HYDERABAD: A single-judge bench of the Sindh High Court has directed an SHC inspection team member to initiate appropriate action regarding a rent appeal and submit a report before the court involving a senior civil judge/rent controller of Matli.

Justice Riazat Ali Sahar directed the district and sessions judge of Badin to call for records and proceedings from the senior civil judge. The bench made observations against the civil judge while passing an order on April 20, which was released here on Wednesday.

The matter pertained to a rent appeal filed before the high court by Zulfiqar and Mohammad Azeem, both tenants in a property case. They had challenged an order passed against them by the additional district judge of Matli while deciding an appeal by property owners — Masroor Ahmed, Gul Mohammad, Maqbool Ahmed, and Ms Zareen — against the dismissal of their suit by the senior civil judge of Matli.

While hearing the appeals of Zulfiqar and Mohammad Azeem, the Sindh high court directed parties to maintain the status quo on April 18, 2025. According to Barrister Jawad Qureshi, representing the respondent property owners before the SHC, the high court was informed that while the SHC’s stay order was active, the senior civil judge/rent controller allowed an execution plea and handed over the property to the Mukhtiarkar.

In his April 6, 2026, order, Justice Sahar noted that after the April 18, 2025, order, the trial court directed parties to vacate possession of the suit properties on Sept 19, 2025, in violation of the SHC’s previous order. The high court requested a report from the senior civil judge regarding this violation, with directives not to initiate any further proceedings in the instant matter until further notice.

Justice Sahar referred to the trial court’s Sept 19 order for the rent execution application, in which the trial judge mentioned that “the trial court has not received any directive from the appellate or superior court regarding the execution order, and the trial court was not made a party in any petition, nor did the appellate court suspend the court’s execution order.”

The high court noted that the Sept 19 order for vacation of possession was prima facie inconsistent with and in derogation of the SHC’s stay order. The judge stated that the reasoning advanced by the trial court judge — that no specific order suspending the execution was received —reflected a clear misinterpretation of the scope and effect of a status quo order.

“I am of the considered view that the observations by the trial court demonstrate a lack of proper appreciation of the binding nature and legal implications of the order passed by this court. Despite communication of the status quo order, the trial court proceeded to pass an execution order which calls for serious consideration,” wrote Justice Sahar. He referred the matter against the trial court judge to the inspection team member -II through the SHC registrar for initiating appropriate action as per the law. The court fixed the next hearing for May 11.

Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2026