High Court appeal

2025 PLC(CS) 394 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 4(1)(b)Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212High Court Appeal

Appellants challenged the notifications of their transfer/posting orders in the garb of S. 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, through a suit in original jurisdiction of High Court, which was dismissed in view of bar contained in Art. 212 of the Constitution

Appellants assailed the said order in High Court Appeal contending therein that notifications were not mere transfer/posting orders to Admin Block, as it involved determination of fitness or unfitness for a particular post

Validity

Impugned Notifications simply related to the transfer of the appellants from their respective posts to the Admin Pool and were not tantamount to a subjective assessment of fitness, thus, did not fall within the contemplation of the proviso to S.4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Suit was barred under Art.212 of the Constitution, as the jurisdiction of a High Court and of civil courts had been restricted in respect of the matters of civil servants relating to their terms and conditions of service

High Court Appeal was dismissed, accordingly.

2023 CLC 1805 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3High Court AppealLimitationScopeAppellant filed a High Court Appeal against order dated 08-08-2016, which was numbered as 319/2016 (first appeal)

During pendency of the first appeal, the appellant filed yet another appeal against order dated 08-08-2016 (second appeal), which was numbered as 313/2016

Thereafter, first appeal was withdrawn

Office had raised objection regarding maintainability of the first appeal on the point of limitation

Record transpired that certified copy of order dated 08-08-2016 which was annexed with the first appeal was applied in the office of High Court on 16-08-2016; copy was ready for delivery on 25-08-2016, however, the appeal was filed on 17-09-2016, seemingly it was barred by two days

In second appeal, the certified copy of order dated 08-08-2016 annexed with the appeal revealed that it was applied on 16-08-2016; the copy was ready for delivery on 21-09-2016 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 06-10-2016

It appeared that the appellant had obtained another certified copy having different date of issuance and filed the second appeal

Appellant in order to bring the case within the time limit had obtained second certified copy on the same application on the basis of which he had already obtained a certified copy, which under the law he was not entitled to

Appeal was dismissed with costs.

2022 YLR 1348 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3High Court AppealInterim orderInterlocutory orderMaintain-abilityScope

Appellant was aggrieved of order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby an ad-interim order passed in favour of respondent had continued despite information about his retirement was conveyed with exception to extension of such relief

Validity

Scope of appeal was limited to decide the nature and concomitant effects of the interim order operating in favour of respondent in the aforesaid context and keeping in view that it had allowed continuation of departmental proceedings against the respondent but had restrained the Authority from passing a final order on the basis of impugned show-cause notice without permission of the court

Unfortunately, for one reason or the other, the issue between the parties could not be laid to rest and meanwhile retirement age of the respondent had approached

No final order on account of interim order could be passed against the respondent, although as claimed the departmental proceedings had been concluded, and he was successfully reaping its benefits and evading consequences of the charge against him

At the stage, when the respondent was retiring next day and his suit had not progressed materially, it was not hard to discern that if the interim order was allowed to continue, it would not only be in disregard to its own terms permitting continuation of proceedings against the respondent but would result into miscarriage of justice

Respondent would emerge vindicated without any formal inquest by the court into merits of his case, his suit would likely become irrelevant/infructuous and the respondent would be permanently deprived and debarred from pressing the charges against the respondent before any forum for final adjudication

Appeal was allowed and the original interim order was modified in the terms, whereby the appellant was permitted to proceed with and pass an order, which could include a final order in the light of already held proceedings, if any

However, such proceedings and its outcome, if any, would be subject to a final decision to be made on the suit filed by the respondent

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2022 YLR 1348 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3High Court AppealInterim orderInterlocutory orderMaintain-abilityScope

Intervention by the Appellate Court at the interim stage of a suit is not barred completely, particularly when it is found inevitable to obviate miscarriage of justice and where apparently it is arbitrary, capricious and against well settled principle of law

No bar in law can be enforced against the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court to examine the nature of ad-interim order in the aforesaid context to pass an appropriate remedial order and preserve intrinsic nature of the controversy between the parties for a final adjudication.

2022 YLR 1348 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3High Court AppealInterim orderInterlocutory orderPurposeScope

Object of passing an interim/ interlocutory order is to maintain the status quo, the situation obtaining on the date when a party aggrieved by a certain action approaches the court, and to ensure that meanwhile no new development detrimental to rights of the parties is created, which may pose a hurdle in the way of deciding the case on merits.

2020 YLR 2113 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15High Court appealInterim order passed by Single Judge of High Court

Pending appeal proceedings, defendants, television channels, were aggrieved of ad-interim injunction issued by Single Judge of High Court and moved High Court appeal under S.15 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980

Validity

Question as to whether some derogatory or negative remarks were used and aired by defendants against plaintiff and whether the same were violative of Arts. 4, 9, 14, 18, 23 & 24 of the Constitution and Pakistan Electronic Medial Regulatory Authority Rules, 2002, thereunder and Code of Conduct for Media Broadcasters or Cable TV Operators could only be dilated upon by the Single Judge before whom the matter was sub judice

Division Bench of High Court directed the parties to appear before Single Judge of High Court, on the date fixed

High Court appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2020 MLD 1428 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 100Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10Suit for declaration and injunctionHigh Court appealThirty years old documentPresumptionMisjoinder of partiesPlaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property on the basis of 'Deed of Disclaimer' issued by company

Single Judge of High Court dismissed the suit on ground that original 'Deed of Disclaimer' was not produced and company or its Directors were not made party

Validity

'Deed of Disclaimer' was executed about more than 53 years back and since then none had challenged the same

Presumption of genuineness, under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was attached to a document which was more than 30 years old

When there was no adverse claim and during such a long period none of the directors or their legal heirs had ever disputed the 'Deed of Disclaimer', therefore, it could be presumed that the document was genuine

'Deed of Disclaimer' was produced in Court by proper party and one of the marginal witness supported the same

Non-existent company and its Directors could not be made party to the litigation

Party to litigation could not be defeated or failed just because of non-joinder of the parties

Company was not in existence as during its life time the company had relinquished its rights over the subject property in favour of plaintiff and the same was evident from the language of the 'Disclaimer Deed'

Intention of the Deed was to pass on the title to plaintiff and had created right of ownership regarding subject property in favour of plaintiff

When no one had challenged the right of plaintiff on suit property there remained no hurdle to declare that the title of suit property in favour of plaintiff was established

Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

High Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2019 YLR 874 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 11High Court appealRejection of plaintViolation of interim orderEffectCause of actionStages

Plaintiff was aggrieved of order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby his plaint was rejected for non-compliance of interim order

Validity

Failure of plaintiff to honor interim order could not lead to rejection of plaint specially when said order stood recalled by the court

When hearing injunction application all material available on record could be evaluated but in determination of whether a plaint was liable to be rejected, only plaint and its accompaniments were required to be examined

Where plaint disclosed a cause of action when suit was filed, same could not be returned solely on grounds that said cause of action was lost during pendency of proceedings

Division Bench of High Court set aside order passed by the Single Judge of High Court

High Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2019 CLC 398 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 65 & O. XXI, Rr. 84, 89, 90 & 91Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980), S.15High Court appealExecution proceedingsSale in auctionOwnership rightsAppellant was aggrieved of order of re-auction of property passed by Single Judge of High Court

Title in immovable properties did not transfer in favour of highest bidder at the time when auction was held and highest offer of bidder was forwarded to court for acceptance

Auction by court under O. XXI, R. 84, C.P.C. was subject to proceedings under O. XXI, Rr. 89, 90 & 91, C.P.C. in which proceedings, sale was either to be 'set aside' or 'confirmed'

As soon as sale was confirmed or otherwise stood confirmed upon deposit of balance sale consideration then under S. 65, C.P.C. ownership right in auction property was deemed as having vested retrospectively in succeeding bidder, i.e., from date when auction in respect of property was held

Division Bench of High Court set aside order passed by the Single Judge of High Court as same was erroneous, illegal and without jurisdiction

High Court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2019 CLC 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3Suit for declaration and injunctionHigh Court appealInterim injunctionPrima facie caseEffectPlaintiff was aggrieved of vacating of interim injunction granted in his favour

Plea raised by plaintiff was that once all relevant facts were brought to the notice of the Single Judge of the High Court along with relevant documents, he could not have restrained from raising any construction upon plot in question on the basis of illegal documents

Validity

Mere fact that a prima facie case was established would not entitle plaintiff to an injunction unless other two factors i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable damage or injury were fulfilled

Single Judge of High Court while passing order in question had taken complete stock of relevant facts and also made tentative assessment of material and documents produced by parties in support of their respective claim of entitlement and possession over subject land

Three factors i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury were required to be considered for grant of injunction and the same had been duly taken cognizance by the Single Judge of High Court

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in order passed by the Single Judge as the same did not suffer from any error or illegality

High Court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 PLD 692 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3High Court appealLocus standiIllness of appellantAppellant did not file appeal personally rather an advocate signed and filed appeal on behalf of the appellantPlea raised by ostensible appellant was that due to bad health, the original appellant could not file appeal herselfValidityLaw contained specific provisions for assistance of person suffering from infirmities

No evidence was available to suggest that purported appellant was precluded by ill-health from personally instituting appeal

Even if same was correct, authorization for institution of appeal could have been obtained through a commission sanctioned by an order of the Court

Ostensible appellant failed to demonstrate any authority under which his institution of proceedings could be determined to have had the sanction of law

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2017 PLD 678 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 7Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3High Court appealPecuniary jurisdictionReturn or rejection of plaintScope

Dispute between the parties was whether after determination of pecuniary jurisdiction plaint was to be returned or rejected

Validity

Suit filed by plaintiff was barred by virtue of S. 7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, for want of pecuniary jurisdiction

Court was either supposed to reject the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction or it was to be returned to plaintiff

Rule of propriety demanded that when there was a Court having jurisdiction to try the suit and plaint was wrongly filed in another Court, which had 'no jurisdiction' either on the ground of pecuniary value of the suit or territorial limits, to be tried by Court where it was filed, instead of rejecting the plaint, such Court should return the plaint to plaintiff for presentation before a Court having both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction, as if the suit had never been instituted; it was not the case of propriety alone, rather it was necessary to return the plaint because even order of 'rejection of plaint' was a case of implied exercise of jurisdiction by the Court in a case where cognizance was expressly barred by S.7 of Sindh Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962

Division Bench of High Court returned the plaint and allowed plaintiff to present the same before Court of competent jurisdiction resultantly order passed by Single Judge of High Court was set aside

High Court appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2017 CLC 1755 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O.XXVI, R.1Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120High court appealFact allegedOnus to proveInspection of siteLocal Commission, appointment of

Plaintiffs were aggrieved of transfer of company in question by defendants in the name of a firm to which they were partners

Single Judge of High Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs

Validity

Defendants were not having sufficient funds to purchase company in question, though it was stated that earnest money of Rs.150,000/- was paid from the amounts received from abroad, however a link between the amounts received from abroad and payments made for the purchase of company was not established through documentary evidence

Defendants were not having substantial security to obtain Bank guarantee, which was obtained by plaintiffs through their sources by furnishing security in the shape of property documents, and such aspect was not denied by defendants

Question with regard to purchase of company in question from funds arranged by defendants, when there was an admission that one of the defendants was working as manager in another company of plaintiffs remained unproved

Various documents furnished by plaintiffs with regard to time to time withdrawal of amounts by defendants either from his own funds or from the funds of the Trust or another company of plaintiffs established a link that the funds for purchase of company in question were from two units and when plaintiffs had come to know about the situation that defendants managed to transfer company in question in the name of a firm to which defendants were partners, the plaintiffs became annoyed and thereafter not only the partnership firm was dissolved on their instructions but possession of company in question was also handed over to the Trust owned by plaintiffs

Single Judge of High Court appointed local Commissioner to apprise the Court about affairs of the company and to furnish his report who, after inspection, on the site pointed out a number of anomalies and misappropriations made by defendants

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court

High court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.