Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

Law: City of Karachi Municipal Act (Bombay Act X V11 of 1933)

Section: 99

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated the 19th May 1969, in Second Appeal No. 394 of 1967). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), ------ -----S. 100-Service of notice-A question of fact-Cannot be raised for first time do ,second appeal. (b) City of Karachi Municipal Act (Bombay Act XVII of 1933), S. 99(1), cl. (a)-Levy of conservancy tax---Not dependent upon arrangement for collection and removal of refuse from every individual premises-Arrangements for such collection and removal made in area concerned-Validity of conservancy tax levied in respect of anyone of premises in such area cannot be questioned-Municipality held, quite competent to charge conservancy tax in circumstances.             Date of hearing : 13th January 1970. ORDER WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The only point for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal is whether the respondent-Municipal Corporation was competent to recover conservancy tax from the petitioner in respect of property of the petitioners situated in the K. P. T. area. In this connection, the petitioner filed Suit No. 185 of 1959 in the Court of II Civil Judge First Class, Karachi, which was dismissed on the 18th September 1965. This decision was also upheld by the District Judge, Karachi, in Civil Appeal No. 691 of 1965, by judgment dated the 6th May 1967. The matter was then taken in the High Court in Second Appeal No. 394 of 1967. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated the 19th May 1969, allowed the appeal in respect of water tax and dismissed the appeal in respect of conservancy tax. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against this order. The finding of the High Court is that the respondent has produced evidence to show that they are rendering conservancy services to the petitioners and other occupants of K. P. T. area. Mr. Abdur Rauf, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the respondent-Corporation, before charging thee conservancy tax, has not issued notice under section 99(1) the Karachi Municipal, Act. This objection was, for the first time, raised…