Pakistan Case LawAHMAD ZAMAN KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through District Collector, Multan and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner established ownership of the property in question and proved malice on the part of the defendants in a suit for damages. The Supreme Court evaluated the petitioner's evasive cross-examination and admitted payment of property tax based on notices specifying the property number. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the absence of malice and the lack of misreading of evidence by the lower courts were unexceptionable, and the wrong mention of the property number did not establish malice. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be disturbed in civil revision without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Does a wrong mention of a property number in tax notices establish malice on the part of defendants in a suit for damages?
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 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.
Judges on this bench
- Ch. Muhammad Arif728 judgments
- Munir A. Sheikh1,362 judgments
- Nazim Hussain Siddiqui983 judgments