Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 1397. In this matter between Const. P. 6075/2024 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Amir Rehman (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. 6075/2024 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 1397 PARTIES: Amir Rehman (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 08-JUL-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1

ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI C.P No.D-6075 of 2024 ___________________________________________________________ Date Order With Signature Of Judge ______________________________________________________________ Hearing of case.

1. For hearing of CMA No.16450/2026. 2. For hearing of CMA No.26916/2024. 3. For hearing of main case.

08.07.2026

Mr. Abdul Fateh Pathan, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

------------- At the previous hearing, it was reported that the petitioner’s bank account had been de-sealed and a cheque for Rs.3,748,122/ - was handed over to the petitioner, who accepted it under protest while claiming outstanding dues. The respondents - TMC were direct ed to submit payment details, and the petitioner was directed to produce evidence of the remaining arrears. However, it transpires that it was the bank account of Respondent No.4 that was sealed. Today, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that all pensionary dues have been paid and there is no justification for blocking its account. In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prosecute the matter and has remained absent despite the case being called . The record reflects that the respondent's bank account had already been de -sealed pursuant to the earlier order, substantial payment had been made to the petitioner, and an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to substantiate the alleged outstandin g arrears through documentary evidence. No such material has been placed on record, nor has any explanation been offered for the petitioner's non -appearance. Since the principal interim relief has already been implemented and no material remains before thi s Court to adjudicate the alleged balance claim, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. Accordingly, the account of Respondent No.4 shall remain de -sealed, if not already de-sealed, and, without expressing any opinion on the me rits of the parties' respective claims regarding any alleged outstanding dues, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution along with all pending applications. The petitioner, if so advised and otherwise entitled under the law, shall remain at liberty t o seek appropriate remedy before the competent forum in accordance with law. JUDGE JUDGE

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