1991 PLP 1643 (SCMR)
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1643 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Allah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1643 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1643 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Allah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1643 (SCMR) (MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE and 3 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th August, 1989.
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 2-7-1986 of the Lahore High Court, in Civil Revision No.1506-D of 1986)
Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to examine controversy whether demand of "Chajja Tax" by Authority after respondent was exempted from payment by it amounted to humiliation and insult of respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant's side in a suit for recovery of damages; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. The respondent's suit was based, as stated by the learned counsel, on the assertion that the petitioners having exempted him from the tax which has been described as Chhajja Tax, was subsequently made to pay the same. This as asserted from the respondent's side resulted in humiliation and insult to the said respondent. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the finding that the demand of tax did not amount to humiliation. However, the respondent's appeal was allowed and the petitioners' Civil Revision having been dismissed on similar grounds, as asserted by the respondent, leave to appeal has now been sought. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case to further examine the aforestated controversy as also to consider the points raised in this petition, leave to appeal is granted. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all essential documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal. H.B.T./M‑1087/S Leave granted.