| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLG 998 1986 SLD 998 1986 SCMR 1842 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 360-K of 1985, decided on 28th August, 1986., (From the judgment of Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 12-5-1985 passed in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1971)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, S.A. NUSRAT AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 360-K of 1985, decided on 28th August, 1986., (From the judgment of Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 12-5-1985 passed in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1971)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, S.A. NUSRAT AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THARPARKAR and others
VS
LACHMANDAS and others
Law:
Section:
Mehdi Shah v . Government of West Pakistan, Lahore and another L D 1969 Kar. 369 ref. A. Sattar Shaikh, Additional Advocate-General, Sind and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1986. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in this petition from judgment, dated 12-5-1985 of the Sind High Court; whereby the respondents (plaintiffs) second appeal arising out of a suit filed against the petitioners, was allowed. While setting aside lower appellate Courts decision the trial Court Decree in the .suit of the respondents, was restored. The respondents had filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners to the effect that the demand for payment of the construction charges of their watercourse was illegal. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General, the charges were in connection with the sharing of expenses for the construction of the watercourse which was for the utilization of the respondents (plaintiffs)--the expenses under the relevant law were to be shared by the Government and the beneficiary-landlords in 50 per cent share each. The suit was decreed by the trial Court notwithstanding the objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction. The first appeal filed by the petitioner was, however, allowed and the suit was dismissed. On second appeal a learned Single Judge of the High Court as mentioned above while setting aside the first appellate judgment has restored the decree passed by the trial Court. Learned Additional…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492