PLC(CS) 2026

2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ARIF DURRANI Versus HIGH COURT OF SINDH through Registrar and another

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh High Court
Decided Date
C.P. No.D-3090 of 2025, decided on 27th October, 2025.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam and Muhammad Hasan (Akber), JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Sindh High Court
Bench Members Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam and Muhammad Hasan (Akber), JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD ARIF DURRANI Versus HIGH COURT OF SINDH through Registrar and another
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam and Muhammad Hasan (Akber), JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2026 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ARIF DURRANI Versus HIGH COURT OF SINDH through Registrar and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Zia ul Haq Makhdoom and Malik Altaf Hussain for Petitioner.
  • Aijaz ul Hasan, Deputy Registrar and Jamaluddin, Assistant Registrar of this Court for Respondent No.1.
  • Salman Nayyar, Nazir along with Asad Mufti, Admin Clerk, District Court East for Respondent No.2.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutionaljurisdictionof High Court

Vires of order

Scope

Judicial officer

Complaint against judicial officer dealt with by office of MIT and plead before montiary and inspection Judge legality

Action against the petitioner was taken on the basis of some anonymous complaint

Plea of petitioner that authenticity of complaint was questionable, because it was bearing date of 30.04.2025, whereas it was received in the office of Member Inspection Team on 14.03.2025; that Initiating proceedings against the petitioner was illegal, because the Monitoring Judge being the Appellate Authority could not have passed such order

Validity

Monitoring and Inspection Judge of this Court was the Appellate Authority for the service matters of the staff members of District Judiciary, thus he could not have issued directions for initiation of inquiry, coupled with fact that the office of Member Inspection Team did not transmit the complaint properly

Such procedural lapse was curable, inter alia, because till date no substantial steps had been taken in pursuance of the complaint or disciplinary proceedings, as no final order was passed

Said lacuna was cured in this petition by directing the concerned officials to place subject complaint before the concerned competent authority; however, it was clarified that the order dated 19.06.2025 was intact and the evidence/material collected so far under the said inquiry shall be preserved and could be utilized and confronted to the petitioner, in either disciplinary proceedings, or any other proceedings as the competent authority deemed fit

Consequently, the complaint against the petitioner along with the evidence shall be placed before the Competent Authority for consideration and taking action

Petition stood disposed of.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.

Through this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 19.06.2025 issued by the Member Inspection Team-II addressed to Respondent No.2, communicating the directions of the then Hon ble Monitoring and Inspecting Judge for Karachi-East. For ease of reference, the text of the said Correspondence is reproduced below_ Perused the note. The application made by Mr. Durani in the light of the report submitted by Learned District Judge is turned down. Please ensure that Forensic report be kept confidential. DJ to provide details of Mr. Durani s movable and immovable assets, as well as details of Bank Accounts maintained by him and family. His travel information also be sought, and provide by 23 June 2025. All details to be kept confidential and private.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that action against the Petitioner was taken on the basis of some anonymous complaint, authenticity whereof is also questionable, because it bears date of 30.04.2025, whereas, received in the Office of learned MIT-II on 14.03.2025. Contended that initiating proceeding against the Petitioner is illegal, because the learned Monitoring Judge being the Appellate Authority could not have passed such Order.

3. Petition is opposed through Parawise Comments filed by both learned Respondents. Stance of Respondent No.1 [learned Registrar of this Court] is that complaints are to be dealt with by Admin Branch of this Court [supervised by Deputy Registrar Admin and the Registrar s Office]. They are responsible for processing the complaints which are finally placed before the Competent Authority [Hon ble Chief Justice]. However, Departmental Appeals of Staff Members of District Judiciary and the impugned Order are heard by the concerned Monitoring and Inspecting Judges of this Court, under the delegated powers and authority. It is stated that the subject complaint was dealt with by the Office of MIT-II and without properly routing the same, it was placed before the Hon ble Monitory and Inspecting Judge, who has passed the above direction, which was later complied with. Whereas, the learned Respondent No.2 has opposed this Petition, inter alia, by highlighting the fact that averments of the Petition relating to the said Respondent No.2 and the erstwhile MIT-II are baseless and scandalous in nature. Specifically stated in Parawise Comments about assets of the Petitioner, which even can be assessed from the pleadings of his Suit No.2049 of 2025 filed against his wife.

4. We have perused the record.

5. Paragraph-9 of the Petition along with last two lines of Paragraph-11 [at Page-7], shall be struck off with the red ink by the Branch, being inappropriate and scandalous in nature.

6. Learned Monitoring and Inspecting Judge of this Court [Former] was the Appellate Authority for the service matters of the Staff Members of District Judiciary and in our considered view he could not have issued directions for initiation of inquiry, coupled with fact that the Office of MIT-II did not transmit the Complaint properly. But, this procedural lapse is curable, inter alia, because till date no substantial steps have been taken in pursuance of the Complaint or disciplinary proceeding, as no Final Order is passed. This lacuna is cured in this Petition by directing the concerned Officials to place subject Complaint before the concerned Competent Authority. However, it is clarified that the Order dated 19.06.2025 is intact and the evidence / material collected so far under the above Inquiry shall be preserved and can be utilized and confronted to the Petitioner, in either disciplinary proceeding, or any other proceeding as the Learned Competent Authority deems fit.

7. Consequently, the Subject Complaint against the Petitioner along withtheEvidenceshallbeplaced before the Competent Authority [learned District and Sessions Judge] for consideration and taking action.

8. In view of the above, this Petition stands disposed of along with all pending application(s), if any. JK/M-2/Sindh Order accordingly.