Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

Const. P. 451/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Zubaida Bibi & others (Petitioner) — 2026 SHC 781

Official Citation: 2026 SHC 781

Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court

Petitioner: Const. P. 451/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Zubaida Bibi & others (Petitioner)

Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2026 SHC 781. In this matter between Const. P. 451/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Zubaida Bibi & others (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. 451/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 781 PARTIES: Zubaida Bibi & others (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 26-MAR-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI Const. Petition No.D-451 of 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: order with signature(s) of Judge(s) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. For orders on office objections. 2. For hearing of Main Case. 26.03.2026. Mr. Saleem Michael, advocate for the petitioner. Barrister Asad Ahmed, advocate for the respondent/KMC. Mr. Abdul Jalil Zuberi, Asstt. Advocate General, Sindh. ---------- Ms. Sana Abid, Advocate, files her memo of appearance on behalf of Town Municipal Corporation (Mauripur), which is taken on record.

The petitioners have filed the instant petition for release of pensionary benefits. The KMC counsel opposes it, stating that each petitioner must file a separate petition based on their own cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he needs permission to file fresh petitions. Accordingly, without touching the merits of the case, the instant petition is disposed of, with the observation that each individual petition er shall file separate petition , which shall be decided on their own merits. JUDGE

JUDGE

Manthar Brohi

Related Legal Research & Directories