Metlo Law Chamber

27/09/2025

28/07/2024

Remedies Against Illegal Dispossession

28/07/2024

سندھ ہائیکورٹ کی انتظامی کمیٹی نے مختلف ججز کو ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹس اسپیشل کورٹس اور ٹریبونلز کی نگرانی اور ان سے متعلق شکایات کو دور کرنے کے انتظامی اور نگران اختیارات تفویض کر دئیے ہے.

27/03/2024

PETITION FOR RETAINERSHIP FOR ADVOCATES:
Sindh High Court while ordering notices on petition for giving retainerships to advocates filed by Barrister Sarfaraz Ali Metlo, Honrary Secretary SHCBA, on behlaf of Muhammad Saleem Mangrio, former President SHCBA, Aamir Nawaz Waraich, President KBA, Jehangir Rahujo,AdvocateKhaksar Javed Haleem, Muhammad Gaffar Khan KakarJaved Ali Kalhoro AhcFaiz Ali Sheeraz Metlo has directed SECP, FBR, SRB and State Bank to file reports with regard to compliance of the law and the previous orders of the court.
This is a major step for welfare of advocates and address the important issue which has not been properly attended for decades multiplying financial problems of young and senior lawyers alike..!!
Together we will resolve it inshallah
Special TimesSarfaraz MetloMujtaba PhullYaseen AzadIndependent Group of LawyersKarachi Bar Association - K.B.AHigh Court of Sindh KarachiLawyers of PakistanMustafa LakhaniTeam-Sarfaraz Ali MetloAdvocate Muhammad Asghar Joiya official Zahoor AhmedMuhammad Faheem KorejoMalik Adil AwanKolachi Do DaryaSajid JamariADV Sardar Soomro Adnan KhatriWaris AliAftab WassanLawyers of justiceLawyer'sSalman FarisTeam of Barrister Imran Ali MithaniMahmooda QasimIrshad AhmedSindh High Court Bar AssociationSindh High Court Bar Association KarachiVakeel@topfansIrfan Ali Irfanali.

21/02/2024

2022 SCMR 348
For seeking a declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 through a declaratory decree, a pre-existing right can be declared by the Court and a new right cannot be created.

28/01/2024

_*دفعہ، سیکشن، اور جرم کی سزا*_
▪اگر کوئی شخص ہوائی فائرنگ کرتا ہوا پکڑے جاتا ہے تو اس پر _*section 337 H2*_ کے تحت تین ماہ قید اور جرمانہ سنایا جاتا ہے۔

▪اگر کوئی شخص کسی دوسرے شخص پر کوئی جھوٹی FIR درج کرواتا ہے تو اس پر section 182 کے تحت سات سال قید اور جرمانہ ادا کرنا پڑے گا۔

▪اگر کوئی پولیس آفیسر کسی سے رشوت لیتا ہے یا رشوت مانگتا ہے تو اس کو سیکشن 161 کے تحت تین سال قید اور جرمانہ ادا کرنا پڑے گا اور اسے نوکری سے فارغ کر دیا جائے گا۔

▪اگر کوئی شخص سوشل میڈیا پر ہتھیار کی نمائش کرتا ہے تو اس کو کسی قسم کی سزا نہیں دی جا سکتی جب تک کہ خود چیک کرکے یہ نہ ثابت کیا جا سکے کے یہ ہتھیار اصلی ہے یا نقل یا جب تک ہتھیار برآمد نہ ہو جائے۔

▪اگر پولیس کسی شخص کو گرفتار کرنے کے بعد چوبیس گھنٹے کے اندر اندر اس کو عدالت کے سامنے پیش نہیں کرتی تو سیکشن 157 آرڈر 2002 کے تحت اس پولیس اہلکار کو ایک سال قید جرمانہ اور سخت سے سخت کارروائی کی جائے گی۔

▪اگر کوئی پولیس افیسر آپ کے گھر بنا اجازت داخل ہوتا ہے تو اس پولیس افیسر کے خلاف سیکشن 452 تعزیرات پاکستان 155C کے تحت ایف آئی آر درج کروائی جائے گی جس کی سزا تین سال قید اور جرمانہ ہے۔

▪کسی عورت کو تھپڑ مارنے یا برقعہ اتارنے والے شخص پر دفع 354 تعزیرات پاکستان کی ایف آئی آر درج ہوتی ہے جس کی سزا دو سال قید اور جرمانہ ہے۔

▪اگر پولیس کسی کو غیر قانونی طور پر حراست میں رکھتی ہے تو پولیس پر دفاع 34/ 342 تعزیرات پاکستان 155C کہ تحت آیف آئی آر درج ہوگی۔

▪گاہکوں کو انعام یا قراندازی کی لالچ دے کر ایشیا بیچنا جرم ہے سیکشن294 ppc کے تحت چھ ماہ قید اور جرمانہ ہے۔

▪کسی بھی رشتےدار کا لائسنس اسلحہ اپنے پاس رکھنا کوئی جرم نہیں ہے. سیکشن
977 PCRLJ 2001 کہ تحت

▪واپڈا اگر کسی کی زمین میں بجلی کا کھمبا یا پول نصب کرے گا تو واپڈا اس زمین کے مالک کو معاوضہ دینے کا پابند ہے 2018 1120 CLC

▪کسی جانور کے ساتھ بد فعلی کرنا سنگین اور ناقابل ضمانت جرم ہے جس کی سزا عمر قید ہیں۔
PLJ 2002 CRC 852

▪اگر کوئی صرف ریپ کرنے کی کوشش کرے تو اسے قانون دی گئی ریپ کی سزا کا نصف حصہ جیل میں کاٹنا ہوگا۔
2020 PCRLJ 158

▪نیک نیتی سے کی گئی غلطی کسی کو مجرم قرار نہیں دے سکتی اور نہ ایسی غلطی سے کسی کو سزا دی جا سکتی ہے۔
1991 PLC 791

▪اگر میاں بیوی

27/01/2024

2024 S C M R 178
MEHMOOD KHAN and others versus SARA AKHTAR ---
Civil Petition No. 3030 of 2021

Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale mutations --- Fraud --- Sale of land --- Proof and burden of proof --- Petitioners claimed that the respondent - lady had allegedly sold the suit land to them --- Respondent denied selling her land pursuant to the sale mutations or otherwise , and also denied receipt of sale consideration --- Counsel for respondent contended that the burden to establish the sale lay upon the beneficiaries of the sale , i.e. , the petitioners in terms of Article 115 of the Qanun - e - Shahadat , 1984 ; that respondent was not aware of the sale mutations and upon coming to learn of them filed the suit well within the period prescribed in the Limitation Act , 1908 ; that the respondent's lands were being looked after by her maternal uncle ( petitioner No. 7 ) , and as such she was in constructive possession thereof , which fact is further confirmed as she did not claim mesne profits in her suit ; that only one of the beneficiaries of the purported sale came forward to testify , that is petitioner No. 2 , who admittedly was a child at the time of the sale and as such could not have testified regarding facts thereof ; that his father (petitioner No.1) also testified but stated that the sale consideration was paid by his wife , who did not come forward to testify , and in not doing so an adverse presumption , in terms of Article 129 ( g ) of the Qanun - e - Shahadat , 1984 , would be drawn that if she had testified it would be that she had not paid the sale consideration --- Validity --- Contentions of the counsel representing the respondent were correct --- Furthermore , burden to establish the sales and the sale mutations , lay upon the beneficiaries thereof , i.e. the petitioners , but they failed to discharge it , and when the same was not discharged it may be stated to constitute fraud --- Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and the revenue authorities of the area were directed to immediately ensure delivery of subject land's exclusive possession to the respondent , as she was deprived of her land .

26/01/2024

Gift deed --- Suit for declaration , cancellation and permanent and mandatory injunction challenging the gift deed --- Limitation --- Cause of action ,years accrual of --
2024 S C M R 24

26/01/2024

S. 21, proviso Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, R. 1.8(a)---Disciplinary proceedings initiated three years after retirement of employee (respondent)---Violation of proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency. Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006---Major penalty of recovery of Rs. 5.5 million from the respondent's pension---Legality... Proviso to section 21 of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act, 2006) imposes a mandatory obligation on the competent authority to finalize proceedings against a retired employee not later than two years from the date of his retirement---Proviso to section 21 contains a negative phrase that has an imperative effect, making it mandatory to conclude the proceedings against a retired employee within the prescribed timeframe... Additionally, section 20 of the PEEDA Act, 2006, explicitly provides that the provisions of the Act shall have an overriding effect contrary to any other law for the time being in force-... This effectively nullifies any other law that may contradict or seek to supersede the provisions of the PEEDA Act 2006---This negates the argument of the petitioner department that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent could be initiated under the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules---In the instant case, the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent initiated under Rule 1.8(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules were in violation of section 21 of the PEEDA Act 2006, which is a mandatory provision---Service Tribunal had rightly set aside the departmental order and directed the petitioner authority to grant all pensionary benefits accrued to the respondent---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.
⬇️⬇️⬇️⬇️
2023 SCMR 9151