Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑112 of 1969, decided on 14th January 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated the 24th July 1969, in L. P. A. No. 270 of 1966).

----Art. 120‑Private Housing Society making its own arrangement of street sweeping and street lightening for number of years‑Subsequently area included within municipal limits and Municipal Corporation on 6‑6‑59 demanding from owners of houses general taxes with effect from 11‑10‑52‑Society filing suit in 1963 claiming refund of amount spent during 11‑10‑52 to 6‑6‑59‑Whether cause of action for purpose of computing period 6‑6‑59‑Special Leave Art‑ to A0 could not be said to have arisen on Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.

M. N. Kotwal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Iqbal Kazi, Advocate with him) instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on' Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th January 1970.

‑This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of an order of the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 270 of 1966, which was decided on the 24^th July 1969. The area of the petitioner‑Society formerly was within the limits of Karachi Cantonment and not within the area of Karachi Municipal Corporation. It had, therefore, to make its own arrangements for street lighting and street sweeping. By a notification of the Chief Commissioner ‑of Karachi, dated the 11th October 1952, the area of the Karachi Municipal Corporation was extended and the area of the petitioner‑Society was included in it. It is not disputed that after the said notification, the respondent‑Corporation became entitled to collect Municipal taxes in respect of the properties situated within the limit of petitioner‑Society. The respondent‑Corporation was also liable to provide street lighting and street sweeping. It appears that the respondent‑Corporation took no steps to recover Municipal taxes nor did they provide street lighting and street sweeping in the area of the petitioner‑Society. On the 6th June 1959, the respondent‑Corporation called upon the owners of the properties of the petitioner‑Society to pay general taxes and Government taxes with effect from the 11th October 1952. Thereupon, the petitioner‑Society claimed refund of the amount which they have spent on the sweeping of the street and on making arrangement for street lighting through the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation. The respondent‑Corporation did not pay any heed to it. Consequently, the petitioner‑Society called upon the respondent‑Corporation to refund td it Rs. 10,740 which it had paid to it as sweeping charges and further called upon it to pay Rs. 6,466 which it had paid to the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation for street lighting. On the non‑compliance of this notice, the petitioner‑Society filed suit No. 40 of 1963 against the respondent‑Corporation. The suit was decreed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, on the 17th May 1966. This judgment was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No. 270 of 1966. The High Court, by judgment dated the 24th July 1969, upheld the claim of the petitioner‑Society only in the sum of Rs. 7,135. The rest of the claim was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

In support of the petition, Mr. M. N. Kotwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts, of the case and the period of limitation for recovering the amount in dispute from the respondent Corporation was six years. His contention is that the High Court was wrong in holding that the petitioner‑Society was not entitled to recover from the respondent‑Corporation any payment made by it to the respondent more than six years before the date of filing of the suit. According to the learned counsel, the cause of action in the present case, arose on the 6th June 1959. Before this date, the petitioner could not claim any refund or payment and, therefore, the claim in dispute was within time and should not have been disallowed by the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court. The question requires consideration. Leave is granted to the petitioner. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.