Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN VS Respondent: PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through District Collector, Multan and 2 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Arif, Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Munir A. Sheikh Title:AHMAD ZAMAN KHAN vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through District Collector,
Multan and 2 others Case No.: Civil Petition No,1910-L of 1998 Civil Revision No,18-D of 1998 Date of Judgment:2001-06-18 Reported As: 2002 SCMR 720 Result: Petition failed Judgment ORDER ' CH. MUHAMAD 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
---
## Page 2
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 in 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.