Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 273. In this matter between Const. P. 609/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Haroon Rasheed Through Attorney Muhammad Sohail (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 609/2025 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 261 PARTIES: Haroon Rasheed Through Attorney Muhammad Sohail (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 02-FEB-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI C.P. No.S-609 of 2025 (Haroon Rasheed versus Abdul Rahim & others) ________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge _________________________________________________________________

Date of hearing and order:- 02.02.2026

Mr. Shahzad Afzal advocate for the petitioner Mr. Naeem Suleman advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Ali Safdar Depar AAG ------------------------- O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J . – The Petitioner, aggrieved by the judgments dated 10-03-2025 and 24 -05-2025 in Rent Case No. 603 of 2023 and F.R.A. No. 87 of 2025 submitted that both courts committed illegality and misread evidence. It was submitted that the ejectment application was filed with malafide intent to pressure the Petitioner for higher rent. It is also urged that t he personal need was unsubstantiated, several near by shops were vacant, and the Special Power of Attorney relied upon was defect ive and used in multiple cases. It is added that cross-examination denied its validity, and the prior conduct of the Respondents indicated ulterior motives. 2. At the initial stage, the Respondents' counsel opposed the petition , asserting bona fide personal need, lawful execution of the Power of Attorney, and proper evidence of the son’s business. He argued withdrawal of previous cases and the use of the attorney in multiple cases were lawful, and the Petitioner failed to prove his case with regard to suitable premises. He added that b oth courts properly appreciated evidence, and no interference was /is warranted in constitution Petition. 3. After brief submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties , the parties have now reached a mutual understanding for the resolution of the matter amicably. 4. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by consent with the directions that the Petitioner shall vacate the s ubject premises within four (4) months from the date of this order. However, d uring the intervening period, the Petitioner shall continue to pay the rent as agreed, without any default or delay. However, the issue of fair rent shall be decided independentl y in CP No.608 of 2025 on merits. Upon compliance with the above terms, no further proceedings shall remain pending in respect of Rent Case No. 603 of 2023 and F.R.A. No. 87 of 2025. 5. The parties are directed to act in accordance with this order and ensu re peaceful compliance.

JUDGE

2

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant