned Dy. Conservator, Wild life Department, Hyderabad Division (Dr.Fahmida Firdous) under whose signatures the offer letters were issued to the Petitioners. The said Officer is required to be present in Court on the next date of hearing to explain her position in this regard.

To come up on 10.3.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.1545/2006l

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

3. for order on CMA 10398/08

4. for order on CMA 1039/08

16.2.2009

Mr.Aamir Raza Naqvi, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Ali Azam, Advocate for deft. No.6.

---

1. Through this Application the plaintiff seeks impleadment of CDGK as Defendant No.8 . This application has been moved on account of the direction of this Court vide order dated 6^th Oct. 2008. This application is accordingly allowed. Let amended title be filed within one week.

2. The plaint was struck off against Defendants 1 to 4 as cost was not deposited by the plaintiff for issuance of process. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has been vigilant throughout but due to oversight cost could not be deposited. He further submits that the order for striking off the plaint was passed when defendants 1 to 4 were not served. He, therefore, seeks recall of the said order and permission to deposit the cost.

In the circumstances, the order striking off the plaint is recalled and the plaintiff is directed to deposit the cost within one week.

JUDGE

Sh.

C.P. NO.D-40/09

13.2.2009

Mr.Munir A. Malik, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Rasheed A.Razvi, advocate for the petitioner requests for adjournment on the ground of indisposition of Mr. Razvi.He further submits that copy of the counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.1 has been received today and, therefore, some time is also required for rejoinder.

Mr.Muhammad Javed Alam, Advocate for Respondent No.5

Mr.Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, A.G. for Respondent No.2.

By consent adjourned to 6.3.2009.

Chief justice

Judge

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.31/92

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on commissioner’s report dated 23.6.2008.

9.2.2009

Mr.Mansoorul Arfin, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Naim Ahmed, Advocate for Defendant.

---

At the time of examination of the Defendant’s witness before the Commissioner photostat copies of the documents were produced to which counsel for the plaintiff raised objection. Subsequently, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the Commissioner to the effect that the originals of the Photostat copies produced in evidence are already lying in the Record Room of this Court and the same may be allowed to be exhibited. The Commissioner then referred the matter to the Court, which passed order on 25.5.2006. While considering the letter it was observed that no application with regard to the plea of production of original documents has been made. Therefore, the Court did not pass any order on the request of the defendant’s counsel.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that it was an omission on the part of the defendant’s counsel. He should have called for the original documents, which were lying in the Record Room of this Court and on account of this lapse, the plaintiff should not be burdened with the task of again cross examining the Defendant’s witness. He further submits that no application in this regard was moved to the Court and in this regard only reference is made by the Commissioner in his report. It is further submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel that the letter of the defendant dated 29.4.2008 was considered by this Court on 26.5.2008 and hence the only remedy available to the Defendant was to either file an appeal or to seek review of the order and none of such remedies has been availed. Therefore, the request of the Defendant’s counsel at this belated stage may not be considered.

Be that as it may, this is a case where the original documents were admittedly lying in this Court and the same ought to have been called by the Commissioner and the learned counsel for the defendant ought to have pointed out this fact to the Commissioner. On account of such lapse, the original documents could not be produced in evidence. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Defendant’s witness is permitted to be re-examined only for exhibiting the original documents of which photocopies have already been produced in evidence. No other document shall be allowed to be produced. Learned counsel for the plaintiff shall be at liberty to cross examine the defendant’s witness. He shall not be denied to put any question on such documents. This is subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-. At the suggestion of the plaintiff’s counsel, this cost be deposited in the account of High Court Bar Library.

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No.920/02

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on Nazir report.

2.2.2009

Mr.Dilawar Hussain, Advocate.

Mr.S.Mehmood Haider, Advocate.

Nazir has submitted his report that inspite of inviting bids through publication no offer has been received. Counsel for Defendants 5 and 6 submit that some time may be granted.

At this stage, Mr.Muhammad Hanif Choudhry, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of bidder Muhammad Salman. All the parties are allowed to participate in the bidding before the Nazir directly or through their representative by 20.2.2009.

Nazir to submit report on 23.2.2009 .

JUDGE

This appeal was fixed before this Full Bench alongwith other Petitions to decide the question whether the benefit of remissions are also to be extended to a convict for the entire duration when he was an under-trial prisoner. As all these petitions, without deciding such question, have been disposed of having become infructous for one reason or the other, the office is directed to fix this appeal alongwith other connected appeals before the Full Bench in the second week of March, 2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

ORDEaR SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-60/09

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For katcha peshi.

2. for hg.of Misc. 232/09

---

28.1.2009

Syed Azfar Abbas Naqvi, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G. alongwith

SHO, P.S. Gulistan Johar.

Mr.Jamil uddin Siddiqi, Law Officer on behalf of Respondent No.2,3 and 11.

---

Through this Petition, Petitioner Syeda Fauzia Adil has agitated her grievance against the Financial Institutions, arrayed at Sr.No.2,4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Petition to the extent that for the enforcement of recovery of their loans these Institutions are following the tactics not warranted by law, and she is being unnecessarily harassed.

Learned Addl.A.G. Sindh submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any lenient view in the matter as she, after availing financial facilities from various Financial Institutions, has failed to discharge her obligation. However, any case the official Respondents will act strictly in accordance with law and no illegal harassment will be caused to the Petitioner. He has also placed on record a statement on behalf of Respondent No.1, mentioning therein that the petitioner is not residing within the territorial limits of P.S. Gulistan-e-Jauhar. Such statement is taken on record.

On behalf of Respondent No.2 their law Officer is present. He states that the recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be made strictly in accordance with law and no illegal harassment will be caused to her. He has also disputed the allegation of harassment leveled against Respondents 2 and 3.

After careful perusal of the petition we feel that ends of justice will be met if this petition is disposed of with the observation that in case any of the Respondents /Financial Institutions intend to enforce recovery of their outstanding loan against the Petitioner, they will strictly follow the legal course for this purpose and no undue harassment will be caused to her by way of adopting illegal methods. With these observations, this Petition stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sharif.
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

HCA NO. 196/03

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For hearing of CMA 1768/08

2. for hg.of CMA 1955/07

28.1.2009

Mr.Ali Nawaz Dahraj, appellant in person.

As per report of the bailiff the alleged contemnors No. 3 to 5 i.e. Sawan, Amanullah and Qamaruddin have been served with notice of listed applications. However, none of them is present. According to his further report, Mazharuddin son of Shamsuddin Dahraj has expired.

The grievance of the appellant is that the alleged Contemnors No. 1 and 2 namely Maula Bux Shaikh and Rashid Siddiqi Kokab are Government officers, who are deliberately avoiding service of the Contempt Application. He, therefore, requests that they may be served through S&GDA Department , Govt.of Sindh,

Adjourned to 24.2.2009 with direction to the office to repeat fresh notice against the alleged Contemnors Maula Bux Shaikh and Rashid Siddiqi Kokab directly as well as a copy of such notice be sent to S&GDA Department, Govt. of Sindh, Karachi, which shall ensure service of notice on the alleged contemnors and submission of compliance report before the next date of hearing.

The appellant further submits that compliance of order dated 29.1.2004 regarding calling of R&Ps of Civil Revision Application No. 277 of 1980 has also not been made. Office to ensure the compliance of such order.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-1412/06

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For hg.of CMA 5954/06

2. for regular hearing.

28.1.2009

Mr. Bilal Khilji, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Masood Ahmed Khan, Advocate for respondent No.3 has placed on record a photocopy of the cause list of 29^th May, 2008 containing number of other identical petitions, which were earlier fixed together. He submits that he is not aware for what reason this Petition is detached and fixed separately when in all these petitions shown as Sr.No.13 of the cause list identical controversy is involved. He requests that this Petition may also be taken up alongwith the said petitions on the next date.

The submission made by the learned counsel seems to be reasonable. We accordingly adjourn this petition to 18.2.2009, on which date the other connected petitions may also be fixed alongwith this petition for regular hearing.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-130/09

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on MIsc. 523/09

2. for order on Misc. 524/09

3. For katcha peshi.

4. for order on Misc. 525/09

5. for order on Misc. 526/09

26.1.2009

M/s Abid S.Zuberi, Has
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-130/09

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on MIsc. 523/09

2. for order on Misc. 524/09

3. For katcha peshi.

4. for order on Misc. 525/09

5. for order on Misc. 526/09

26.1.2009

M/s Abid S.Zuberi, Hasseeb Jamali and Umer Lakhani, Advocates for Petitioner.

---

1. Granted.

2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

3 to 5. The case of the petitioners is that Petitioner No.1 is a registered Trade Organization, duly registered under the requisite Ordinance and that Petitioner No.1 intends to participate in the forthcoming elections of FPCCI, process of which commenced in November, 2008 and elections are to be held on 30.1.2009. The Final Voter List has been prepared and Petitioner No.1 is shown at Sr. No. 079 on the Voter List. According to the Election Schedule today is the date on which the Nominations for office bearers of the Association are to be submitted. However, the Petitioner No.1 has received a notice from the Govt.of Pakistan, Directorate of Trade Organization calling upon them to submit certain information, such as copies of utility bills, electricity, gas charges, telephone bills of the Association for the last one year, lease agreement of the Regional office, etc. and that in case of failure to furnish such information by 26.1.2009 i.e. today, Petitioner No.1 shall not be allowed to vote and contest the forthcoming elections which are to be held on 30.1.2009.

Notice for 28.1.2009. In the meantime, the nomination of Petitioner No.2 shall not be rejected on the basis of the impugned letter dated 22.1.2009 issued by the Govt. of Pakistan, Directorate of Trade Organization and electoral process shall not be suspended.

Judge

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

SUIT NO. 435/2003

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on Commissioner report dated 17.10.08

2. For order on CMA 334/09

3. For hg.of CMA 4518/07

26.1.2009

Mr.Muhammad Ismail Memon, Advocate.

Mr.Mukhtar Hussain Sheerazi, Advocate.

1 & 2. Report of the Commissioner is taken on record. As the Commissioner, who was appointed earlier, has left Pakistan, by consent Mr.Mansoor Ahmed Shaikh, Advocate, is appointed as Commissioner to record evidence of the parties. His fee is fixed at Rs.7000/- per witness. The commission shall be completed within three months.

3. Through this application the plaintiffs seek production of certain documents, which according to them, were not traceable at the time of recording of evidence.

Counsel for the Defendant has seriously opposed the prayer and contended that these documents should have been produced at the time of recording evidence and at this stage the same cannot be allowed to be considered.

After considering the prayer clause, it appears that the dispute is limited to creation of sub-tenancy and documents which are sought to be produced do not go to the root of such controversy. Therefore, CMA No.4518/07 is dismissed.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 551/2003

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. for order on CMA 11241/08

2. for issues.

26.1.2009

Mr.Ch.Muhammad Iqbal,Advocate.

Mr.S.Nasir Hussain Jafri, Advocate.

1. Counsel for defendant No.4 has moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He states that the suit is time barred as he was joined as a party in the year 2006 i.e. beyond three years of limitation.

When confronted with the question that the plaint cannot be rejected in piecemeal, as there are also other defendants, counsel states that no relief has been sought against them and since defendant No.4 has been joined as a party after the period of limitation the plaint is liable to be rejected against him.

To consider the above points, let notice be issued to the Plaintiff and other contesting Defendants.

2. Proposed issues filed on behalf of the plaintiff are taken on record.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. /2006

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on office objection.

26.1.2009

Mr. Aijaz Ahmed Advocate

Mr.Asif Ali,Advocate.

---

In response to the office objection that the suit ought to have been filed under the Financial Institutions ( Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 200 counsel for the Plaintiff submits that he is only seeking specific performance of sale Agreement. Suit in terms of Section 9 of the said Ordinance is maintainable only where any customer and financial institution commits default in fulfillment of any obligation arising from a transaction covered under the definition of “finance” as defined in Section 2(d) of the Ordinance, 2001.Hence the office objection is over-ruled. Office is directed to register the suit.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 1409/2005

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on commissioner’s report.

26.1.2009

Mr.Imtiaz Aga, Advocate,

Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, Advocate

Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff comes from abroad and some time may be granted for recording of his evidence. He further states that his client will be available in the first week of Feb. 2009 and will stay here for a month.

In the circumstances, time for recording evidence is extended . Let affidavit in evidence of the Plaintiff be filed on 12.2.2009 and copy be supplied to the other side and thereafter the Commissioner shall fix the date for cross examination of the Plaintiff. In case the plaintiff fails to appear for cross examination, heavy cost shall be imposed by the Commissioner as injunction is operating against the Defendants. The exercise of recording of evidence of the plaintiff shall be completed within the month of Feb.2009.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No. 40/09

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

21.1.2009

Mr. Rasheed A.Rizvi, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Yousuf Legahri, A.G.

Mr. Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG for Federation of Pakistan.

Mr. Javed Alam, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

Mr.Yawar Farooqi, Advocate undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.4.

None for Respondent No.3.

---

By consent adjourned to a date in office, to be fixed in the second week of Feb. 2009.

C.J.

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. NO.D-2171/08

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1.for katcha peshi.

2.for hg.of misc. 10628/08.

-------

15.1.2009

Petitioner present in person.

Mr.Salahuddin, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.3.

Mr.Bilal Aziz Khilji, Advocate has also filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondents 4 and 5.

Both the Learned counsel present on behalf of the Respondents submit that no harassment is being caused to the Petitioner from their side and rather the Petitioner, following the course of frivolous litigation, is causing harassment to Respondent No.5. They further state that the Respondents shall follow the legal course for recovery of the dower articles from the petitioner and no harassment will be caused to him.

This being the position, the petition is disposed of .

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. NO.D-738/08

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. for order on office objection.

2. for order on Misc.3305/08

3. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

4. for order on Misc. 3306/08

13.1.2009

On 12.10.2003 the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Controller of Examination in BPS-17 under Section 14 of the University of Karachi Act, 1973. His appointment was subject to the approval of the Selection Board of the University. Thereafter when the Petitioner appeared before the Selection Board, he was not found to be fit and hence he was not recommended for the permanent appointment against the vacant post. Resultantly he was issued Termination Letter on 27.12.2006.

The Petitioner has filed this Petition after 14 months of his termination. We called upon the learned counsel for the Petitioner to explain the delay in challenging the dismissal of the petitioner and also asked whether the petitioner made any representation to the concerned officials during these 14 months, he replied that the petitioner kept on writing letters for the recall of his dismissal order. In this regard he referred to the letter dated 26.2.2008 of the Petitioner (Annexure P-31 to the petition), which is reproduced as under:-

“The Vice chancellor/

The Chairman Syndicate,

University of Karachi.

Karachi.

Request to appoint the applicant as Assistant Controller BPS-17 in University of Karachi.

“The undersigned had served the University of Karachi as Assistant Controller of Examination since October 2003 to December 2006. The undersigned had a very rich academic record along with rich experience is the field of computer, examination and also have good drafting skill etc. Due to one reason or the other the undersigned was not recommended by the Selection Board in 2006 and my service was terminated in December 2006. It is strange to observe that the Selection Board recommended a III Divisioner Mr. Mustafa as Assistant Controller who hold only bachelors degree without relevant experience.

It has come to my notice that recently your honour had appointed the following persons as Assistant Controller and additional Deputy Controller without Selection Board without having required qualification and experience and without budgeted post.

1. Mr.Shoukat, Assistant Controller (B. Pharmacy III Division) who haven’t had a single day experience of examination work in his career. He is working without budgeted post. It is learnt that he was unlawfully appointed as Assistant Editor BCC&T but Syndicate did not approve his appointment.

2. Mr.M.Arif, Assistant Controller, Mr.Arif was appointed as Lab Attendant in BPS-7. In 2003 he was promoted as Lab Supervisor in BPS-16 in clear violation of the existing promotion rules approved by the Syndicate Mr. Arif haven’t had a single day experience of examination work however his post was converted as superintendent examination in violation of rules and now he has been posted as Assistant Controller. The only qualification he holds the office of the president of employees Welfare association a pressure group at the campus.

3. Mr. Qamar Alam, Assistant Controller posted as Additional Deputy Controller. Such post does not exist in University budget. He is getting salary against the post of Controller of Examination.

4. It has further noticed that 17j Assistant and associate professors who were declared twice and thrice ineligible by the Selection Board were appointed in BPS-20 and 21 on humanitarian ground.

5. Mr. Murtaza Barlas a terminated employee (on the charges of corruption) of Account department was appointed as placement officer in BPS-17 without Selection Board and without having the required experience. It is noted that he never applied for the post of placement officer however he was adjusted on humanitarian ground.

6. Mr.Minhaj Jillani appointed as Deputy Director Finance in BPS-19 without any budgeted post and without Selection Board.

7. Mr.M.Jameel appointed as Director BCC&T who haven’t had first division which is essential requirement. He did not hold required experience. He never recommended by the Selection Board.

It is pertinent to mention that I was declared eligible for the post of Assistant Controller but not recommended by the board hence I am eligible for appointment a fresh in University of Karachi. In view of the above facts it is humbly requested to appoint the undersigned as Assistant Controller keeping in view my rich experience of university examination department.”

The perusal of above letter shows that the Petitioner through the said letter was only seeking fresh appointment to his previous position. He has not raised any other grievance with regard to his earlier termination of service that took place 14 months prior to his writing letter dated 26.2.2008.

From this it is clearly demonstrated that the Petitioner accepted the fate of his termination that took place in December, 2006, therefore, this petition, filed after 14 months of such termination, clearly suffers from latches. Even on merits, the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the scrutiny of the Selection Committee, which admittedly found him not fit for the post and hence no exception could be taken to the order of termination, which has been impugned in this Petition.

The above petition was dismissed on 13.1.2009 in limine by a short order and these are the reasons for the same.

JUDGE

CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. NO.D-1200/07

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

13.1.2009

Mr.Azizur Rehman Akhund, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr.Sanaullah Noor Ghouri, Advocate for Respondents 2 to 4.

---

Through this Petition, Petitioner Syed Aijaz Hussain Shah, who was removed from service by respondents No. 2 and 3 vide Notification dated 28.9.2006 in exercise of powers under the provisions of Removal from Service Ordinance XVII (Special Powers)Ordinance, 2000, has challenged such action of the Respondents. In paragraph seven of the petition, he has also stated about filing of the Departmental Appeal/Representation before the Chairman of PTCL , which has not yet been decided by him.

At the outset, Mr. Sanaullah Noor Ghouri, learned counsel for the Respondents, has made reference to the parawise comments submitted on behalf of the Respondents to show that the remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the Ordinance(ibid) available to the petitioner was an adequate and proper remedy for the petitioner against his removal from service under the provisions of such special statute, therefore, this Petition is incompetent. He has further made reference to paragraph 7 of the comments to show that the petitioner has submitted appeal before the Secretary IT, Ministry of IT &T, Islamabad, which is yet to be decided by the said Secretary.

In support of his argument that in the given circumstances when adequate and proper remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 10 of the said Ordinance before the Services Tribunal and this Petition is not maintainable, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Pervez vs. Chairman, Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Abbotabad (2005 SCMR 1603).

Keeping in view the clear language of Section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, we dismiss this petition with the observation that in case the petitioner has availed the remedy under section 10 of the Ordinance (ibid), he may pursue the same or he may avail it now, but strictly in accordance with law.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh.

13.1.2009

One Mst. Zarina is present in Court. She was also present yesterday and thricely tried to interfere in the Court proceedings. Despite repeated warnings, she failed to improve her conduct and continued obstructing the Court proceedings. Today again when we assembled in Court for conducting usual proceedings before the Court again she stood up and despite repeated warnings to maintain the decorum of the Court, she has refused and adamant to disturb the Court proceedings.

Keeping in view her conduct, she is charged with contempt and in such circumstances the Registrar of this Court is directed to call for the lady police for taking her in custody till further action is taken in the matter.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 393/2007

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For issues.

12.1.2009

Mr.Nasir Maqsood, Advocate for plaintiff.

---

The following issues are framed:-

1. Whether the defendants falsely implicated the Plaintiff in cases, which ultimately proved false, if yes, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim damages suffered by him on account of such false cases and if yes, what should be its quantum?

2. What should the decree be?

List of witnesses and documents within two months.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 201/2006

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For issues.

12.1.2009

Mr.Joseph Pishori, Advocate for plaintiff.

---

The following issues proposed by the Plaintiff are adopted.

3. Whether the suit is maintainable as framed?

4. Whether the plaintiff has any proof for damages of Rs.8,000,000/- caused to him in person?

5. Whether the police Report or complaint lodged regarding the damages caused to the plaintiff or not.?

6. What should the decree be?

List of witnesses and documents within two months.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Suit No. 298/2005

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For issues.

12.1.2009

None present.

The following issues proposed by the Defendant are adopted.

7. Whether the dismissal of plaintiff from service was illegal, if so, to what effect”

8. Whether the plaintiff has already overdrawn the benefits from service, if so, to what effect?

9. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for gratuity, leave, salary, provident fund and bonus, etc.in terms of the letter of appointment, if so, to what amount?

10. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for damages, if so, to what amount?

11. What should the decree be?

List of witnesses and documents within two months.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. NO.D-2502/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on Misc. 11420/08
for order on office objection
for order on Misc. 11421/08
for katcha peshi.
for order on Misc. 11422/08

1.1.2009

Mr.Raja Sikandar Khan Advocate for petitioner.

---

1. Granted.

2. Deferred.

3. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exceptions.

4 & 5. The case of the petitioner is that he was Hari and was granted land under the Land Grant Policy after following all the formalities. He further submits that open auction was held on the basis of Schedule in which the disputed land was allotted to the Petitioner in an open Katchery. He further submits that Respondent No.7 after three years of the grant of such land to the Petitioner filed Ist Appeal before the EDO, Revenue, Thatta, wherein no proper address of the petitioner was given and after publication of notice in the newspaper order was passed and appeal was allowed on the ground that the disputed land was granted to the petitioner without holding open Katchery or approval of the Schedule. Learned Counsel further submits that this was erroneous finding and when Petitioner came to know about this order he filed appeal before the Member Land Revenue, who vide order dated 10.4.2008 dismissed the appeal. He further contends that the petitioner is cultivating land and there is apprehension of his dispossession from the said land on the basis of the impugned order.

Notice to the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 7 as well as A.G. Sindh for 14.1.2009. In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. NO.D-01/2009

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For ORDER ON Misc. 02/09.

2. for order on misc. 3/09

3. for katcha peshi.

4. for order on misc. 4/09

1.1.2009

Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, Advocate for petitioners.

1. Granted.

2. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

3 & 4. The case of the Petitioner is that they were allotted a piece of land measuring 45 acres in two different Sectors i.e. Sector 52-A and Sector 53-A. It is further the case of the petitioner that the land, which is allotted in sector 53-A comprises of 28 acres and proposed lay out plan was submitted to the concerned Cantonment Authority for approval which was approved on 3.4.2008. Learned counsel submits that on the Southern side of the plan there is 150 wide Road. The Respondent No.1 has encroached upon the said road after demolishing its wall and have started raising boundary wall thereby attempting to take 150’ road within its area.

Issue notice to the Respondents for 6.1.2009. The parties to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

I.A No.55/2007

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For hearing of CMA 2084/08

for hearing of CMA 1920/08

For hearing of CMA 1948/08

1.1.2009

M/s.Rana Azim-ul-Hasan Azeem and Younis Inayat, Advocates for appellant.

Ms.Shamim Naz, Advocate for Respondents.

This appeal arises from the order passed by the Executing Court, whereby Warrant of Arrest was issued against the appellant, who was J/D and the decree was passed by the Banking Court No.2 in favour of Respondent No.1. The decree was for Rs.24,05,590/-. The mortgaged property was sold and a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- was recovered leaving balance of Rs. 18,80,590/-. Against this outstanding amount, the appellant gave an assurance and issued cheques but the same could not be honoured and the Executing Court passed order of imprisonment of the appellant for a period of one year u/s 55 CPC. The appellant preferred appeal against the said order and deposited a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- with the Nazir of this court and sought his release. However, this appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6.2.2008. The appellant then filed restoration application. Notice was issued to the Respondents.

Counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that Respondent No.1 is interested in the recovery of the decreetal amount and has no objection if the appeal is restored and disposed of on merits. She further contends that if an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- lying deposited with the Nazir of this Court be released to Respondent No.1 and the appellant be directed to pay the remaining amount.

Keeping in view the above statement of the learned counsel, we restored this appeal and took up the same for hearing.

Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has not intentionally committed the default in payment of the decreetal amount as he was out of job for years and now he has got a job and shall pay the amount in installments.

We are of the view that the J/D cannot be ordered to be imprisoned only because he is unable to satisfy the decree. Order of imprisonment is to be passed only where the J/D became dishonest and conceals his financial resources from which he can satisfy the decree. Out of the balance decreetal amount of Rs. 18,80,590/- a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- has been deposited by the appellant in this Court, the same is ordered to be released to Respondent No.1 upon proper verification.

With regard to the balance amount of Rs.8,30,590/- with future cost of funds, the appellant shall disclose before the Executing Court all his sources of income as well as list of properties which he, his wife or his children own. All this information shall be placed in the shape of an affidavit to be sworn by the appellant within 15 days from this order. Respondent No.1 shall be fully entitled to confirm the genuineness of such affidavit and in case it is subsequently found that the appellant has concealed his properties or financial resources from which decree could have been satisfied, the Executing Court shall be free to pass order in terms of Section 55 CPC and order his arrest.

With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P. No.2493/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on Misc. No.11392/08.

2. For order on office objection No.2 a/w reply.

3. For order on Misc.No.11393/08

4. For katcha peshi.

5. For orders on Misc. No.11394/08.

---

1.1.2009

M/s A.Hafeez Pirzada, Rana Ikramullah and Danish Zuberi, Advocates for Petitioner.

----

1. Granted.

2. The learned counsel undertakes to comply with the office objection within three days.

3. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

4 & 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has referred to the previous litigations, which ensued in between the parties on the identical issues as involved in this Petition and has further argued that one of the cases decided previously was in favour of the petitioners, yet appeals filed by the parties are pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan with regard thereto. Learned counsel has further argued that the matter being subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, yet the Respondents have taken the steps so that “protected assessment order” has been passed, whereby a demand has been made against the Petitioners for payment of “outstanding demand” to the tune of Rs.370,628,864/- vide letter dated 18^th October, 2008, which further mentions that in case of failure on the part of the Petitioners to meet with such demand “ proceedings for levy of additional tax and penalty will be initiated as per law”.

Notice to the Respondents and to learned D.A.G. for 22.1.2009. In the meantime, no further action, pursuant to the said letter dated 18^th Oct. 2008, shall be taken by the Respondents till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO.D-2406/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on office objecstion.

2. for katcha peshi.

3. for hg.of Misc. 11022/08.

30.12.2008

M/s Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada and Khalid Shah, Advocates for Petitioner.

M/s M.Yousuf Leghari, A.G. and M.Sarwar Khan, Addl.A.G.

---

Learned Advocate General as well as Addl. Advocate General, both appearing for the Respondents, state at the bar that though Counter Affidavit has been prepared and drafted to be filed by Respondent No.3 viz. Addl. Chief Secretary for Local Government, Govt.of Sindh, Karachi, but he has left for Malaysia in connection with an official visit last night and without getting proper opportunity to have got the contents of the said Counter Affidavit verified on oath before the competent Authority and, therefore, they make request for extension of time to file the Counter Affidavit upto 13.1.2009. The request so made appears to be cogent and time is granted upto the said date. To be taken up at 11.30 am. Interim order already passed to continue till the said date of hearing.

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states at the bar that the learned counsel, who had appeared on the last date of hearing in this Petition for the Respondents, had committed himself for producing the attested copy of the Notification, whereby the Commission was constituted. Mr. M.Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.G. undertakes to file the same on the next date of hearing without fail.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

HCA NO. 348/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

4. For order on CMA NO. 1953/08

5. FOR ORDER ON CMA 1954/08

6. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

7. FOR ORDER ON CMA 1955/08

16.12.2008

Mr.Naveed Ahmed Khan, Advocate for appellant.

---

This appeal being hopelessly time barred is accompanied with an application under Article 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of about 2 years in institution of this appeal.

Perusal of the case record reveals that the suit of the appellant was dismissed on 20.11.2006, which was followed by decree dated 2.1.2007. The only ground urged in the application for seeking condonation of such inordinate delay is that it was due to oversight that the appeal could not be preferred by the appellant in time. We are not impressed with such contention. Accordingly, the application under Article 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed being barred by time.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO.D-1571/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

8. For order on office objection.

9. For hg of Misc. 7457/08

10. for katcha peshi.

----

16.12.2008

Mr. Shafqat Ali Shah Masoomi, Advocate for the petitioners alongwith the petitioners.

Mr.Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG for Respondent No.1.

Mr.M.Sarwar Khan, Addl.A.G. Sindh for Respondent No.2.

Mr.M.A Kazi, Advocate for Respondent No.6.

Mr.S.Khalid Shah, Advocate for proposed accused No.1.

Mr.Shamshad Qureshi, Advocate undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of proposed accused No.7.

---

Mr.M.A.Kazi, learned counsel for Respondent No.6 submits that Respondent No.6 is facing great difficulty in accommodating the petitioner No.2 and her family in the Police Quarter and, therefore, some alternate arrangement may be made for shifting them to some other place. Mr. M.Sarwar Khan, in reply, submits that the Petitioner No.2 may be shifted to Darul Uloom or some NGO may be contacted to accommodate them.

In order to sort out the issue of accommodation of Petitioner No.2 and her family, learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to contact “Aurat Foundation” established at Karachi to find out whether the couple, who is complaining highhandedness of the proposed accused, can be accommodated there to their satisfaction.

To come up on 21.1.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.NO.D-616/2000

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For HF Misc. 6155/08

----

3.12.2008

Mr.Mirza Jameel Baig, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Masood A.Noorani, Addl.A.G. for respondents.

---

In the context of the listed application (CMA No. 6155/08) we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case record, which reveals that this petition, instituted by the Petitioner on 1.5.2000, was disposed of on 3.5.2001, thereby directing the Respondent No.2 to mutate the land as per the claim of the Petitioner.

It seems that such compliance was made, however, subsequently, vide order dated 17.5.2003, passed by D.O (Revenue), CDGK, the said Entry No.688 of Deh Taiser was cancelled and it is against such action of the D.O(Revenue) that the petitioner has moved the listed application.

In our opinion, in case the petitioner has any grievance against the order dated 17.5.2003, it has given him a fresh cause of action to challenge it either by way of appeal under the hierarchy of Revenue Courts or to challenge it before any other forum in accordance with law. In any case, no further relief can be allowed to the petitioner through the listed application. Moreso, as the petitioner has come up against the order dated 17.5.2003 after almost five years. Dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

SMA No.215/2000

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on Nazir report dated 28.6.2008

2. For hg.of CMA 545/08

3. for hg of CMA 549/08

4. For hg.of CMA 550/08

1.12.2008

Mr.Muhammad Aziz Khan, Advocate for the applicant in Application under section 12(2)CPC.

Mr.Hasan Akbar, Advocate for purchaser of the disputed property.

-----

On behalf of the legal heirs of Vakeel Ahmed, vakalatnama has been filed by Mr.Naeem Iqbal, Advocate. He submits that the legal heirs of Vakeel Ahmed have accepted the sale transaction in favour of the client of Mr. Hasan Akbar, however, as they intend to vacate the property, as per the new arrangement dated 31.12.2008, the amount of their share lying deposited with the Nazir of this Court may be released forthwith. To this proposal, Mr.Hasan Akbar, Advocate, has no objection.

I have noticed that some of the legal heirs of late Vakeel Ahmed are minors, therefore, without securing their interest their share cannot be released to their mother Mst. Aisha. To meet this situation, Mr. Hasan Akbar, Advocate, volunteers to furnish security equivalent to the share of the minors before the Nazir of this Court, which will be furnished/arranged by the purchaser of the property. Submission made by Mr.Hasan Akbar seems to be reasonable and aimed to resolve the controversy once for all. This being the position the Nazir is directed to release the shares of the legal heirs of late Vakeel Ahmed in favour of widow Mst. Aisha, including share of the minors. However, equivalent to the share of the minors security shall be furnished before release of this amount by the Nazir of this Court.

Mr.Muhammad Aziz, Advocate for applicant Shakreel Ahmed Khan, who is now the only legal heir, who disputes the sale, submits that his client is negotiating for amicable settlement of the dispute with the purchaser of the property .He, therefore, requests that some time may be allowed. Adjourned to 12.1.2009.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

R.A No.157/85

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on Ref. dated 1/9/08

2. For order on Ref. dated 9.10.08

1.12.2008

Mr. Muneebuddin, Advocate on behalf of Applicant No.1.

Riaz Alam, Advocate for applicant Sauleheen Paracha

Mr.Zafar Iqbal, Advocate for legal heirs of Respondent No.1 Sirajuddin.

Mr.Ahmed Ali Shah, holding brief for Mr.Khalid Javed, advocate for Iftikharuddin.

Mr.Muhammad Sultan Parachi present in person.

---

1. On notice of Reference dated 1.9.2008 above named counsel are present.

Mr.Muhammad Sultan Paracha submits that the account, which is being maintained by him, is regarding the collection of rent and change of receipt charges wherein a total sum of Rs.700,000/- is available with him. He further submits that out of it a sum of Rs.500,000/- may be paid to the Arbitrator as further part payment. To this proposal, other counsel have consented. Order accordingly. Mr.Muhammad Sultan Paracha is directed to tentatively make payment of Rs.500,000/- to the Arbitrator, Mr.Justice (Retd) Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqi, at the earliest.

2. After hearing the Learned counsel present as well as Mr. Muhammad Sultan Paracha this Reference is disposed of with the observation that the Nazir of this Court and the Official Assignee are directed to submit the detailed accounts to the Arbitrator. Mr.Muhammad Sultan Paracha shall also submit accounts in respect of Mehboob Market. Similarly Mr.Moeenuddin Paracha and Rafiuddin Paracha shall submit accounts in respect of Azeem Market and Zainab Market Phase-I. This exercise shall be completed within one month from the date of this order.

Disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appln. No.54/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1.1.2008

Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl. A.G. for State.

Notices of this Transfer Application issued to the accused in Crime No. 6/2000, P.S. Sanjer Bhatti, District Qambar, Shahdadkot have returned served on accused Ghulam Mustafa and Gulzar Kalhoro. Accused Gul Hasan Kalhoro is reported to be in custody, while notices issued to accused Muhammad Hasan Kalhoro and Akbar Kalhoro have returned unserved. From the record it appears that Accused Akbar Kalhoro has died on 15.2.2008. Repeat fresh notice to the unserved respondent Muhammad Hassan Kalhoro for 15.12.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appln. No.55/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on MA 4790/08

2. for katcha peshi.

1.12.2008

Mr.Ch.Muhammad Yaseen, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G.

----

1. Granted.

2. Through this application under Section 528 Cr.P.C, applicant has sought transfer of Sessions Case No. 236/07 from the Court of IIIrd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) to any other Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi (East). The only ground urged is that in the Bail Application of the Applicant directions have been issued by High Court for disposal of case within three months, while the trial Court of learned IIIrd Addl. District & Sessions Judge Karachi (East) is lying vacant since July 2008.

Mr. Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl. A.G. waives notice of this application and gives his consent for transfer of the case to any other Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi (East).

In view of the above, this transfer application is allowed. Sessions Case No. 236/07 arising out of Crime No.259/07 P.S. Ferozabad is transferred to the Court of Vth Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi (East).

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appln. No. 59/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on MA No. 4798/08

2. for order on MA No.4799/08

3. for katcha peshi.

1.12.2008

Mr.Ali Muhammad Dahri, Advocate for applicant.

1. Granted.

2. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exception

3. Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G for respondent waives notice of this Cr.Transfer Application. Counsel for the Applicant is directed to supply copy of this Cr.Transfer Application to learned Addl. A.G.

To come up on 15.12.2008 for which date notice may also be issued to the complainant in Crime No.56/06, P.S. A-Section Nawabshah.

CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appln. No. 58/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

4. For order on MA No. 4796/08

5. for order on MA No.4797/08

6. for katcha peshi.

1.12.2008

Mr.Ali Muhammad Dahri, Advocate for applicant.

4. Granted.

5. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exception

6. Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G for respondent waives notice of this Cr.Transfer Application. Counsel for the Applicant is directed to supply copy of this Cr.Transfer Application to learned Addl. A.G.

To come up on 15.12.2008 for which date notice may also be issued to the complainant in Crime No.57/06, P.S A-Section Nawabshah.

CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appln. No. 57/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

7. For order on MA No. 4795/08

8. for order on MA No.4796/08

9. for katcha peshi.

1.12.2008

Mr.Ali Muhammad Dahri, Advocate for applicant.

7. Granted.

8. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exception

9. Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G for respondent waives notice of this Cr.Transfer Application. Counsel for the Applicant is directed to supply copy of this Cr.Transfer Application to learned Addl. A.G.

To come up on 15.12.2008 for which date notice may also be issued to the complainant in Crime No.55/07, P.S. Taluka Nawabshah.

CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appln. No. 56/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

10. For order on MA No. 4793/08

11. for order on MA No.4794/08

12. for katcha peshi.

1.12.2008

Mr.Ali Muhammad Dahri, Advocate for applicant.

10. Granted.

11. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exception

12. Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G for respondent waives notice of this Cr.Transfer Application. Counsel for the Applicant is directed to supply copy of this Cr.Transfer Application to learned Addl. A.G.

To come up on 15.12.2008 for which date notice may also be issued to the complainant in Crime No.52/06, P.S. Taluka Nawabshah.

CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. NO. S-565/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on CMA 3966/08
for order on office objection No.2
for order on CMA 3967/08
for katcha peshi.
for order on CMA 3968/08.

---

1.12.2008

Mr.Muhammad Khalid, Advocate for petitioner.

1. Granted.

2. Office objection to be complied with within a week’s time.

3. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exceptions.

4. Submission of the learned counsel is that Respondent No.2 has purchased only Shop No. 3 on Plot No.BC-4, Block-7, Clifton, Karachi, admeasuring 58.75 sq.yds., as is evident from the registered Conveyance deed in his favour dated 16^th Nov.2005 but on the basis of such registered Conveyance Deed he wants to snatch the possession of Shop No. 3A from the Petitioner, which is an independent shop not falling within the area specified in the registered lease of Respondent No.2.

Issue pre-admission notice to Respondent No.2 for 15.12.2008.

5. Notice as above. In the meantime, operation of the two impugned judgments assailed in this Petition shall remain suspended.

CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. NO. S-525/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

FOR KATCHA PESH.

---

28.11.2008

Mr.Zulfiqar Ali Solangi Advocate alongwith petitioner and his brother Ali Sher.

Mr.Muhammad Ali Abbasi, Advocate for Respondents.

Mr.Obaidullah Awan, Advocate for State.

---

The Statement and counter affidavit of the Respondents are taken on record . In view of the statement of the alleged detainee Mst. Razia Begum made before this Court on 9.11.2008 it cannot be said that she is being unlawfully detained. With regard to the threats and apprehension that the petitioner’s brother may be declared as Karo and he and petitioner may be murdered , the Respondents have filed a statement and have orally stated that apprehension of the petitioner and his brother are misplaced. They have stated that they have neither harassed the petitioner nor his brother nor intend to do so. They further say that no allegation of “Karo Kari” shall be made against the Petitioner and his brother and that no Jirga for this purpose would be called.

In view of the above position, this Petition stands disposed of. In case any jirga is called for declaring the petitioner or his brother as Karo , the same shall be treated as breach of the undertaking of the Respondents and legal consequences would follow.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. NO. S-319/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on office objection.
FOR KATCHA PESH.

---

28.11.2008

Mr.S.Riaz H.Shah, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Mirza Waqar Hussain, Advocate for respondent

Mr.Obaidullah Awan, Advocate for State.

---

Learned counsel for respondents has raised objection as to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the interim order passed by the Family Court is appealable before the District Court and, therefore, alternate remedy by was of Constitutional Petition was not availed by the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon 2006 YLR 2604, wherein reliance was placed on two earlier judgments passed in 1975 and 1987. He also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1982 CLC 441. All these judgments are prior to the amendment made to Section 14 of the Sindh Family Court Ordinance, 1964, whereby sub-section (3) was inserted in Section 14. In this new sub-section it is stated that no Revision or Appeal lies against interim order passed by a Family Court.

Learned counsel seek time to examine this aspect and address the Court on the next date of hearing.

To come up on 5.12.2008.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. NO. S-466/07

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on CMA 3095/07
FOR KATCHA PESH.
FOR ORDER ON CA 309607

---

28.11.2008

Mr.Muzaffar Ahmed Shaikh, Advocate for the petitioner.

---

The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the decree was not signed by the Family Judge , therefore, the Court could not have proceeded with the execution proceedings. The objection of the learned counsel is only technical in natural. The decree, if not signed, can always be singed at subsequent stage.

Since no other infirmity or irregularity in the impugned judgment has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine alongwith the listed application. The trial Court is directed to sign the decree. Office is directed to return the R&Ps to the trial Court.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

First appeal No. 19/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on CMA 3608/08

---

27.11.2008

Mr.Anwar Muhammad Siddiqi, Advocate for appellant

Through this application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC the appellant seeks recall of the order dated 31.10.2008, whereby this appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter was dismissed in the first round. He has filed his personal affidavit showing the reasons for his non-appearance.

Since the appeal was dismissed before issuance of notice to the respondent and the reasons for non-appearance of the learned counsel seem to be plausible, as is evident from paras 2 to 5 of the affidavit, the application is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original position.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SMA NO.227/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main application.

26.11.2008

Petitioner Osama Ahmed Shaikh is present along with his mother Mamoona Sultana Shaikh and his counsel Mr.Muhammad Shoaib Mirza.

---

Through this application under Section 278 of the Succession Act, 1925, the Petitioner has prayed for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of his deceased father Ghulam Ahmed Shaikh, details whereof have been disclosed in para 4 of the Petition.

In Para 2 of the Petition it has been stated that deceased Ghulam Ahmed Shaikh at the time of his death left behind Petitioner Osama Ahmed Shaikh, (son), and Mamoona Sultana (widow) as surviving legal heirs to inherit his movable and immovable properties.

After filing of this Petition, required formalities viz. publication of notice etc.have been complied with. The mother of the Petitioner Mamoona Sultana Shaikh has submitted her affidavit of no objection for grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the Petitioner. Two independent witnesses Hammad-ur-Rahman and Adnan Faseeh, present in Court, have also affirmed these facts in their affidavits already filed before this Court alongwith the Petition. No objections from any corner have been received against the grant of this Petition.

There seems to be no legal impediment in granting this Petition. Accordingly, it is granted and office is directed to issue Letters of Administration in favour of the Petitioner as per Rules .

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.S-548/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on objection No.3

2. For katcha peshi.

3. For order on CMA 3825/08

26.11.2008

Mr.Ghulam Abbas Pishori, Advocate for petitioner.

----

1. Deferred.

2 & 3. The case of the petitioner is that rent was enhanced from 8000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month and that too from the date of filing of the application for fixation of fair rent. It is contended that if the arrears are worked out, the same comes to about Rs.41,60,000/-. It is further contended that there was no cogent evidence for fixation of such huge rent .

Issue notice to the respondents. The petitioner shall, however, tender rent at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per month. As far as the arrears are concerned, the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the same with the Nazir of this court within three weeks and the respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the same.

To come up on 18.12.2008.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SMA NO. NIL 2005

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For haring of CMA 221/08

2. For hearing of CMA 131/08

---

26.11.2008

Mr.Adnan Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner alongwith the petitioner.

M/s Dilawar Hussain and Muhammad Ameen, Advocates for respondents No.1 to 3.

---

The petitioner and Respondents have reached settlement, whereby the value of the joint property is fixed at Rs.45,00,000/-. The share of the petitioner comes to Rs.15,75,000/-. The Respondents have agreed to deposit the said amount with the Nazir of this Court within ten days from today.Upon deposit of the said amount, the Nazir is directed to pay the same to the Petitioner on proper verification and identification. Nazir shall also be entitled to execute Sale Deed on behalf of the Petitioner as he remains abroad.

SMA stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

CR.BAIL APPN. NO. 1314/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

26.11.2008

M/s M.Ilyas Khan and Muhammad Farooq, Advocates for applicant.

Mr.Zafar Ahmed, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh.

Mr.Z.U.Muijahid, Advocate for complainant.

Applicant Faisal Khan Jaddon is booked in FIR No. 474/08, under section 489-F, PPC, P.S Aziz Bhatti, Karachi.

The allegation against the applicant /accused, as per the FIR, is that the Applicant/accused issued a Cheque No. CD/08689183 of a sum of Rs.47,00,000/-to the complainant, which was dishonored on its presentation.

The applicant has admitted that the cheque book belonged to him and the same was lost and in this regard Roznamcha Entry was made in May, 2008 and pursuant to that a suit has also been filed seeking declaration and cancellation of the cheques. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the punishment for the offence is three years and that a civil suit is subjudice before a Civil Court and its outcome would have bearing on the criminal proceedings. He, therefore, submits that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and the Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh contended that in several cases under Section 489-F PPC this Court has refused bail as this has become the usual practice in the Society that after issuing cheques the same are dishonoured. They submit that for this purpose Section 498-F PPC was incorporated in PPC. He further contended that in case the cheque book is lost the applicant ought to have informed the bank and stopped its encashment but this was not done though there was a period of three months between the alleged displacement of the cheque book and lodging of the FIR.

Keeping in view respective versions of the parties and the pendency of a civil suit the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail . Therefore, bail is granted to the applicant on his furnishing surety of 50% of the cheque amount i.e Rs.23,50,000/-, with P.R bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. In case the complainant establishes his case, the surety amount might be used for settlement of the claim. The Nazir shall put the surety on notice in this regard.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

CR.MISC. APPLN.138/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

26.11.2008

Mr.Fahim Riazuddin Siddiqi, Advocate for the Applicant.

Mr.Zafar Ahmed, Addl. Prosecutor General for State.

The applicant has impugned the order dated 15.4.2008 passed by VIth Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Malir, Karachi, whereby the opinion of the I.O. with regard to the alleged settlement of the dispute was accepted. Learned counsel for the applicant states that there was no such settlement and on the misrepresentation of the I.O the impugned order was passed.

Learned State Counsel has pointed out a copy of the Settlement Agreement but this pertains to some other person i.e. Maroof Khan son of Zareen Khan who is not named in the FIR. He next submits that even in the investigation there is no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged crime. In my view this was not the reason for passing the impugned order.

In the above circumstances, the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Malir dated 15.4.2008 is set aside. The learned Magistrate may proceed with the case in accordance with law.

Disposed of.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.439/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA No. 3853/08

2. For katcha pesh.

3. for hg of CMA No. 3177/08

-------

26.11.2008

Mr.Naeem Iqbal, Advocate for the petitioner.

1. Granted.

2 & 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that Rent Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court solely on the ground of limitation by holding that Article 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply in rent matters. It is further contended that merits of the application were not gone into by the learned Appellate Court and dismissal of the application on the above stated ground is against the principle laid down by the superior courts. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a case reported in 2007 YLR 367, wherein it has been held that Article 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable in rent matters.

Issue notice to the respondents. In the meantime, the operation of order dated 6.10.2007 passed by the VIth Sr.Civil Judge & Rent Controller, Karachi Central is suspended, till the next date of hearing

To come up on 8.12.2008, according to roster.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.S-527/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA No. 3716/08

2. For katcha pesh.

3. for hg of CMA No. 3717/08

-------

26.11.2008

Mr.Javed Ahmed Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner.

1. Granted.

2 & 3. The petitioner is tenant of Flat No.2, Ist Floor, Noor Manzil, situated on Plot No.WO.31, Najamuddin Street, Nanak Wada, Karachi. His eviction was ordered by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 28.5.2007 and the same was maintained in the appeal vide order dated 23.7.2008 passed by learned VIIth Addl. District Judge Karachi (South).The relevant portion of the order of the Appellate Court is reproduced as under:-

“I have given careful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal thereof it transpires that admittedly the learned Rent Controller has framed the point of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellant though denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in his written statement but he has admitted in his cross examination that the flat in question was let out to him by the respondent on 5.9.1988. Besides the attorney of the respondent has produced tenancy agreement executed between the parties, thus it is apparent on the face of it that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Apart it is admitted fact that the appellant, during the course of his cross examination, has admitted that he has not produced any rent receipt towards the payment of rent and his brother is residing in the flat in question, thus it is apparent that the appellant has committed default in payment of monthly rent to the respondent in respect of flat in question and also sublet the same to his brother Nasir as such I am of the opinion that the learned Rent Controller has rightly allowed the ejectment application of the respondent against the appellant. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant s hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, I find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith the listed application. However, the Executing Court shall not execute the eviction order for four months from today. In case the Petitioner failed to vacate the premises within the stipulated period, the Executing Court shall execute eviction order without notice to the petitioner with police assistance, if required.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

FRA NO.42/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

25.11.2008

Mr. Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate for the appellant.

---

It is contended that the rent order dated 17.4.2008 with regard to the deposit of arrears was not violated by the appellant inasmuch as the rent of May, which was required to be deposited by 5^th May 2008 was offered to be deposited on 3.5.2008 but was not accepted by the office of the Rent Controller on the ground that the order for deposit of rent in terms of order dated 17.4.2008 should be fully complied with. The applicant thus deposited the entire amount including May and past arrears on 17.5.2008. Therefore, he submits that the delay in deposit of rent ought not to have been taken as willful non-compliance and the defence should not have been struck off.

As a short point is involved in the matter, issue notice to the Respondents for 4.12.2008, when this matter would be heard and decided at katcha peshi stage.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.S-453/2007

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For hearing of CMA 2980/07

2. For katch apeshi.

25/11/2008

None for the petitioner.

Respondent No.1 present in person.

This is the second round. None has appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. No intimation is received.

The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned VIIIth Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Karachi(East) has fixed Rs.5000/-per moth as the interim maintenance for the Respondent No.2 being daughter of the Petitioner. The amount so fixed is in consonance with the present inflationary condition. Therefore the impugned order seems to be reasonable and requires no interference of this Court. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed alongwith the listed application.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-1555/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For katch apeshi.

21/11/2008

M/s Hasan Akbar and Khalil Ahmed Siddiqi, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG for respondents 1 to 3

Respondent No.4 in person.

---

Through this Petition, petitioner Shariff Bahjee has complained against Respondents No. 2 and 3 that they are illegally causing harassment to him at the behest of Respondent No.4.

2. The Respondent No.4, who is present in Court, submits that the petitioner has defrauded him and has fraudulently disposed of his seven plots, therefore, he has approached respondents No.2 and 3 for action against the petitioner. He further submits that a suit for recovery of Rs.20 million has also been instituted by the petitioner against him.

3. Mr.Aamir Raza Naqvi, learned DAG for Respondents 1 to 3 submits that the officials of F.I.A. are bound to act strictly in accordance with law and, in case any action is to be taken against the petitioner, no illegal harassment of any nature shall be caused to him.

4. The submission of the learned DAG is fair and satisfies learned counsel for the petitioner, who accordingly seek disposal of this Petition in the terms that no illegal harassment will be caused to the petitioner and he will be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. Order accordingly.

Disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-1204/2007

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For order on Commissioner report dt.7.11.08

2. for hg.of Misc. 704/08

3. for hg.of Misc. 860/08

4. for katcha peshi.

5. for hg of Misc. 4664/07

6. for hg.of Misc. 4665/07

7. for hg.of Misc. 5338/07

8. for hg.of Misc. 4195/07

----

20.11.2008

Mr.Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr.Muhammad Akram Zuberi, Advocate for respondents 3

& 4.

Ms.Samina Durani, Advocate for Ahmed Nawaz.

---

There are several reports of the Nazir of this Court available on record, which show mismanagement of the affairs of the Respondent No.3 Society and difficulties faced by the Society despite efforts made by the Nazir of this Court, who is acting in this case as Commissioner. The report of the Nazir dated 7.11.2008 reveals that certain residents of the Project titled “Al-Habib Arcade” are not extending due cooperation with the Commissioner/Nazir of this Court for the proper maintenance of the Project for which Nazir has been appointed as Commissioner as an interim arrangement.

This being the position, the Nazir of this Court is authorized that , in case any of the residents of the Society fails to pay the required maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month, he is at liberty to take punitive action against him, including the action of disconnection of various amenities and other facilities which are being maintained by him.

To come up on 27.11.2008, on which date the Respondent No.3 will satisfy this Court as regards the query/contention recorded in the order dated 4.6.2007.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D- 528/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

20.11.2008

Mr.Nasir Rizwan Khan, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr.Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, A.G. Sindh

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of this Petition, the case arising out of Crime No. 17/07, P.S. Sachal, Malir, has been challaned before the concerned Court and the petitioners No. 1 and 2 have already been arrested. In such circumstances, he seeks permission for withdrawal of this Petition so as to enable him to approach the trial Court for the purpose of requisite relief in the matter.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-1544/2007

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

19.11.2008

Mr.Irshad Ali Soomro, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr.Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for CDGK.

---

The petitioner has come before this Court through this Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan for agitating his grievance against the Respondents about his illegal suspension and non-completion of inquiry pending against him for over four years.

Today Mr. Manzoor Ahmed has placed on record a statement in writing on behalf of City District Government, which is accompanied with the copy of letter order dated 12.11.2008, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,06,407/- for which he was held responsible during the inquiry proceedings which had culminated on 29.5.2008.

This being the position, the main grievance of the petitioner that inquiry is pending against him for indefinite period while he is at the verge of retirement has become infructuous. The other reliefs claimed in the petition are consequential reliefs.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine. It will be, however, open to the petitioner to agitate his further grievance, if any, before the proper forum.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

C.P.No.D-2095/2007

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For katcha peshi.

2. For hearing of Misc.7733/07

18.11.2008

Mr.Salim Salaam Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.Jam Asif Mehmood, Advocate for Respondent alongwith Mr. Muhammad Sultan, AVP, Attorney of Respondent.

---

After arguing this Petition at some length, both the learned counsel agree for disposal of this Petition in the following terms:-

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the operation of the impugned order dated 26.9.2007 will remain suspended for a further period of three moths from today, during which the learned Banking Judge of this Court will expedite and ensure the disposal of two Suits No.B-15 of 2006 and B-19 of 2006 pending between the parties. In case, during this period, adjournment is sought by the Respondent that period will be added towards the period of three months during which order dated 26.9.2007 would remain suspended. It is clarified that on expiry of the aforesaid period, mutually agreed between the parties, if the two suits are not disposed of, the order dated 26.9.2007 shall become operative. Order accordingly.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sharif

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Cr.Bail No.477/08

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

17.11.2008

Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G. for the State.

---

Notice of this Cr.Bail Application be repeated to the applicant and his counsel for 1.12.2008. In the meantime, the trial Court may proceed with the bail application of other co-accused keeping in view the correct quantity of charas i.e. 160 KGs as mentioned in the FIR.

CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appn. No.

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For katcha peshi.

2. For order on MA.5539/07

---

17.11.2008

Mr.Mumtaz Ali Deshmukh, Advocate holding brief for Mr.Raja Qureshi, Advocate for applicant requests for adjournment. Such request is opposed by the complainant in crime No. 104/99, present in Court.

It seems that on filing of this transfer application, the proceedings in the Sessions Case arising out of the above FIR were stayed vide order dated 12.12.2007,which stood vacated vide order dated 6.10.2008. In any case, hearing of this transfer application is adjourned to 1.12.2008 with direction to the applicant that in case his counsel,Mr. Raja Qureshi, is unable to appear before the Court on the next date, he may engage some other advocate so that the matter may be proceeded on the said date and no further adjournment will be allowed in this case.

CHIEF JSUTICE

Sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appn. No.50/2008

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For order on MA No. 4572/08

2. For order on MA No.4484/08

3. For katcha peshi.

---

17.11.2008

Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan Abbasi, Advocate alongwith the Applicant.

Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G.

---

1. Granted.

2. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exceptions.

3. Notice of this Criminal Transfer Application is waived by learned Addl.A.G.

The only ground for seeking transfer of Session Case No. 592/07 arising out of Crime No. 332/2007, P.S. Gulistan-e-Jauhar, from the Court of IIIrd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East, is that the said Court is lying vacant and the complainant and the accused party have arrived at a compromise which is to be submitted before the trial Court.

I have verified from the office that the Court of IIIrd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East is lying vacant. In such circumstances, learned Addl.A.G. has no objection for the transfer of the said sessions case to any other Court of District East. Accordingly, Sessions Case No. 597/07 is transferred from the Court of IIIrd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East for disposal according to law.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH , KARACHI

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. For order on office objection and reply.

2. For order on MA No. 4554/08

3. For order on Ma No. 4555/08

4. For katcha peshi.

---

11.11.2008

Syed Muhammad Akbar, Advocate alongwith the Applicant.

----

1. Deferred.

2. Granted.

3. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exceptions.

4. Through this bail application under Section 498 Cr.P.C. applicant Syed Anis Haider has approached this Court for grant of protective interim pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 127/2008, P.S. Malir Cantt, wherein he has been charged with the allegations of commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 465 and 471 PPC.

The learned counsel submits that in the wake of previous litigation in respect of certain plots of Sadat-e-Amroha Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi, false FIR has been registered against the applicant, therefore, the applicant apprehends that he may be arrested, humiliated and harassed. The learned counsel , therefore, submits that the applicant may be admitted to protective interim pre-arrest bail for a short period so that he may appear before the trial Court in District Malir for seeking further redress in the matter.

In view of the above and without touching the merits of the case, the applicant is admitted to protective interim pre-arrest bail for a period of seven days on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with P.R bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. This concession shall cease to have force when the applicant surrenders before the trial Court or when the period expires, whichever is earlier. In case the applicant fails to surrender before the trial Court within the stipulated period, the surety furnished by him shall stand forfeited.

CHIEF JUSTICE

27.10.2008

Mr.Neel Keshav, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Abdul Majeed, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

---

Through the listed application, the appellant has sought review of the order dated 16.11.2006, whereby this appeal was dismissed with certain observations recorded therein. Today learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement that he will not press the application if the word “dismissal” may be substituted with the word “ disposed of” to avoid the impression that the appellant has not been allowed any relief in this appeal.

After carefully perusing the order, we find that there is no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, as at the time of dismissal of this appeal the observations contained in the concluding paragraphs A, B and C were made binding between the parties. This being the position, the word “ dismissed” or “disposed of” will not make any substantial difference in the fate of the appeal.

Disposed of accordingly.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.D-1122/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

For katcha peshi.

13.11.2008

Mr.Ansari Abdul Lateef, Advocate for the petitions.

Mr.Kamaluddin, Advocate for Respondents.

Learned counsel for the Respondents has placed on record copy of the decision of the Syndicate taken in its meeting, which is reproduced as under:-

“RESOLUTIN NO.SYN-16.13(3)

Resolved that subject to withdrawal of C.P. No.D-1122 of 2008 filed in the learned High Court of Sindh, the University Corrigendum letter No. LUMHS/REG/4862/68 dated 12..2.2008 concerning to withholding benefit of upgradation from BPS-20to BPS-21 till acquiring postgraduate qualification in respect of the following two teachers be withdrawn.

1. Prof. Dr.Dilshad Memon

2. Prof. Dr.Sajjad Akhund”

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is unfair on the part of the Respondents that they are asking the Petitioner for withdrawal of this Petition first for giving benefits of withdrawal of letter dated 12.2.2008. In our opinion such arguments are of mere academic importance. Once the Syndicate of Respondent No.1 has passed Resolution giving appropriate relief to the petitioners by withdrawal of letter No. LUMHS/REG/4862/68 dated 12..2.2008, we think that it remains no justification for the Petitioners for pursuing this Petition. We accordingly dispose of this Petition with the observations that on disposal of this Petition, the Resolution reproduced above shall be applicable with all force.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

IST. APPEAL NO. 53/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For katcha peshi.

2. FOR HEARING OF CMA 1584/08

3. FOR HARING OF CMA 1585/08

13.11.2008

Mr.Naeem Ahmed Tanoli, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Rukhsana Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent.

Vide order dated 23.10.2008, pre-admission notice of this appeal was issued to the Respondent on the basis of arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant on moving application for leave to defend, as contemplated under section 10(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which was accompanied by another application for condonation of delay, but the Banking Court without deciding these applications had passed the impugned judgment and decree which were unwarranted by law.

Today learned counsel for the Respondent has filed Vakalatnama and also diary sheets of Suit No. 754/08 for the period from 1.7.2008 to 20.9.2008. Referring to these Court diaries learned counsel for the Respondent has candidly conceded to this position and agreed that the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside with direction to the Banking Court to first decide two pending applications of the appellant and thereafter to proceed further in accordance with law.

This being the position, by consent, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and case is remanded to the concerned Banking Court for further proceeding in accordance with law.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO,D-1365/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

For katcha peshi.

11.11.2008

Petitioner Ali Akbar present in Court submits that on 24.6.2008 his brother, the alleged detenue Ghulam Rasool son of Abdul Majeed, was abducted by the Law Enforcing Agencies as detailed in the Petition and since then his whereabouts are not known. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, A.G. Sindh and Mr. Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG have stated that respective parawise comments on behalf of official respondents have been filed and that according to their version the alleged detenue has escaped from the place of incident on the said date and thereafter his whereabouts are not known.

In the above circumstances, we adjourn hearing of this petition to a date in office with direction to the learned counsel for the Province of Sindh and the Federation to take further steps about the whereabouts of the alleged detenue. Simultaneously the Petitioner is also directed to find out the whereabouts of the alleged detenue so that further steps may be taken in accordance with law.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.1726/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For katcha peshi.

2. For hearing of Misc. 8208/08

11.11.2008

Mr.Naeem Iqbal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, A.G.

Mr. Azizur Rehman Akhund, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondents 9 to 16.

----

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the Petitioners appeared before the Sukkur Bench they were surrounded by private respondents and their lives were under threat and for this reason FIR has been registered at Karachi Police Station instead of Sukkur. He requests for time to place all such relevant documents showing the conduct of private Respondents against the Petitioners.

Adjourned to 19.11.2008. Interim order passed earlier shall remain operative in the meantime

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE.

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.S-505/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

6.11.2008

Mr.Shaheryar Qazi, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG alongwith S.A.Mehboob, Addl.SHO

P.S.Jackson.

Learned AAG has submitted comments on behalf of Respondent No.2. He further submits that the petitioner will not be dispossessed from the rented premises by the official respondents and that if their ejectment takes place, the same will be strictly in due course of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the above statement and for the time being does not press the Petition, which is accordingly disposed of as such.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.S-501/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

6.11.2008

Mr.Mujahid Iqbal Choudhry, Advocate alongwith the petitioner.

Aslam Pervez ,Respondent No.1 alongwith his counsel Mr. Amanullah Balcoh.

-----

Respondent No.1 has produced the minor, Owais Khan , in Court. He submits that since the minor is less then two years of age, therefore, he has no objection if his custody is given to the Petitioner, who is his real mother. However, the delivery of custody shall be subject to the condition that each week he shall be permitted to meet the minor at the residence of the Petitioner or at any other suitable place mutually agreed between them and during that period he may be allowed to take the minor with him for 2 to 3 hours.

The statement on behalf of Respondent No.1 seems to be reasonable. Accordingly, by consent, this petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

i) Subject to the legal right of Respondent No.1 about the custody of minor Owais Khan, his custody is delivered today in Court to Petitioner .

ii) The petitioner will allow regular meeting of Respondent No.1 with the minor on weekly basis during which Respondent No.1 will also be entitled to take the minor with him upto 3 hours .

iii) For safe return of the minor, after such meeting, respondent NO.1 will execute a personal bond with the Nazir of this Court and in case he failed to surrender the custody of the minor to the Petitioner in terms of the above arrangements, he will be liable to pay penalty of Rs. 100,000/-.

iv) In case the petitioner refuses to allow meeting of Respondent No.1 with the minor in terms of this order, she will be deemed guilty of contempt of Court and will be liable to be prosecuted as such, and such conduct may also result in the removal of custody of the minor from her.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No. S-506/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

6.11.2008

Petitioner Mst. Muqan present in person .

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG.

The grievance of the Petitioner seems to be that her sister Mst. Bai is in wrongful confinement at the hands of her husband Hashim at Village Rajari, Taluka Kunri, District Umerkot and she has fear of life at the hands of husband of her sister.

In order to redress grievance of the Petitioner, it is hereby ordered that the D.P.O. concerned shall raid the place of detention of Mst. Bai at the pointation of the Petitioner and if any further help is needed, the District & Sessions Judge, Umerkot may depute some one to supervise such raid for the recovery of the alleged abductee Mst. Bai. On recovery of Mst. Bai, her statement may be got recorded through some judicial officer at Umerkot and such report be submitted before this Court for perusal.

Office is directed to supply a copy of this petition to learned A.A.G. Office is further directed to send a copy of this order through Fax to the District & Sessions Jude, Umerkot for onward transmission to D.P.O. Umerkot. To come up on 19.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

CR. BAIL APPN. NO. 1045/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

6.11.2008

Mr.M.A.Kazi, Advocate alongwith the applicant.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, A.A.G.

---

Through this bail application the applicant has approached this Court for grant of interim pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 622/2008, P.S.Preedy, Karachi which relates to the commission of offence punishable under sections 353/186/279/337-G/34 PPC.

After advancing arguments at some length, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will be satisfied with the disposal of this pre-arrest bail application in the terms that the applicant may be allowed protected pre-arrest bail for some short period so that he may approach the trial Court for further relief in the matter. Mr. Adnan A.Karim, learned AAG on behalf of the State candidly concedes to this position.

In view of the above, without touching the merits of the case the applicant is granted protected pre-arrest bail for seven days on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. This concession shall cease to have force on expiry of the aforesaid period or when the applicant surrenders before the trial Court whichever is earlier. In case after availing the benefit of this order the applicant failed to appear before the trial Court, the surety furnished by him shall stand forfeited.

CHIEF JUSTICE

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

CR. BAIL APPN. NO. 1044/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

6.11.2008

Mr.M.A.Kazi, Advocate alongwith the applicant.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, A.A.G.

---

Through this bail application the applicant has approached this Court for grant of interim pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 28/2008, P.S. ACE, Karachi which relates to the commission of offence punishable under sections 161/420/468/471/477A/34 PPC r/w Section 5(2) Act II of 1947.

CHIEF JUSTICE

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. NO.1543/2007

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

for katcha peshi.

6.11.2008

Mr.Irshad Ali Soomro, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for CDGK.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG for respondent No.1.

---

The Petitioner, who is an employee of CDGK, has preferred this Constitutional Petition with the following prayers:-

a) To direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to complete the inquiry which is pending since last four years immediately.

b) To direct the Respondent No.6 to pay the annual increments with all consequential benefits due to petitioner after 2003 onwards and leave encashment for the years 2002 and 2003 which is his legal right.

c) Pass any other order/relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit /proper as the circumstances may warrant remedying grievance of the petitioner.

d) Award /Grant cost of the petition to the Petitioner.”

The background of this litigation is that, according to the petitioner, due to political victimization, malafide and ulterior motive four years back he alongwith three other employees was suspended by Respondent No.6 under the directions of Respondent No.5. His suspension period for the first time was extended by 90 days from 22.11.2003 to 19.2.2004 and thereafter this suspension period was further extended for 19 months upto 20.2.2004. During all this period, inquiry, which formed basis of his suspension, could not be finalized which necessitated him to approach this Court with the above reproduced prayers.

During the pendency of this Petition, inquiry has been conducted and the Petitioner has been exonerated of all the allegations leveled against him as per minutes of the meeting held on 28.8.2008. Learned counsel for CDGK has conceded to this position. He also did not dispute that in view of the fact that the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges leveled against him, he is entitled for annual increments and other consequential benefits due to the Petitioner from 22.11.2003 onwards.

This being the position, Petition is allowed and disposed of in the terms that the Petitioner, who has been exonerated from the charges leveled against him, shall be paid all increments as well as consequential benefits as per his entitlement.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.2243/2006

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For order on Misc. No. 8670/06

2. for katcha peshi.

5.11.2008

Mr. Tahir Hasan Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG for the Respondents.

Learned D.A.G. submits that after confirmation of the fact that the alleged detenu has been arrested in Saudi Arabia in connection with some security related case, the Embassy of Pakistan in Saudi Arabia is making possible efforts to ascertain the nature of offence in which he has been detained so as to provide legal assistance, if required, in the matter.

On 18.9.2008 an order was passed by this Court directing learned counsel for the Petitioner to provide necessary details of the detenu, which have been provided. In such circumstances, Aamir Raza Naqvi requests for further time so that up-to-date information may be given about the alleged detenu, Fawad Muqeet Khan, after ascertaining such facts from the Embassy of Pakistan in Saudi Arabia or any official of Saudi Government.

To come up on 19.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.2174/2007

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

5.11.2008

None for the petitioner.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG for respondent No.1.

Mr.Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG for Respondents 2 to 6 alongwith

Lt. Col. Asif Ali, Assistant Judge Advocate General.

Mr.Ashraf Hussain, Deputy Superintendent of Rangers.

Learned D.A.G submits that whereabouts of the alleged detenu Muhammad Nadir son of Muhammad Rafique Iqbal are not known to the Law Enforcing Agencies in Pakistan including the Armed Forces. He concedes, however, that it is the obligation of Government of Pakistan to ascertain the whereabouts of each and every citizen of this country and ensure his liberty.

In such circumstances, we adjourn this matter to 19.11.2008 with further direction to the State Counsel to make efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the alleged detenu.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

IST APPEAL NO.31/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

5.11.2008

Ms. Azeema Naseer, Advocate for the appellant submits that the Respondents are well aware about the pendency of this appeal but they are deliberately avoiding service of notice of this appeal so as to delay the proceedings.

Report of the bailiff is available on the record, which reflects that office of the Respondents was found closed. TCS receipt also available on the record shows that the Respondents have been delivered notice through courier service , however, none of them is present.

Learned counsel for the appellant in order to avoid further delay in the proceedings of this appeal requests that the Respondents may be ordered to be served through publication. Submission made by the learned counsel seems to be reasonable. Accordingly such request is granted. Let notice of this appeal be published in a daily newspaper published from Karachi as well as notice be issued to the Respondents through ordinary mode and courier service. In case the bailiff is unable to serve the Respondents in usual manner, copy of notice be pasted at their given address as per Rules and compliance be reported.

To come up on 3.12.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.1118/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

4.11.2008

Mr.Maqboolur Rehman, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, A.G. Sindh.

Mr.Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG.

Lt. Col. Asif Ali, Assistant Judge Advocate General.

Mr.Ashraf Hussain, Deputy Superintendent of Rangers.

Inspector Muhammad Akram present.

Learned D.A.G. submits that he is making correspondence with all the Govt. agencies to enable him to unearth the whereabouts of the alleged dentenu/missing persons. He further submits that he is hopeful that some progress will be made in the matter and requests that this Petition may be fixed alongwith C.P. No. D-2174/06 and other connected petitions of missing persons on one date so that some officer may be called in Court for assistance. To come up on 19.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.1442/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

FOR KATCHA PESHI.

4.11.2008

Mr.R.K. Kohistani, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, A.G. Sindh.

Mr.Aamir Raza Naqvi, DAG.

Lt. Col. Asif Ali, Assistant Judge Advocate General.

Mr.Ashraf Hussain, Deputy Superintendent of Rangers.

Inspector Muhammad Akram present.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.S.NO.42/2002

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

FOR HEARIG OF REVIEW APPLICATION.

3.11.2008

Mr. Irfanullah G. Ali, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr.Muhammad Bux Awan, Advocate for the Province of Sindh.

Mr.K.A.Wahab, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

---

By this review application moved by the Petitioner on 14.5.2008, he has sought review of the order dated 21.4.2008, whereby his two applications, CMA 1513/07 and CMA 2778/06, were dismissed.

The grievance of the petitioner against this order seems to be that it is a slipshod order which does not contain the relevant facts or contentions of the learned counsel, therefore, it should be reviewed on account of such deficiencies. To fortify these contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases:-

1. Maulana Abdul Qudus Bihari through his legal heirs vs. Member Land Utilization, Board of Revenue and others (1997 CLC 1332).

2. Commissioner Income Tax vs. Gul Cooking Oil and Vegetable Ghee (Pvt) Ltd. and others (2008 PTCV 169.

3. Mst. Nigar Bibi and others vs. Salahuddin and others (PLD 1990 S.C 76).

4. Kundal Khan vs. Agha Jan (PLD 1990 Peshawar 21).

Learned Counsel Mr. muhamamd Bux Awan in his reply submissions contends that the controversy raised through the review application is much beyond the limited scope of review and the grant of such application will, therefore, open a pendoras box. Once the order has attained finality on merits, its review will not be maintainable.

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5, in his reply submissions made reference to the order dated 4.9.2002 passed in Suit No. 875/02 instituted by the Petitioner, to show that the said suit was disposed of by way of compromise in the terms that the Petitioner will be collecting the blood of those animals from the slaughter houses for which he is Attorney of owners, while the rest of the blood is to be collected by the Meat Merchants Welfare Association.

I have perused the case record and seen that in the present Petition the petitioner had mainly agitated his grievance against the official respondents for causing harassment to him and eventually this petition, vide order dated 8.2.2002, was disposed of in the following terms:-

“In the circumstances, the Respondents No. 2 to 4 are directed not to create any kind of harassment, pressure or misuse or excess of power being police officers without any due course of law.”

After passing of abovesaid order, Ist contempt application (CMA 401/02) was moved by the petitioner on 20.2.2002, which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 2.9.2002. It seems that thereafter some other contempt applications were filed by the petitioner and the last contempt application was dismissed by order dated 21.4.2008, which was passed in presence of the Petitioner.

In order to examine the grievance of the petitioner agitated in the review application, I have examined the whole material available before me and seen that in the present Constitutional Petition no order was passed against the Respondent No.5, who is now alleged to be the main contemnor in CMA No. 1512/07. Learned Single Judge, though has not assigned detailed reasons for dismissing the two applications of the Petitioner vide order dated 21.4.2008 but in substance he has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case. In case learned counsel for the petitioner was not present in the Court at the relevant time, the petitioner himself was present in Court to agitate his grievance. Moreover, the Petitioner seems to be in the habit of moving applications from time to time directly to this Court as well as other government functionaries. There can be no cavil to the proposition of law propounded in the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case same have no relevancy. To capsulite, no case for review of order dated 21.4.2008 is made out.

The upshot of the above discussion is that this review application is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed .

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

S.M.A. NO.211/96

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. FOR ORDER ON CMA 922/08

2. FOR ORDER ON CMA 923/08

3.11.2008

Mr.K.A.Wahab, Advocate for the Petitioner.

1. Granted.

2. Through this application under Section 151 CPC Petitioner Mst. Nasreen Shaikh, who is real mother of the minors, has sought permission of the Court to negotiate for the sale of immovable property(s) left by her deceased husband Muhammad Abdullah. According to her, the funds so generated will be more usefully utilized for other purposes. The application is accompanied with the affidavits of two other legal heirs of the deceased extending their no objection for the grant of this application .

In view of the above, in the first instance, the petitioner is accorded the permission to negotiate for the sale of immovable property(s) of the deceased. In case there is some tangible offer, the same shall be placed before the Court for approval.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Suo Moto Revision NO.51/06

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

3.11.2008

This Cr.Suo Moto Revision emanates from the inspection report of Mr.Justice Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqi, as he then was, wherein he has disclosed about the illegality committed by the Court of IIIrd Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), while in dealing with Private Complaint No. 312/2001.

It seems that due to inadvertence the Presiding Judge of the Court had ordered for forfeiture of the surety bond though no surety was furnished by the concerned accused. Today accused ASI Malik Irshad is present in Court. He has produced some documents to justify his absence before the trial Court. Such documents do not support the negligence on his part. However, with a warning to said ASI Malik Irshad to be careful in future, the suo moto proceedings are disposed of with direction to the trial Court to expedite the proceedings of Private complaint No. 312/2001. The R&Ps be sent to the concerned Court immediately, while accused ASI Malik Irshad shall appear before the trial Court on 1.12.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Civil Trans. Appn. NO. 57/07

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

3.11.2008

Mr.Zafaq Iqbal, Advocate for Mr.Muhammad Yasin Azad, Advocate for the applicant.

---

Notices of this transfer application issued to the Respondents have returned unserved with the endorsement of the bailiff that he could not locate their addresses.

It seems that the Respondents are Plaintiffs in Suit No. 187/06, which is pending in the Court of Ist Sr.Civil Judge, Malir. In the plaint of that suit their address is mentioned, which is as under:-

“House No. 310, 310-A, Sector-2,

Near Mir Aslam Khan Karyana Store,

Old Muzafarabad Colony,

Landhi, Karachi.”

Let notices of this Tr. Application be issued to the Respondents on the above address.

To come up on 24.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

TR. APPN. NO. 25/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For order on CMA 3476/08

2. For katcha peshi.

3.11.2008

Mr.Shafiq Qureshi, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Faisal Ghani, Advocate for Intervenor.

Mr.Muhammad Latif Saghar, Advocate for

Respondent No.2.

Ali Ahmed Panhwar, representative of Respondent No.1

Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has filed counter affidavit. However, learned counsel for the applicant seeks withdrawal of this Tr. Application with direction to the concerned Court to expedite the disposal of the pending case. Such request seems to be reasonable. Accordingly, this Tr. Application is dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the concerned Labour Court to expedite the proceedings of the pending case.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

IST. APPEAL NO. 25/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For order on CMA 761/08

2. FOR ORDER ON CMA 762/08

3. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

4. FOR ORDER ON CMA 763/08

31.10.2008

Mr.Khaleeq Ahmed, Advocate for the appellant.

This appeal is admittedly time barred by more than five months. Thus an Application under section 5 of the limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in the filing of appeal, is accompanied with it.

Perusal of the case record reveals that the impugned judgment and decree were passed by the Banking Court- No.II Karachi, on 12.11.2007 and 14.11.2007 respectively, certified true copies whereof were obtained by the appellant on 16.11.2007, while this appeal has been preferred on 6.5.2008.

The plea of the appellant for seeking condonation of such delay is that from the date he had obtained certified true copies of the judgment and decree till the filing of appeal he was suffering from various diseases and, therefore, he could not file appeal in time.

In order to examine the merits of such plea, we have perused the medical certificate placed on record by the appellant without commenting upon its genuineness or otherwise of these documents and see that the appellant was ailing from 25.4.2007 to 25.5.2007, 3.7.2007 to 4.8.2007, 8.10.2007 to 25.10.2007, 12.12.2007 to 10.1.2008, 25.2.2008 to 22.3.2008 and 16.4.2008 to 24.4.2008 and from 11.1.2008 till 24.2.2008 the appellant was not suffering from any ailment. Again after 24.4.2008, he did not remain under treatment for a single day. In such circumstances, for the settled legal principle that delay of each and every day is to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court, we find that no case for condonation of such inordinate delay in the filing of appeal is made out. Accordingly, CMA No. 761/08 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and other pending applications are also dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-2105/06

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

For order on Misc. 9831/08
for hearing of Misc. 8538/07

---

30.10.2008

Mr.Naveed Ali Khokhar, Advocate alongwith the Petitioner.

Mr.Masood A. Khan, Advocate for the Respondents.

---

1. Granted.

2. Through this application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, Petitioner has sought restoration of this Petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.9.2007. The application is accompanied with the personal affidavit of Mr.Ghulam Shabbir Baloch, the then Advocate for the Petitioner, wherein he has stated that he was not aware about the fixation of the Petition on the said date. About the absence of Petitioner, it has been disclosed that he had gone to his native place, therefore, he was not informed.

We feel that such pleas taken by the petitioner and his counsel, Mr.Ghulam Shabbir Baloch, are not tenable for the reason that the case had appeared in the daily cause list of the High Court, therefore, it was the professional obligation of Mr.Ghulam Shabbir Baloch, Advocate, that he should have noted the hearing of this case for 20.9.2007. Further it was for the petitioner to have been vigilant in pursuing his case as held in the case of Zulfiqar Ali vs. Lal Din and others (1974 SCMR 162), which lays down the principle that mere engagement of a counsel by a party will not absolve him of his personal responsibility to pursue the matter vigilantly. Besides, this application is also time barred and no application has been moved for seeking condonation of such delay. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents such pleas have been taken which are duly supported with the case record. Accordingly, we find no merits in the application, which is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. NO.D-1819/07

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

For order on MISC. 7433/07
FOR KATCHA PESHI.

---

30.10.2008

Mr.Shabbir Ahmed Awan, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG.

Admittedly, the reliefs claimed in this Petition revolve around the factual controversy that whether during the relevant period the Petitioner was gainfully engaged or not. In such circumstances, we are of the first impression that the remedy before the Civil Court would have been more appropriate. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the Petitioner requests for time to satisfy that the appropriate remedy available to the Petitioner is one which he has availed by way of filing of this Petition and not before any other forum.

Adjourned to 18.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Bail Appn. No.1246/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

For order on MA 4387/08
for order on office objection.
for hearing.

---

29.10.2008

Mr.S.Ali Kausar Shah, Advocate alongwith the applicant.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG. for the State.

---

1. Granted.

2&3. Through this bail application under Section 498 Cr.P.C. applicant Tariq Mehmood, seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 109/2000, under Section 302/34 PPC, P.S. Jackson, Karachi.

As per contents of the FIR, murder of one person named Abdul Ghaffor son of Yaqoob was committed in between the night of 28/29^th August, 2000, within the territorial limits of P.S. Jackson for which such FIR was registered against unknown persons. After investigation of the crime, challan was submitted against several persons, including the present applicant and such case was proceeded as S.C. No.380/2000. In the police challan applicant was also charged with the allegation of commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 PPC.

A copy of judgment in S.C. No.380/2000 is available in the Court file which shows that proceedings under Section 87/88 Cr.P.C. for declaring the present applicant as absconder were taken, whereafter he was declared absconder and attachment of his movable and immovable properties was ordered by the trial Court. The other accused in the crime, who are stated to be brothers of present applicant, were proceeded and were eventually acquitted by the judgment of learned District & Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) dated 11.9.2002. In the prosecution evidence recorded in the Sessions Case, applicant was, however, clearly implicated as one of the accused involved in the crime.

Admittedly, present applicant has remained absconder from the trial Court for a long period, while his brothers were proceeded in the same crime. The assertion of the applicant that he had no knowledge about the proceedings in the Sessions Case is not believable. Considering the fact that the applicant is declared absconder in the crime, I am not inclined to entertain his request for grant of pre-arrest bail, which is accordingly declined and this Bail Application is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

HCA NO.150/2008

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

For KATCHA PESHI.
FR HG.OF CMA 859/08

---

29.10.2008

Mr.Muhstaq A. Memon, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Nasir Hussain Jaferi, Advocate for Respondents No.1,2,4

& 5.

---

Through this Appeal the appellants have impugned the order dated 12.5.2008, whereby two CMAs 771/08 and 1258/08, moved by the appellants were dismissed by the learned Single Judge for the sole reason that the remedy of appeal was available against the order for which such applications were filed for its recall/setting aside.

At the outset, learned counsel for the Appellants has contended that the two applications could not have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on that account without adverting to the contents of such applications and deciding the same on merits, as availability of remedy of appeal is no bar for filing of application for recalling of such order which has its own scope.

Learned counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2,4 and 5 did not dispute this position.

In view of the above with the consent of two learned counsel, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the learned Single Judge for disposal of above referred two applications afresh in accordance with law.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

HCA NO.227/2006

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For hearing of CMA 1994/06

---

27.10.2008

Mr.Neel Keshav, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Abdul Majeed, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

---

Through the listed application, the appellant has sought review of the order dated 16.11.2006, whereby this appeal was dismissed with certain observations recorded therein. Today learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement that he will not press the application if the word “dismissal” may be substituted with the word “disposed of” to avoid the impression that the appellant has not been allowed any relief in this appeal.

Disposed of accordingly.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Bail Appln.1114/07

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

27.10.2008

M/s Shaukat H.Zubedi and Irfan Ahmed Memon, Advocates alongwith the applicants.

Mr.Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi, Spl. Prosecutor, ANF.

---

By this pre-arrest bail application under Section 498 Cr.P.C., applicants Abdul Majeed and Ashfaq Hussain have approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 5/2007, P.S. ANF, Hyderabad, which relates to the commission of the office under Section 9(c) and 15 CNS Act, 1997.

As per contents of the FIR, upon spy information, two ladies Rubina and Reshma, resident of Gambat, District Khairpur, standing on Badin Stop, were apprehended and from their possession 8 Kgs. of charas each totaling 16 K.gs. was recovered. On the spot samples of 10 grams each were taken from each pack of charas. The said apprehended ladies during the interrogation disclosed that the said narcotics belonged to the present applicants and thus they were also nominated in the crime. After the investigation, challan was submitted before the trial Court on 16.11.2007, wherein the present applicants have been shown as absconders.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants could not approach the trial Court for the reason that NBWs were issued against them and in such circumstances, they have directly approached this Court and were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail on 12.12.2007. Learned counsel further submits that after lapse of eleven months it will be unjust to recall the interim pre-arrest bail leaving the applicants at the mercy of the trial Court where NBWs have already been issued against them. He, therefore, contends that in the given facts and circumstances when there is no other evidence against the applicants except disclosure of their names by the co-accused in the crime, it is a fit case where interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to them can be confirmed.

Learned Special Prosecutor , ANF, submits that in the challan present applicants have been shown as absconders, therefore, NBWs were issued against them by the trial Court where the case is now proceeding and in such circumstances the applicants are fugitive from law and are not entitled for the concession of pre-arrest bail.

In the light of submissions made before me by the learned counsel I have perused the case record.

Indeed, the rule of propriety demands that the accused/applicants should have, in the first instance, approached the trial Court, but in the present case it will be unjust to apply the rule strictly when the applicants are admitted to interim pre-arrest bail since 12.12.2007. Admittedly, the applicants were neither present on the spot nor any recovery was made from them, but their names were disclosed in the FIR on the disclosure of two other lady accused In such circumstances, the question of their malafide involvement in the crime cannot be ruled out. This being the position, interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the applicants on 12.12.2007 is confirmed in the same terms.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif
0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.196/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

23.10.2008

Mr. Sathi M. Ishaque, Advocate alongwith the petitioners.

Mr.Adnan A. Karim, AAG alongwith Arif Hussain, I.O of the crime.

---

The I.O present in Court submits that the challan of Crime No.661/07, P.S Taimoria, Karachi, could not be submitted as investigation is not yet complete for want of statement of Petitioner No.1. The I.O. is directed to record the statement of Petitioner No.1 today as she is present in Court and thereafter proceed with the investigation within a week and submit report before the concerned Court.

Adjourned to 12.11.2008. Interim order passed earlier shall remain operative till then.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh
0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Ist. Appeal No. 53/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For order on CMA 1582/08

2. for order on CMA 1583/08

3. for katcha peshi.

4. for order on CMA 1584/08

5. for order on CMA 1585/08

----

23.10.2008

Mr.Nadeem Akhtar Tanoli, Advocate for the appellant

---

1. Granted.

2. Granted but subject to all just exceptions.

3. The learned counsel submits that before passing of the impugned judgment and decree by the Banking Court, the appellant had moved an application for leave to defend as contemplated under Section 10(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which was accompanied by another application for condonation of delay. The Banking Court had ordered notice on these applications to the Respondent/Bank, but instead of deciding the said applications, impugned judgment and decree was passed.

The main grievance of the appellant seems to be that without disposal of his pending applications, Banking Court was not competent to pass judgment and decree in the suit.

Issue pre-admission notice to the respondent.

4 & 5. Notices as above.

To come up on 30.10.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-1228/05

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

6. For katcha peshi.

7. for hearing of Misc. 4654/2006.

----

22.10.2008

Mr.M.A.Samdani, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Muhammad Yousuf Leghari, Advocate General Sindh.

----

Through this Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Petitioner Niaz Akhtar has impugned the order dated 30^th July, 2005, passed by Respondent No.1 (Provincial Ombudsman Sindh).

The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that since such order is coram non-judice, therefore, instead of availing the remedy provided under Section 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for Province of Sindh, Act, 1991, he has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Dr.Liaquat Ali Khan vs. District Returning Officer, District Sargodha (2002 SCMR 1632), which lays down the rule that if wrong is done by a public functionary to a person which cannot be undone through ordinary remedy, extra ordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution Petition could be invoked.

In the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, we have perused the impugned order, operative part whereof reads thus-

“7. In addition, the complainant had, after the admitted acceptance of his resignation dated 21.03.1982, with immediate effect, as per undisputed record, drawn/received Rs.2,314/- under the cheque No. 731787 dated 27.5.1982, towards his then service dues in the form of gratuity, for the period of his service just prior to the acceptance of his said resignation. As such, he cannot legally be allowed financial benefits again for the same period at the time of obtaining his dues under Golden Hand Shake Scheme.

8. On ignoring the aforesaid unauthorized/illegal order dated 28.3.1982, the break in the complainant’s service obviously becomes of eight days and not of one day. The break in the complainant’s service was allowed by the Transport Minister only for one day 29.3.1982. Therefore, the break of the remaining seven days in the complainant’s service still remains uncondoned by the competent authority, with the result that complainant’s service with effect from 14.5.1973,the date of his 1^st entry, to 20.3.1997, the date of disinvestment/closure of KTC, cannot legally be deemed to be continuous. As such, he was not entitled for the benefits of continuous services claimed by him.”

Admittedly, the petitioner himself had approached the Provincial Ombudsman for seeking relief through his complaint against the Transport Department, Govt. of Sindh, which has not been impleaded as party before us.

There is no denial of the fact that ordinary remedy against the order of the Ombudsman was available to the Petitioner under Section 32 of the Act, 1991, which was not availed for no cogent or valid reason. Besides, the question of jurisdiction of Provincial Ombudsman cannot be agitated by the Petitioner as he himself had approached him for the relief which, of course, was declined with the above observations contained in the impugned order. This being the position, the petition is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed application.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-49/2006

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

1. For katcha peshi.

2. for hearing of Misc. 209/06.

----

22.10.2008

Mr.Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashraf Mughal, DAG.

---

In this Petition the grievance of the Petitioner is two fold. On one hand he has urged that his non-selection for the post advertised by the Federal Investigation Agency as per the advertisement available at page 129, is due to colorful and malafide exercise of jurisdiction by the Selection Board, on the other hand, the selection of Respondents No.6 to 11 is illegal as many of them did not meet the minimum qualification and experience as required under such advertisement and the rules.

It seems that notice of this Petition has been served on the Respondents but only Respondents No. 1 to 5 have submitted their comments, which are also vague and evasive, while the private respondents have not come forward to explain their position. In these circumstances, we call upon the Respondents No. 1 to 5 to place the whole record of the selection process before this Court for necessary scrutiny.

To come up on 26.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Bail Appn. No. 665/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________for hearing.

----

20.10.2008

Mian Ashfaq Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant alongwith the applicant in person.

Mr.Miran Muhammad Shah, Addl. A.G.

In this pre-arrest bail application, applicant was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail vide order of this Court dated 9.6.2008. The allegation against him seems to be that he, in his capacity as General Secretary of Alamgir Society, Model Colony Karachi, alongwith Chairman of the Society Ch. Bashir Ahmed, had sold out plot bearing No. 41, Block-B, Alamgir Society, Model Colony, Karachi, belonging to the complainant, in the year 2002. The learned trial Court, while declining bail application of the applicant had observed that since the complainant is victim of cheating and forgery, thereby depriving him of ownership of plot, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Addl.A.G for the State. According to learned counsel for the applicant, applicant, after completion of his term of the office as General Secretary of the Society, stood relieved in December, 1986, and, therefore, he had no concern whatsoever with any transaction of fraud or manipulation in the record of the Society, but has been malfidely implicated in the present crime.

Learned Addl. A.G., after perusal of the police papers, has candidly stated that no doubt the complainant is a victim of fraud and cheating in respect of his plot in Alamgir Society, Model Colony, Karachi, but there is nothing with the Investigating Officer to show the slightest involvement of the applicant in the commission of the said crime. He further submits that possibility of implication of the applicant in the commission of crime in order to harass him also cannot be ruled out. He has, therefore, not opposed grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

After careful perusal of the record, in the light of arguments made by learned counsel, I am of the view that this is a fit case where interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the applicant is to be confirmed. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the applicant vide order dated 9.6.2008 is hereby confirmed in the same terms.

Cr.Bail Application No. 665 of 2008 is disposed of on the above terms.

CHIEF JUSTICE

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-1443/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For katcha peshi.

2. for hearing of Misc. 6920/08

21.10.2008

Mr.Ali Nawaz Memon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Muhammad Zahid Khan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr.Adnan A. Karim, AAG, states that the Petitioner is stated to be involved in three identical cases out of which two have been disposed of in A-Class, while in one challan has been submitted. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since challan has been submitted before the trial Court, he will avail the remedy of acquittal of the petitioner by moving appropriate application under Section 249-A Cr.P.C. before the trial Court.

In these circumstances, this Petition stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh.

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-636/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

3. For order on Misc. 2795/

4. For katcha peshi.

21.10.2008

Mr.Ashiq Hussain Mehar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG on behalf of the official Respondents states that the grievance of the Petitioner will be redressed by the Law Enforcing Agencies and no harassment of any nature whatsoever will be caused to her and her family members. He further states that any action to be taken against the Petitioner will be strictly in accordance with law. Such statement of the learned AAG satisfies learned counsel for the petitioner.

This Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sh.

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SMA No. 128/05

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

Mr. Farooq Rasheed, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr.Khaleeq Ahmed, Advocate for Respondents 7, 8 and 12.

Mr.Rizwan A. Siddiqi,DAG on Court notice.

1. Nazir is directed to submit report about the rent collected by him from the tenants of the property.

2. Deferred.

3. Learned counsel submits that the parties are negotiating for settlement, therefore, one week time may be allowed to materialize such compromise.

To come up on 10.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SMA NO.92/96

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 883/08

2. for order on CMA 884/08

20.10.2008

Applicant Sana Iqbal present alongwith her counsel Muhammad Ibrahim.

---

1. Granted.

2. By this application applicant has prayed for release of her share lying deposited with the Nazir of this Court in terms of order dated 20.10.1996.

Nazir has submitted his report disclosing therein availability of Rs. 5,83,500/-with him as the share of applicant Sana Iqbal in the form of Special Saving Certificates. This amount is inclusive of profit till the time of submission of report. Since the applicant has attained the age of majority and she has also produced photocopy of her CNIC, there seems to be no justification for withholding her share. Accordingly this application is allowed. The aforementioned sum available with the Nazir may be paid to the applicant through cross cheque on proper identification.

Application disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr. Misc. Appln. 188/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on office objection.

2. for order on MA 3612/08

3. for katcha peshi.

20.10.2008

Mr. Shaukat Hayat, Advocate for applicants.

Mr.Meeran Muhammad shah, Addl.A.G.

---

The Officer of Anti Corruption present in Court has placed on record copy of order to show that the prosecution of applicant was not approved and consequently report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted, which was accepted by the Court of Special Judge Anti Corruption, Hyderabad vide order dated 17.10.2008.

This being the position, learned counsel for the applicants does not press this Cr.Misc. Application. He further requests that the surety furnished by the applicants in terms of the order dated 29.9.2008 may be released.

In view of above, this Cr. Misc. Application is disposed of with directions to the office to release the surety, if any, furnished on behalf of the applicants.

CHIEF JUSTICE

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No.D-2056/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

3. For order katcha peshi.

4. for hearing of MA 9625/08

---

21.10.2008

Mr.Anwar Mansoor Khan, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ch. Muhammad Jameel, Advocate undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 3. He requests for time to submit parawise comments as well as Counter Affidavit to the listed application.

On the other hand, Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned counsel for the Petitioner presses for interim relief on the listed application to enable the Petitioner to appear in the ongoing hourly examination of the Institution and to attend the classes. The case is adjourned to 28.10.2008. In the meantime, the Respondents are directed to allow the Petitioner to attend his classes and also to appear in the hourly examination of the Institution, if any, held by them.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sh
0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Transfer 38/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. for order on j MA 3779/08

2. for katha peshi.

---

20.10.2008

Applicant in person.

Mr.Iqbal Kalhoro, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh.

Alleged accused Bahno son of Sadooro is present in Court.

---

Heard the applicant and the accused.

By this application the applicant, who is stated to be complainant in Crime NO. 18/2007, P.S. Mian Jo Goth, seeks transfer of Cr.Case No. 6/2008 (Old case No. 18/2008) arising out of said crime, pending in the Court of VIth Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Shikarpur to Karachi. The grounds taken in the application are that the complainant is ailing and he is receiving threats from the accused party.

The accused Bahnoo present in Court states that he is a poor person and has been falsely involved in many cases at the behest of the applicant, and he cannot bear the traveling expenses, but is being victimized for no valid reason.

I have considered the submissions and perused R&Ps of Cr.Case No.318/2008 called from the Court of VIIth Civil Jude & Judicial Magistrate, Shikarpur, where presently the case is pending.

Admittedly, the applicant is a retired Army Officer and has lodged the complaint under section 379 PPC, at P.S. Mian Jo Goth, wherein charge has been framed by the trial Court on 6.5.2008 and now the matter is fixed for evidence of prosecution side. The allegations made by the applicant seem to be only for the purpose of seeking transfer of the case from Shikarpur to Karachi District, where he resides as otherwise, admittedly, he owns his landed property at Shikarpur, thereby to put the accused in unnecessary expenditures..

In these circumstances, the application being without substance is dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Misc. No. 188/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. FOR order on office objection.

2. For order on MA No. 3612/08

3. for katcha peshi.

---

20.10.2008

Mr.Shaukat Hayat, Advocate for applicants.

Mr. Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G.

---

The Officer of Anti Corruption has placed on record a copy of the letter

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Civil Trans Appn. No. 30/03

________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

________________________________________________________________

1. FOR order on CMA 1402/03

2. for KATCHA PESHI

---

20.10.2008

Applicant and its counsel are not present.

Mr.Irfanullah, advocate for Respondent No.4.

It seems that this Transfer application is pending for disposal since January, 2003 but no interest is shown by the applicant in pursuing the same. On the previous two dates of hearing also nobody had bothered to appear on behalf of the Applicant. Notice to the applicant issued in compliance of the order dated 23.12.2007 has returned unserved for want of fresh address. Even that address has not been provided.

Dismissed for non-prosecution.

CHIEF JUSTICE
0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Transfer Application NO.29/2007

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

20.10.2008

Mr.Naim ur Rehman, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr.Munirur Rehman, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr.Adnan Iqbal, Advocate for Respondent No.8.

By this application under Section 24 CPC transfer of Suit No. 383/86 has been sought from Civil Court to High Court with further prayer of its consolidation with Suit No. 816/06, which is already pending in High Court.

I have heard the learned counsel and perused the case record, which reveals that earlier a suit for partition and mesne profits was instituted in the year 1986, which is now stated to be fixed for plaintiff’s evidence . In the said suit the defence of Defendant No.5 is the same as are his averments in the plaint of subsequent Suit No. 816/2006 instituted by him originally against three government functionaries. In this suit, subsequently on an application moved on behalf of the plaintiff and other defendants in Suit No.383/1986, hey have also been joined as Defendants in the suit, which is pending before High Court. The prayer made in the two suits and pleadings of the parties reveal that there is some dispute of title between the parties in the earlier suit No. 383/86, which is to be decided in those proceedings and such decision/adjudication will enable this Court to decide the fate of prayer clause (d) of the subsequent suit No. 816/06, in case the plaintiff in that suit eventually succeeds. However, the relief claimed in Suit No. 816/06 have no nexus to the dispute involved in the earlier suit.

In such circumstances, in order to meet the ends of justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this transfer application in the terms that the Court where earlier Suit No. 383/86 is pending shall proceed with the matter and expeditiously dispose it of within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. In the meantime, if the applicants have any apprehension in respect of the proceeding in the subsequent suit No. 816/06, the option for moving an application under Section 10 CPC is available with them, which can be availed in accordance with law.

With the above observations, this Transfer Application stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Civil Transfer Application No. 42/07

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

---

20.10.2008

Mr.Tasawar Ali Hashmi, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr.Behzad Haider, Advocate for Respondent.

---

By this application under Section 5(3) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, the applicants have sought transfer of two banking suits bearing Nos. 335/07 and 34/2007 before the same Banking Court as presently these two suits are pending before two different Banking Courts at Karachi.

Both the learned counsel, on principle, agree that it will be in the interest of justice that both the suits are proceeded before the same Banking Court. I, therefore, order transfer of Banking Suit No. 335/07 pending from the Court of IIIrd Banking Court, Karachi to Ist Banking Court, Karachi, where the other Suit No.34/07 is pending.

At this stage , learned counsel for the Respondent (Standard Chartered) submits that leave to defend application in the suit filed by them is pending for decision for over one year, therefore, while transferring the suit to the Ist Banking Court, Karachi, directions may also be issued for its expeditious disposal in accordance with law. I find no unreasonableness in the request of the learned counsel. Accordingly, this request is granted with the observation that the Banking Court shall positively decide the leave to defend applications pending in the two Suits within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Bail Appn..NO.370/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For further order.

Applicants are present alongwith their Counsel Mr. Gohar Iqbal.

Mr.Iqbal Kalhoro, Addl. Prosecutor General Sindh for the State.

---

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted reply to the Show Cause Notice issued to him on the last date of hearing. Though the said reply is not entirely satisfactory, however, with the observation that he should be more careful in future, his explanation is accepted and the Show Cause Notice is withdrawn. The surety for whom notice has already been issued for his appearance is directed to be present in Court on the next date.

To come up on 10.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif
0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Tr. Application No. 40/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on MA No. 3713/08

2. for katcha peshi.

3. for order on MA No. 3714/08

---

Mr.Dildar Ali Shaikh, Advocate along with the applicant.

Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl.A.G. for Respondent No.3.

---

By this transfer application under Section 526 Cr.P.C. the applicant, who is complainant in Crime No. 43/2001, P.S Sixty Miles, Nawabshah, has sought transfer of Sessions Case No. 328/2001 (State vs. Liaquat Ali) from the Court of IIIrd Addl. Sessions, Nawabshah to any other Court of District & Sessions Judge, Larkana.

Admittedly the incident had occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S Sixty Miles , Nawabshah in the year 2001 and since then the case is pending at Nawabshah. In such circumstances, the apprehension of the applicant and witnesses for danger to their lives at the hands of accused party seems to be nothing but an attempt to seek transfer of the case from Nawabshah to some other District of his choice.

I am not impressed by the averments made in the application for this purpose. Consequently, the transfer application is dismissed, however, with the observation that if an application is moved by the applicant or his witnesses before the trial Court for protection for their appearance before the trial Court, appropriate orders will be passed by the trial Court for their safety. The trial Court is further directed to expedite the proceedings in the Sessions Case and dispose it of positively within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suo Moto Revision 39/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

20.10.2008

Mr.Meeran Muhammad Shah, Addl. Advocate General, Sindh on behalf of the State.

Mr. Khaleeq Ahmed, Advocate for Dr.Muhammad Ashfaq.

Respondent Iqbal Rasheed present in person.

---

This Suo Moto Revision Application arises out of the observation of learned Inspecting Judge contained in his inspection report which reads as under:-

“ A perusal of judgment in C.A. No. 136/03 Iqbal Rasheed vs. H/Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq, learned Ist Sr.Civil Judge Karachi South rejected plaint under order 7 R.11 CPC in Civil Suit No. 300/2003 for the reason that the plaintiff had filed earlier suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution, thus fresh suit was barred by the principles of resjudicata contained in order IX R.9 CPC. The learned Addl. District Judge set aside the judgment with the following observations. “Admittedly earlier suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed for non-prosecution but rejection of plaint would not preclude the appellant/plaintiff from prosecuting the fresh plaint in respect of same cause of action and on this point learned trial Court ignored the provision of Order 13 of same order. In this context I am also fortified by the case law reported in 2000 CLC Page 1355”.

From the above observation it appears that the learned ADJ is not able to distinguish the rejection of plaint under order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissal of suit in default. He has mixed up the issues and has thus fallen in error. The M.I.T. is directed to initiate suo moto revisional proceedings to be taken up on judicial side by the High Court”

In order to examine the propriety of the order of the Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 136/03, R&Ps were called and have been perused. Though the Inspecting Judge in his report has rightly observed that the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal has mixed up the issues of rejection of plaint and dismissal of suit, but on perusal of the whole order dated 26.1.2006, I find that the conclusion recorded by the Appellate Court for setting aside the order of the lower Court dated 28.4.2003 is not all together ill-founded. The question whether subsequent suit instituted by Iqbal Rasheed is barred by law in view of the dismissal of earlier suit for non-prosecution is one, on which an issue can be framed, and decided by the lower Court. This being the position, the Suo Moto Revisoin Application is disposed of with the direction to the lower Court to decide Civil Suit No. 300/03 within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order . The Court, while deciding the fate of the suit will not be precluded from examining the question of its maintainability due to dismissal of earlier suit for non-prosecution. R&Ps be returned immediately.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

0RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

HCA NO.96/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. FOR KATCHA PESHI

2. FOR HEARING OF CMA 1494/08

---

20.10.2008

Mr.Aga Zafir Muhammad, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.Safdar A. Saeed, Advocate for the Respondent.

The file of this appeal has been placed before me as a Referee Judge in view of the difference of opinion of two Hon’ble Judges of this Court in their respective order dated 26.9.2008 passed on CMA 1494/08, which is an application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking suspension of operation of the impugned judgment and decree.

Learned Senior member of the Bench, though had not admitted the appeal for regular hearing but has passed a restraining order against the respondent till the next date from implementing the impugned judgment and decree against the Appellants. The other learned member of the Bench, while disagreeing with the grant of such ad-interim relief, has proposed that the stay application may be heard alongwith the appeal, which can be disposed of at katcha peshi and for that reason he declined to pass any ad-interim order on CMA No. 1494/08.

I have heard Mr. Aga Zafar Ahmed, Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Safdar A. Saeed, Advocate for the Respondent.

Admittedly the contracts for the storage of rice entered into between the parties, commenced in the year 1988 and last contract of this nature was executed between the parties on 24.11.1991. It is also an admitted position that before the execution of last contract dated 24.11.1991, no shortage of rice was claimed by the appellants and further no physical stock taking was undertaken by the parties, before 27.8.1996, when for the first time such exercise was undertaken and shortage of Rice quantity of 8468.34 metric tons was found. Further there is no denial of the fact that during the entire period of four years, though contracts were independent for each year, the appellants have handled the quantity of 493661 metric tons of rice of the respondent. In this regard the submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that the shortage of rice calculated on the basis of whole quantity of rice was within the permissible limit of shortage of rice, which is upto 3%, but due to no physical stock taking in the past years, such huge shortfall has emerged in the last year of the contract, for the year 1991-92.

From the perusal of the record available before me, I find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellants is not all together without force. Accordingly, the learned Senior member of the Bench was justified in restraining the implementation of the impugned judgment and decree till the next date of hearing. This being the position, ad-interim order passed by the learned Senior member on CMA 1494/08 shall remain in force till 12^th November, 2008, when this appeal shall be fixed before the available Bench according to roster.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.NO.945/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

2. FOR HG.OF MISC. 3876/08

15.10.2008

None for the petitioner.

Mr.Masood Noorani, Addl.A.G. alongiwth Khaliq Ansari, Asstt. Superintendent, District Jail Malir.

---

Mr.Masood Noorani has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 8.10.2008 containing information that Petitioner Abdul Jabbar son of Abdul Ghani was released on bail on 20.8.2008. It is further disclosed in the letter that on the previous date of hearing also such intimation was sent to the office vide letter dated 18.9.2008 and it was in such circumstances that the Petitioner could not be produced in Court.

Since the Petitioner has already been released on bail in the said case and his whereabouts are not known, the Petition is disposed of having become infructuous. The Show Cause Notice issued to the Asst. Superintendent District Jail Malir on the previous date is also discharged.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

Sharif

RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P.No. D-1648/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

15.10.2008

Mr.Salahuddin Panhwar, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr.Masood Noorani, Addl.A.G. for Respondent No.1.

Prof. Ghulam Rasool Mahar, Regional Director College.

Muhammad Waheed Khan, Asstt. Accounts Officer.

Zulfiqar Ali Shaikh, Accounts Officer EDO & Education.

Comments/Reply on behalf of Respondents No.5 and 9 have been filed. The Officer present on behalf of Respondent No.9 submits that subject to fulfillment of codal formalities and if and when pay bills of salaries will be received, payment of salary will be released to the petitioner in terms of their appointment letters.

The Officer present on behalf of Respondent No.5 submits that as the appointments of the Petitioners were made before 19^th November, 2007, therefore, in the light of directions contained in the letter dated 14.6.2008 they will be entitled for their salaries as per the terms of their appointment, and since this issue has now been sorted out, necessary pay bills will be sent to the Respondent No.9 for reimbursement of salaries of the Petitioners .

The Officer present on behalf of the Finance Department submits that the appointment of the petitioners was initially for a period of six months. Therefore, they will be entitled for the salary of this period.

Be that as it may, since there is no dispute that the petitioners are entitled for their respective salaries as per the terms of their appointment, let such salary be released to them within a period of two weeks from the date of this order.

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGE

sharif
RDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Suo Moto Revison No. 51/06

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

13.10.2008

ASI Malik Irshad is present alongwith Mr.Khizar Askar Zaidi, AAG.

---

ASI Malik Irshad has submitted an application disclosing therein that due to his posting as ASI Anti Car Lifting Cell he had gone to the interior of Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan for recovery of vehicles and for that reason he could not appear before the Court of IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) in Complaint No. 312/01. ASI Malik Irshad is directed to submit Roznamcha entries to justify his stand.

To come up on 3.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Transfer Appln. NO.163/07

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. for order on mA 4421/07

2. For katcha peshi.

3. For hearing of MA 4422/07

13.10.2008

Mr.Zamir Ghumro, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr.Khizer Askar Zaidi, AAG for the State.

None for the private Respondents

------

1. Granted.

2. Through this application under Section 526 Cr.P.C. the applicant, who is stated to be involved in Crime No.41/2007, has sought transfer of Sessions Case No. 47/2007 ( State Vs Muhammad Ali alias Papu and others) from the Court of Sessions Judge, Kambar at Shahdadkot to any other Court of Sessions at Hyderabad.

In the application it is stated that for the commission of offence with her daughter Sadaf, which is punishable under Section 11/16 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, on 5.2.2007 the applicant has lodged a complaint at P.S. Kambar. During the investigation of this crime the conduct of the Investigating Agency was biased against the applicant. However, with great difficulty the challan in the case was submitted before the trial Court. Further submission of the Applicant is that the abductee girl Mst. Sadaf has categorically stated in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement about her abduction by the private respondents but now the accused party in the said case is threatening the family of the applicant for dire consequences unless they withdraw from the case. It is further stated that due to such threats from the accused party the applicant and his family has shifted to Hyderabad and it is not possible for them to pursue their genuine case against the accused party at Kambar, Shahdadkot.

Counsel for the respondent is not present while the State counsel is also unable to render any assistance in the matter, as according to him , copy of the transfer application is not available with him. It seems to be an unfortunate state of affair that after the pendency of this transfer application for over one year, learned State Counsel is now making request for a copy of transfer application. Such request is not tenable.

Reverting to the merits of the case, I find that sufficient justification has been shown by the applicant for seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 47/07 from District Shahdadkot to Hyderabad District. Such order is accordingly passed. The District & Sessions Judge,Hyderabad is directed that on receipt of the file of the Sessions Case from the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Kambar @ Shahdadkot, he may either try it himself or transfer it to any other Addl. Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, who may proceed with the case expeditiously and in accordance with law.

3. Dismissed having become infructous.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SMA NO.160/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main application.

13.10.2008

Petitioner Rafiq Lakhani is present along with his mother Sherbano and his counsel Mr. Samsam Ali.

---

Through this application under Section 278 of the Succession Act, 1925, the Petitioner has prayed for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of his deceased father Ramzan Ali Lakhani, details whereof have been disclosed in para 6 of the Petition which read thus-

“(1) Shop No.1 Dawer Restaurant at Empress Market Saddar, Karachi measuring 110 sq.ft.(7’15.7).

(2) Plot No. 293, Sheet No.III, Sector No.11, Toheed Colony, Orangi Township, Karachi measuring 145.13 sq.yds.

(3) Plot No. 292 Sheet No. III, Sector Toheed Colony Orangi Township, Karachi measuring 46.66 sq.yds.

(4) Plot No. 299-A, Sheet No.III, Sector Toheed Colony, Orangi Township, Karachi, measuring 41.11 sq.yds.

(5) Plot No. 1214, Sheet No.2, Toheed Colony Orangi Township, Karachi, measurig 95.13 sq.yds.

(6) Plot Kathooni 2-19, 1-4, 4-3, Lohi Bheer Tehseel and District Islamabad.

(7) Land measuring 28-01-29 acres, bearing Survey No.999 situated in Mouza Kund Deh District Lasbella.

In Para 4 of the Petition it has been stated that deceased Ramzan Ali Lakhani at the time of his death has left behind Petitioner Rafiq Lakhani (son), Mst.Sherbano(widow), Mst. Rozina(daughter) and Murad Lakhani (brother) as surviving legal heirs to inherit his movable and immovable properties.

After filing of this Petition, required formalities viz. publication of notice etc.have been complied with. In compliance of order dated 11.9.2008 passed on the last date of hearing copies of the Passports and other required documents have also been placed on record. The mother of the Petitioner Sherbano has submitted her affidavits of no objection for grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the Petitioner, while two other legal heirs have executed their respective Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner. Two independent witnesses Muhammad Rafiq and Abdul Malik, present in Court, have also affirmed these facts in their affidavits already filed before this Court alongwith the Petition. No objections from any corner have been received against the grant of this Petition.

There seems to be no legal impediment in granting this Petition. Accordingly, it is granted and office is directed to issue Letters of Administration in favour of the Petitioner as per Rules on furnishing of surety, equivalent to the value of the properties, to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SMA NO. 208/01

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 856/08

2. or order on CMA 857/08

13.10.2008

None present.

---

1. Granted.

2. Through this application Mst. Bilqees Fatima has moved this Court for release of her share which is lying deposited with the Nazir of this Court in terms of order dated 31.10.2005.

The Nazir has submitted his report mentioning therein that a sum of Rs. 56,250/- is availably with him in the account of Petitioner Bilqees Fatima. In order to accommodate the Petitioner, the listed application is allowed and disposed of in the terms that a sum of Rs. 56,250/- lying deposited with the Nazir of this Court alongwith profit accrued thereon may be paid to the Petitioner on proper identification.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Bail No.855/06

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For further orders.

13.10.2008

Applicant and surety are present in Court. The applicant has placed on record a copy of the order dated 28.8.2007 passed in Special Case No. 42/2002, whereby his application under section 249-A Cr.P.C was allowed and consequently he was acquitted from the offence. According to the applicant, after passing of such order, he was under the impression that his presence was no more required in this case and further his counsel due to ailment was also not available.

A copy of the order produced by the applicant is taken on record. In the circumstances explained by the applicant the Show Cause Notice issued to the surety is recalled. Since this bail application has already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.9.2008, no furthers are required in that context.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.Bail Appln.No.1066/07

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For further orders

13.10.2008

Mr.Muhammad Ayaz Khan Advocate for the State.

Applicant is present. He has placed on record copies of Applications under sections 345(2) Cr.P.C. and 345(6) Cr.P.C to show that Criminal Case between the complainant and the applicant has been compromised and such applications have been made before the trial Court on 8.9.2008. Today inspite of service surety Bashir Masih is not present. According to the applicant, the surety is on his way to Court.

Adjourned to 3.11.2008.

CHIEF JUSTICE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr.B Jail Appeal No.30/05

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on MA No. 3395/08

---

13.10.2008

Son of the complainant, who seems to have moved the listed application (CMA 3395/08) is not present . On perusal of record, it appears that no prejudice will be caused to the case of the complainant in case this Cr.Jail Appeal is heard at the Principal Seat at Karachi. Accordingly, CMA 3395/08 is dismissed. Office is directed to fix this Cr.Jail Appeal for regular hearing according to Roster within a period of six months from the date of this order.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sharif.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.920/02

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For hg.of CMA 9988/07

2. for hg.of CMA 7869/07

---

10.10.2008

Husband of the Plaintiff Ehteshamuddin present in Court.

Mr.Dilawar Hussain, Advocate

Me.S.Mehmood Haider, Advocate.

Mr.Akhlaq A. Khan, Advocate

The husband of the Plaintiff has filed original Special Power of Attorney executed in his favour by the Plaintiff and states that he shall conduct the case himself.

1. Through this application Defendant No.4 seeks order for sale of immovable properties bearing House No. 96, Block-2, PECHS, Karachi and Flat No.Q-25, Block-1, Al-Azam Square, F.B.Area, Karachi and for distribution of their sale proceeds amongst the L.Hrs. of late Muhammad Yaqoob, as per Nazir’s report dated 11.7.2005.

The undisputed facts are that Muhammad Yaqoob died in the year 1968 leaving behind Mst. Hussan Jehan, widow, three sons namely Pervez Iqbal, Javaid Iqbal and Yousuf Jamal and five daughters namely Qudsia Begum, Shahnaz Begum, Rana Yaqub, Qaiser Begum and Shahnawaz Yaqunb.

In the year 1997 two daughters namely Qaiser Begum and Shahnawaz Yaqoob also died in the life time of their mother Hussan Jehan. Hussan Jehan died in 1998. Hence the legal heirs of Qaiser Begum and Shahnawaz Yaqoob would inherit only the shares inherited by the two deceased daughters from Muhammad Yaqoob and not from the 1/8^th share which Mst. Hussan Jehan inherited from her late husband Muhammad Yaqoob, as the said two daughters died prior to the death of their mother, Hussan Jehan.

In the circumstances, Defendants No. 6 and 7 shall inherit their shares in the suit properties only from the share of their respective mothers which they inherited from Muhammad Yaqoob.

It may be clarified that the Final Decree was ordered to be drawn on 20^th March, 2006 after notice on the Nazir’s report to the Plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to file her objections to the report. The Plaintiff has filed objections to the same which are being considered today.

After taking into consideration the Nazir’s report dated 12.7.2005 and the objections filed by the Plaintiff, it becomes apparent that the principles of Islamic law of Inheritance were not followed by the Nazir and the final decree was prepared on the basis of Nazir’s report in ignorance of the order dated 20.3.2006 when the decree was ordered to be prepared only after notice of Nazir’s report is issued to the plaintiff. Therefore, after considering objections to the Nazir’s report the final decree stands modified in the above terms. The Nazir shall proceed with sale of the above properties after due verification that both the properties were owned by late Muhammad Yaqoob and thereafter when the same are sold shall distribute the sale proceeds amongst all the legal heirs of Muhammad Yaqoob according to the entitlement determined hereinabove. The share of Defendant No.1 shall be distributed among his heirs after due verification.

As there is a dispute about the sanity of Defendant No.3 Yousuf Jamal, therefore, the Nazir is directed not to distribute his share until further orders are obtained from this Court in this regard.

CMAs 9988/07 and 7869/07 stand disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit B-73/08

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on CMA 9452/08

---

10.10.2008

Mr.Irfan Haroon, Advocate for the plaintiff.

Mr.Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqi, Advocate has filed power on behalf of Defendant No.2.

---

Mr. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqi states that Defendant No.1 has been described as Muhammad Haroon son of Abdul Rehman as well as Khalid Munawar son of Munawar Ali though his name is Khalid Munawar only. He has also filed Power on behalf of Khalid Munawar. He waives notice of the listed application. Issue notice of the listed application to Defendant No.2.

To come up on 21.10.2008.

JUDGE

Sh
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.311/05

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 4355/08

2. For final disposal.

-----

8.10.2008

None for the plaintiff.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG.

1. Learned AAG states that Defendant No. 56 has already filed Written Statement but the same has not been taken on record as it was filed after passing of the order dated 16.11.2006. He requests that Defendant No.57 may be allowed to file Written Statement as, according to him, the suit property belongs to the Govt. of Sindh and not to the private Defendants against whom the Plaintiff has sought specific performance.

No intimation has been received from the Plaintiff’s counsel, who is called absent. In the circumstances, this application is granted subject to cost of Rs.1000/-. The Written Statement be filed within ten days. Cost be deposited with the Nazir of this Court towards Employees Welfare Fund. In case the Written Statement is filed in time, the case be fixed for settlement of issues.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.1432/04

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For order on letter dt. 19.9.07

For hg. Of CMAs

7077/07
8962/04
2743/06
7937/07
for issues.

-----

9.10.2008

Mr.Zameer Ghumro, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate

Mr.Ziaul Haq Makhdoom, Advocate.

All the counsel agree that upon providing return ticket by the Plaintiff, Defendant No.4 shall appear before this Court in order to establish that Defendant No.4 is residing in Dubai and she has not created third party interest in the same. Order accordingly.

To come up on 23.10.2008. The plaintiff shall provide the ticket or cost of the ticket within three days. Office is directed to issue notice to Defendant No.5 to place on record the copies of all the documents on the basis of which the suit property was transferred in the names of Defendants No. 3 and 4.

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.665/03

__________________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________________

For hg. Of CMAs

4513/06
3443/03
3444/03
3913/04

-----

9.10.2008

Mr.Zameer Ghumro, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate

Mr.Ziaul Haq Makhdoom, Advocate.

---

The counsel for the plaintiff states that the Defendant No.1, Abdul Basit, in whose name the property in question was fraudulently transferred, does not exist. In order to clarify this position, let counsel for Defendant No.1 produce an attested copy of the Passport of Defendant No.1 on the next date and place the same on the record. At the same time, office is directed to issue notice to the Defendant No.2 for placing on record all the documents on the basis of which the suit property was transferred in the name of Defendant No.1.

To come up on 23.10.2008.

JUDGE

Sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.311/05

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

3. For order on CMA 4355/08

4. For final disposal.

-----

8.10.2008

None for the plaintiff.

Mr.Adnan A.Karim, AAG.

1. Learned AAG states that Defendant No. 56 has already filed Written Statement but the same has not been taken on record as it was filed after passing the order dated 16.11.2006. He requests that Defendant No.57 may be allowed to file Written Statement as, according to him, the suit property belongs to the Govt. of Sindh and not to the Defendant against whom the Plaintiff has sought specific performance.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Ex.42/08

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

For hearing of Ex. Application.

-----

8.10.2008

Mr.Muhammad Ilyas Khan Tanoli, Advocate/D.H in person.

----

On 18.8.2008 the Decree Holder made a request that Vehicle No. J.A 1287 registered in the name of J/D No.2 be put to sale towards recovery of the decreetal amount. Notice was ordered to be issued to J/Ds. As per the bailiff report, notice was served at the residence of J/D No.2. J/D No.2 is called absent. Even on the last date he failed to appear. The Decree Holder states that the condition of the said vehicle is deteriorating day by day and the same be put to sale at the earliest. In the circumstances, the Nazir of this Court is directed to sell the said vehicle after complying with all the formalities.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.1112/04

_______________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_______________________________________________________________

5. For order on CMA 9462/08

6. For order on CMA 9463/08.

-----

7.10.2008

Mr.Hussain Shaikh, Advocate has been superseded by Mr.Naveedul Haq, Advocate who undertakes to file power on behalf of Defendant No.1 in the office. In the circumstances, the name of Mr. Hussain Shaikh, Advocate may be scored off from the file cover.

1. Granted.

2. Through this application Defendant No.1 seeks review of the order dated 8.9.2008, as it is apprehended that the Plaintiff might misrepresent before the Banking Court that he has deposited the sale consideration and is entitled to the possession and transfer of the said property in his name.

The apprehension of the Defendant No.1 is misconceived. The order sought to be reviewed clearly specify that the deposit of sale consideration by the plaintiff is subject to final outcome of the suit and in case the defendant fails to establish his claim, the money deposited by him in terms of order dated 8.9.2008 would be returned back to the Plaintiff by defendant No.2. No ground is made out. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

________________________________________________________

Suit No.982/2008

For hearing of CMA 7184/08

-----

6.10.2008

M/s. Shaikh Javed Mir and Zulfiqar Haider Shah, Advocates for plaintiff.

Mr.Asim Iqbal, Advocate for the Defendants.

The case of the Plaintiff is that he runs a CNG Station. Upon observing low pressure in the gas, the Plaintiff made a complaint to the Defendant. The defendant inspected the meter which, according to them, was found tampered. This resulted in submission of a revised bill worked out on the basis of average consumption. A sum of Rs. 3.6 million was demanded from the Plaintiff. It is also the case of the Plaintiff that the inspection was carried out in absence of his representative on 7.8.2007 when the appointed date for inspection was 9.8.2007 and this has made the report doubtful.

Be that as it may, the demand for the disputed period has been worked out on the basis of average consumption. This issue can only be finally decided after recording of the evidence. At this stage, the Plaintiff is directed to furnish security in the form of property documents in the sum of Rs.2.5 million to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court within a period of 30 days from today. The final liability shall be determined after the evidence is recorded in the matter. The Plaintiff is also directed to deposit the monthly bill in order to avoid disconnection.

Listed application stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

________________________________________________________

J.M.NO. 32/

For hearing of CMA

-----

6.10.2008

Mr.

Through this application the Petitioner had sought a restraining order against the Respondents from holding AGM on 29.10.2007. Counsel for the Respondent states at the bar that upon receipt of the notice of this application, the said AGM was postponed.

In the circumstances, this application has become infructous and is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

________________________________________________________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

________________________________________________________

C.P.No.D-1639/05

7. For hearing of Misc. 7074/08

8. for hearing of Misc. 1439/07.

-----

6.10.2008

None for the Petitioner.

Mr.Adnan A. Karim, AAG alongwith Anwar, AIG (Legal), Karachi and Balcoh Khan Abro, DSP (Legal) Larkana.

---

1. This is a review application seeking review of order dated 31.1.2007, whereby this Petition was dismissed. The review application has been filed after a delay of 17 months without condonation of delay. The application being patently time barred is accordingly dismissed.

2. This is a Contempt application. After going through the contents of this application, we find that this Petition was dismissed on the ground that prior to the Standing Order 2003, there was no quota of Shaheed in the Police Department. Learned AAG states that even if there was a quota of Shaheed prior to 2003, the fact is that the Petitioner does not fall within the category of persons who are eligible for the same. In the circumstances, the contempt application is also dismissed.

JUDGE

Sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SUIT NO. 1545/2007

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

FOR FURTHER ORDER AS W/S NOT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO. 2 TO 4 IN VIEW OF ORDER DT. 4.8.2008.

06.10.2008

Mr.Mushtaq A. Memon, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Nadeem, Advocate for defendant.

The case of the plaintiffs is that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.4 are successors –in-interest of late Haroon Qasim who owned the suit property and that Defendants No. 2 and 3 are fraudulently seeking transfer of suit property in their names.

Defendants No. 2 and 3 are sought to be served through Defendant No.1 as according to plaintiffs they are not aware of their address. Counsel for Defendant No.1 is directed to confirm from the records of the Defendant No.1 as to whether the alleged transfer was sought in the names of defendants No. 2 and 3 and in case no such transfer was sought the grievance of the plaintiffs shall stand redressed. Let correct position be placed on record before next date of hearing. Adjourned to 13.10.2008.

JUDGE

sh
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

J.M.NO.31/2008

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. For ORDER ON MAIN APPLICATION.

2. FOR ORDER ON CMA 7798/08

3. FOR ODER ON CMA 7799/08

06.10.2008

Mr.Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocate for applicant.

1. The case of the applicant is that it owns Survey No.66, Deh Gujro, Sector 15-A, Scheme No.33, Karachi, comprising of 20 acres of land out of which 2 acres have been encroached upon and on its back judgment and decree have been obtained by the Respondents in Suit No. B-30/06 in respect of the said 2 acres. However, a copy of the plaint in Suit No. B-30/06 has not been filed to show that the said 2 acres of land were the subject matter of the said suit. Counsel for the plaintiff is directed to file the same within two weeks.

2. Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.

3. Notice. In the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SUIT NO.378/99

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. For hg. Of CMA 164/07

15.9.2008

Mr.Zahid Hamid, Advocate for plaintiff.

Syed Ishtiaq Ali Adv. For defendants 1 and 2.

Mr.S. Amjad Ali, Adv. For defendants 3.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Reserved for orders.

At this stage, Syed Amjad Ali, counsel for the defendant No.3 states that the plaintiff’s company is under liquidation and he shall confirm this from the Official Assignee. If any order has been passed in this regard, it shall be placed on record. He requests for two weeks time for the above purpose.

To come up on 13.10.2008 for further orders.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SUIT NO.1479/2005

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. For order on Nazir’s report dt. 16.5.07

2. For issues.

15.9.2008

None for the plaintiff.

Mr.Muhammad Atiq Qureshi, for the defendant.

1. On the last date of hearing both the counsel made joint statement that at this stage there is no dispute with regard to one shop which could be put to sale as per Nazir’s report. This was not ordered as Nazir’s report was not fixed for hearing on the last date. Nazir in his report has stated that shop in question bearing No. 5/31, Rauf Market, Liaquatabad No.5, Karachi, having an area of 15’ X10’ could not be partitioned. Let the process of sale is carried out by the Nazir after verification of title to the shop in favour of the deceased Muhammad Arif and after giving notice to the counsel for the parties.

2. Deferred.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

ITC NO. 46/1994

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

11.9.2008

Mr.Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate for applicant.

Mr.Iqbal Salman Pasha, Advocate for respondent.

---

The question of law involved in this Reference has already been answered in the judgment reported as 1990 PTD-1 (New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Special Officer, Central Zone “A” Karachi and ITR No. 159/93 was also disposed of in view of the said judgment. There is another judgment on the same point which is reported in 2006 PTD 2227 (Lahore) (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amin Haji Usman), wherein also the same proposed question of law was decided.

In the light of the above judgments, the present ITC stands disposed of.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 79/07

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. For hg.of CMA 1301/08

2. for order on CMA 415/07

3. for further orders as w/s not filed. By defendants 3,5 and 6 .

08.9.2008

Mr. Afaq Yousuf, advocate for the plaintiff

Mr.Mushtaq A. Memon, Advocate for the defendant.

1. Through this application the plaintiff seeks amendment to the plaint. After hearing this application at some length, this Court pointed out prayer clause (a) to both the learned counsel, which is as follows:-

“a) A declaration that power of attorney executed on 11.8.1997 subsequently registered on 17.8.2002 placed as annex A/2 to the plaint is a forgery, void and of no legal effect”.

Both the learned counsel agree that in case the relief sought in the prayer clause (a) is granted and the power of attorney is declared to be forged and of no legal effect, the purpose of the plaintiff could be served. Hence the plaintiff’s counsel does not press first three proposed amendments. With regard to the fourth amendment that is being sought, learned counsel for the defendant has no objection if the same is incorporated in the plaint in the form of paragraph 6(a). The proposed amendment that is allowed is as follows:-

“That the cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs here at Karachi, within the territorial limits of PS Memon Goth, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court, upon receiving the summons of Suit No. 703/05 (Pir Ehsanulah Sarhandi vs. Muhammad Umer and others), which was filed by the defendant No.3 herein on 26.6.2005 and through which the knowledge of the sale agreement allegedly executed in favour of the defendant No.4, the Sale Deed allegedly and fraudulently executed in favour of the defendant No.4 by the defendant No.1 herein and further the Power of Attorney allegedly and fraudulently executed by the defendant No.1 herein and the same cause of action is still continuing.”

The amended plaint be filed within two weeks.

Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

2 & 3. Adjourned to a date in office.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Spl. Custom Ref. Application No.119/2008

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

4. For order on CMA 951/08

5. for katcha peshi.

6. for order on CMA 952/08

10.9.2008

Mr.Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate for the applicant.

1. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

2 & 3. The following question of law requires consideration:-

“Whether registration of smuggled vehicle with Motor Registration Authority, Civic Center, Karachi, without presenting legal import documents can regularize a smuggled vehicle and absolve it from payment of duty and taxes under the Customs Act, 1969?”

Admit. Notice.

JUDGE

Sh.
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.1112/2004

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

1. For further order.

2. for hg.of CMA114/08

8.9.2008

Mr.Mirza Adil Beg, Advocate

Mr. Nadeem Akhtar, Advocate,

Junior of Mr. Hussain Shaikh, Advocate.

1. Defendant No.2 has already filed written statement, which is taken on record.

2. Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 have filed a joint statement stating that the suit property is mortgaged with defendant No.2, which has also obtained a decree for its sale from the Banking Court. The plaintiff has shown his readiness to redeem the property upon payment of Rs. 9.3 million to Defendant No.2. Upon receipt of this amount, the Defendant No.2 shall deposit the title documents pertaining to the suit property with the Nazir of this Court. The Nazir shall retain the title documents till the disposal of the suit. In case the suit is dismissed, the title documents shall be retuned by the Nazir to Defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 shall return back Rs.9.3 million back to the Plaintiff without any further orders from this Court.

Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

JUDGE

Sh.

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

SP.S.T.R.A.280/2007

_________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

FOR KATCHA PESHI

5.9.2008

Mr. Mohsin Imam, Advocate for the applicant.

----

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the Tribunal has allowed adjustment of in put tax on the raw material which though was not utilized in making taxable supplies but went waste on account of some accident in the respondent entity. He contends that the input tax paid on such waste material is not liable to be adjusted from the out put tax. He has proposed the following question for consideration of this Court.

“Under the facts and circumstances of the case whether or not the input tax adjustment against raw material wasted due to leakage at the initial stage and subsequently not used for the purpose of production of taxable supplies is admissible or allowed under section 7 & 8 of Sales tax Act, 1990”.

Admit. Notice.

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.1161/03

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

_________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

5.9.2008

Mr. Muhammad Younis, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr.Adnan A. Karim, AAG.

---

The petitioner in this Petition has claimed that the Respondent No.1, Sub-Registrar, has refused to register sub-lease for the land which belongs to Pakistan Railways Cooperative Housing Society. The Province of Sindh has disputed the title of the said land to be that of the Railways. Learned AAG states that since this land does not belong to Pakistan Railways, Respondent No.3 cannot derive valid title from Pakistan Railways Cooperative Housing Society.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, when asked to show any document on record showing the land undisputedly belonging to Pakistan Railways, he was unable to point out but contended that since several subleases were executed to other persons, therefore, the Petitioner also has the right. We are afraid this cannot be the basis of declaring that the disputed land belongs to Pakistan Railways.

As disputed questions of facts have been raised in this petition, the same cannot be entertained in the Constitutional jurisdiction. The Petition is, therefore, is dismissed in limine. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to seek relief, if any, that may be available under the law before appropriate forum.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

ITRA NO. 860 OF 2008

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

1. FOR ORDER ON CMA 863/08

2. FOR KATCHA PESHI.

4.9.2008

Mr. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate for applicant.

1. Granted subject to all just exception.

2. The following question of law is framed for consideration:-

“Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was justified in holding that Taxation Officer has no jurisdiction u/s 170 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to determine proper amount chargeable to tax?”

Learned counsel further submits that in ITRA No. 279/08 identical legal question is involved which has been admitted to regular hearing.

Admit. Notice. ITRA No. 279/08 be also fixed alongwith this ITRA.

JUDGE

sharif -
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No. 1403/05

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

1. For issues

2. For order on CMA 8346/08

1.9.2008

Mrs. Shiraz Iqbal Choudhry, Advocate.

Mrs. Haleema Khan, AAG.

1. Following issues are framed by the Court.

1. Whether the suit property upon the death of late Imtiazuddin devolved upon his legal heirs or it exclusively belongs to Defendant No.2 on the basis of Release and Relinquishment Deed executed by late Imtiazuddin in favour of Defendant No.2.

2. Whether the oral gift made by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 is valid?

3. Whether the Gift deed is a forged document and the transfer and mutation pursuant thereof is liable to be cancelled?

4. What should the decree be.

List of witnesses and documents may be filed within two months.

As the dispute pertains to the private party and has nothing to do with defendants No. 4 and 5, they are neither necessary nor proper party in this case, therefore, they are deleted from the array of the Defendants.

2. Issue notice.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Spl. S.T Ref. Appn.NO.350 OF 2007

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

for katcha peshi.

3.9.2008

None for the Applicant.

Mr.Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate representing the Custom Authorities is reported to be busy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is noted that a large number of cases are being adjourned due to absence of Mr.Raja Muhammad Iqbal. A direction be issued to the Applicant to either ensure the presence of Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal or to engage some other Advocate as the matters are being unnecessarily delayed.

Adjourned to 11.9.2008 on which date the Applicant should be represented by some counsel.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Spl. Custom Ref. Appn.NO.49 OF 2007

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

1. for order on CMA 1970/07

2. for katcha peshi.

3.9.2008

Mr.Sohail Muzafar, Advocate for the applicant.

None of the Respondents.

Mr.Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate representing the Custom Authorities is reported to be busy before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is noted that a large number of cases are being adjourned due to absence of Mr.Raja Muhammad Iqbal. A direction be issued to the Respondent to either ensure the presence of Mr. Raja Muhammad Iqbal or to engage some other Advocate as the matters are being unnecessarily delayed.

Adjourned to 11.9.2008 on which date the Respondent should be represented by some counsel.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

ITRA NO.346 OF 2008

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

KATCHA PESHI.

2.9.2008

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

IRX NO. 39 OF 1995

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

KATCHA PESHI.

2.9.2008

Mr.Nasrullah Awan, Advocate for applicant.

---

The questions of law proposed in this ITC are identical to that of ITC No. 107/92 in which the learned Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 1.4.1999 held that the questions framed in the said ITC are not questions of law but questions of fact.

In these circumstances, this ITC stands disposed of in the same terms.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Spl.C.T.Ref. Appl. No.208 OF 2006

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

For katcha peshi.

2.9.2008

Mr.Aminuddin, Advocate for the applicant.

The dispute in this petition is whether Sharbat-e- Sanar-e-Tursh, Sharbat-eAnar-e-Shireen, Sharbat-e- Sandal and Sharbat-e- Unnab are ordinary Syrups or are Unani medicine. During pendency of this petition, the matter was referred to the Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee which by its order dated 31.1.2008 in exercise of powers conferred under Section (4) of Section 47A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, held that the said products are Unani medicines. In its decision it was also observed by the Committee that the Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad, has also accepted its recommendations.

The Respondents has been served but none has appeared on their behalf. As the matter has already been decided by the ADRC vide its decision dated 31.1.2008 and such decision has also been accepted by the Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad, this petition stands disposed of in terms thereof.

JUDGE

sharif

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.D-1409/08

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

1. For katcha peshi.

2. 2. for hearing of Misc. 6798/08

2.9.2008

Mr. Mazhar Imtiaz Lari, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2.

Mr.Malik Ayaz Sharif, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Tahir Mehmood, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Mr.Shaiq Usmani, Advocate.

---

The Petitioner in this petition has sought direction to Respondent No.1 for shifting of the consignment to C.P.F. Bond or any Public Bonded Warehouse as well as a direction to the container terminal to waive the accumulated container rental detention charges and storage /demurrage charges.

With regard to shifting of the consignment to CPF Bond, an order was passed on 16.7.2008 and the parties are satisfied with the confirmation of such direction. As to the charges of container terminal, the petitioner shall make payment to the container Terminal (Respondent No.4) and seek release of consignment. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 states that he will try to convince his client to give substantial concession with regard to Terminal charges. In case the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal then whatever terminal charges are payable under the law the same shall be paid by the petitioner.

With these observations, this Petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

EX. No.32 OF 2005

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

For ORDER ON EX. APPLICAITON.

1.9.2008

Mr. Azizur Rehman, Advocate for the decree holder.

Learned counsel states that the decree was passed on 2.10.2007 and it was directed that the decreetal amount be paid within two months. It is contended that as the J/D has failed to make payment in terms of the decree, this Execution application has been filed within one year of the decree and it has been prayed that the Official Assignee may be appointed as Commissioner to sell the property.

In the circumstances, the Official Assignee is appointed as Commissioner to sell the mortgaged property in order to realize the decreetal amount. This exercise be completed within three months.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.1199 OF 2005

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

For ORDER ON CMA 8400/08.

1.9.2008

Mr.Moin Azhar Siddiqi, Advocate for the plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the Plaintiff booked a residential Flat in the project of the Defendant and one of the conditions of the Agreement was that 50% of the sale consideration shall be paid in cash and 50% through loan to be arranged by the Builder/defendant from a bank. He further contends that the Defendant showed reluctance to provide finance through bank and therefore, the plaintiff agreed to pay the loan amount as well in cash. The Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs. 8,07,000/-, out of total sale consideration of Rs. 8,40,000/-. It is contended that as the Defendant failed to complete the transaction, a legal notice was sent to him. The defendant in para 5 of the reply took the stand that on account of escalation in the cost notice gwas issued to the Plaintiff yet he failed to pay the escalation charges. It was in this back ground that the allotment was cancelled which was published in daily Jang. It was also claimed that the amount paid by the Plaintiff was returned to him through his counsel.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the mode of return has not been mentioned by the defendant in their reply nor it is claimed that any acknowledgement of the said amount has been obtained from him which belies the claim of the defendant.

In the circumstances a prima facie case appears to be made out. Let notice be issued to the Defendant for 15.9.2008. In the meantime, the defendant is restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property, till the next date.

JUDGE

sharif
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.978 OF 2004

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

For HEARING OF CMA 04/07.

1.9.2008

Mr. Sohail H.K.Rana, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.Asim Iqbal, Advocate for Defendant.

---

This application is disposed of and following issues are framed.

1. Whether the officers/officials of the Defendant misbehaved with the plaintiff and other persons who approached to then for their grievance of disconnect of Gas Supply. If so what effect.

2. Whether the Demand Notice of the Defendant for recovery of Rs. 2912572/- from the plaintiff was/is legal and justified?

List of documents and witnesses within four months.

JUDGE
ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.665 OF 2005

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

For issues.

1.9.2008

Mr.Zubair Qureshi, Advocate for plaintiff.

Mr.S.Arif, Advocate.

The following issues have been settled:-

1. Whether the Plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract within the time specified in the Agreement to Sale.

2. Whether the Plaintiff or the Defendant failed to comply with their respective obligation under the Sale Agreement.

3. Whether the Defendant shall be entitled to forfeiture of Rs.8,00,000/- paid by the Plaintiff, if it is established that the Plaintiff has committed breach of contract.

4. What should the decree be.

List of documents and witnesses within two months.

JUDGE

ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Suit No.104 OF 1989

__________________________________________________________

Date Order with signature of Judge

__________________________________________________________

1. For order on office objection

2. for order on CMA 7778/08

29.8.2008

Hafiz Safdar Nawaz, Advocate for the plaintiff.

1. Office objection is over ruled. The plaint is quite eligible.

2. Through this application the plaintiff seeks amendment to the plaint to the extent of valuation of the suit property. The learned counsel has referred to Annexures B-1 and B-2 to the plaint. It is contended that the suit property has a value not less than Rs.40 million.

As the matter is pending for the past about 20 years and no prejudice will be caused to the other side, if this application is allowed, let paragraph 9(c) of the plaint be amended by replacing the value Rs.200 with Rs.10 million. The amended plaint be filed to the above extent within a week and its copy be supplied to the other side.

JUDGE

27.5.08

Learned counsel seeks time to satisfy in respect to the maintainability of the petition as the petitioner has compulsorily been retired with usual benefits by a Bank which is not being controlled by the Federal Govt. nor has any statutory Rules nor apparently there is violation of any law. Adjourned..