1987 PLP 680 (SCMR)
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ RAHMANI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 680 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Mian Burhanuddin Khan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ RAHMANI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 680 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 680 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Mian Burhanuddin Khan and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 680 (SCMR) (MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ RAHMANI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Shah Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 28th October, 1986, passed in Civil Revision No. 300/D of 1986/BWP). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Concurrent finding of facts‑ Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent finding of facts by Courts below‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th February, 1987. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 28‑10‑1986 passed in Civil Revision No. 300/ D of 1986/ BWP .
2. Respondent Muhammad Abdul Aziz Rahmani filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs.24,000 as damages against the petitioner/ Municipal Committee for causing damage to the walls of his house by diverting water. The suit was resisted, the parties led the evidence and the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for Rs.20,000 vide judgment and decree dated 9‑3‑1986. Appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgment dated 22‑9‑1986. The petitioner then filed revision petition in the Lahore High Court challenging the finding of the Courts below on issue No.4 which reads as under: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.24,000 as damages from the defendant." The revision was dismissed by the learned High Court in limine vide the impugned order dated 28‑10‑1986.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from misreading of the report Exh.P.2 prepared by Babu Shakil Ahmad P. W.2 which indicates that the total damage caused to the property of the respondent was to the tune of Rs.1,920; that the respondent had not constructed his house in question according to Plan 'Exh. D/2 sanctioned by the petitioner/ Municipal Committee and has also not paid the development charges, and, therefore, he was not entitled to any damages for illegal construction; that the petitioner had constructed Pucca drain for diverting the flow of water and the plaintiff failed to prove malfeasance on the part of the petitioner.
3. We have considered the arguments and find no reason to interfere with the finding of facts by the Courts below. Babu Shakil Ahmad P. W.2 has candidly admitted in his statement that damages caused to the property of the respondent amounted to Rs.19,420 and he was not confronted with his report Exh. P.
2. We find no merit in this petition. Leave refused. Petition is consequently dismissed. M.I./M‑24/S Petition dismissed.