2002 PLP 720 (SCMR)
AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through District Collector, Multan and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 720 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ch. Muhammad Arif, Munir A. Sheikh and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through District Collector, Multan and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Tort‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 720 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Tort‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 720 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ch. Muhammad Arif, Munir A. Sheikh and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 720 (SCMR) (AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through District Collector, Multan and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th June, 2001.
- 2. Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition has contended that the findings by the two Courts below the High Court to the effect that the petitioner did not own any property in Khewat No.407/548 should have been considered by the learned Judge in Chambers and the suit for damages decreed with costs.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order dated 15‑9‑1998 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Civil Revision No. 18‑D of 1998). ‑‑‑‑Suit for damages‑‑‑Plea of malice‑‑‑Plaintiff claimed damages from defendant‑Authority on account of having mentioned wrong Khewat number of his property in notice of demand of property tax‑‑‑Trial Court dismissed the suit, which decision was upheld in appeal and revision‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Plaintiff had paid tax of the property mentioned in demand notice‑‑‑Plaintiff, during cross‑examination, had made evasive replies and expressed ignorance regarding the Khewat in which his property was situated‑‑‑Wrong mention of property number did not show that defendant‑Authority had entertained any malice towards the plaintiff‑‑‑Supreme Court dismissed petition for leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th June, 2001. CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is claimed against Judgment dated 15‑9‑1998 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Civil Revision No. 18‑D of 1998 brought by the petitioner to challenge the findings of the two Courts. below was dismissed, with the following observations: "
5. I have scrutinized the record. The plaintiff‑petitioner in his cross -examination expressed ignorance regarding the Khewat in which the property was situated. However, he admitted that he paid property tax for the year 1988 and 1989, on the basis of the notice in which the property was mentioned to be situated in Khewat No.407/548. While going through his statement, his replies were evasive in nature and this fact has been taken note of by the two Courts below. The wrong mention of the property number does not show that the defendants entertained any malice towards the plaintiff -petitioner. "
6. The learned counsel did not show that any evidence has been misread or ignored by the Courts below or any illegality was committed. There being no merit in this civil revision, the same is dismissed."
2. Mr. M.A. Zafar, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition has contended that the findings by the two Courts below the High Court to the effect that the petitioner did not own any property in Khewat No.407/548 should have been considered by the learned Judge in Chambers and the suit for damages decreed with costs.
3. A perusal of paras.5 and 6 of the impugned judgment dated 15‑9‑1998 clearly reveals that it was an admitted position that the petitioner paid the property tax for the years 1988 and 1989. If the notices calling upon him to make the payment of the property tax regarding the property in Khewat No.407/548 were complied with, then, the learned Judge Chambers was quite right in observing that... "While going through his statement, his replies were evasive in nature and this fact has been taken note of by the two Courts below. The wrong mention of the property number does not show that the defendants entertained any malice towards the plaintiff -petitioner. " (Emphasis supplied). Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. S.A.K./A/160/S Petition failed.