Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.484‑D of 1984/BWP, decided on 3rd April, 1985.

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by Courts below not suffering from illegality or material irregularity, and, no misreading or non‑reading of evidence found apparent on record‑‑Revision petition, held, was without merit and dismissed in circumstances.

Ch. Ejaz Ahmad for Petitioner.

Muhammad Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Respondent.

This Civil Revision has been filed by Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur through its Chairman against judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur on 19‑1‑1982 and affirmed by Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, vide his judgment, dated 4‑2‑1984, whereby the suit for the recovery of damages filed by the respondent Ghulam Dastigir has been decreed for Rs.10,000.

2. The relevant facts briefly are that Ghulam Dastigir plaintiff/ respondent owned House No.5/20 in Koocha Rehman, Shahi Bazar, Bahawalpur. The petitioner/ defendant had laid water supply line in the said street. The respondent alleged that due to the negligence in the maintenance of the said water supply line by the petitioner, there occurred leakage of water from the said water supply line and water entered the house of the respondent, as a result of which it fell down and his household articles were also damaged. He asked the petitioner to make good the loss caused to him, but the petitioner did not accede to his request and, therefore, he was obliged to file instant suit which was contested by the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties 8 issues were framed including the relief. The important issues being Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 which reads as under:‑‑--

(3) Whether the defendant was liable to looked after the pipeline O.P.P.

(4) Whether the leakage in the pipeline took place due to the negligence of the defendant O.P.P.

(5) Whether due to leakage in the pipeline any damage was caused to the house to the plaintiff and the plaintiff suffered any loss If so, how much O.P.P.

(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any damage from the defendant O.P.P.

The learned trial Court on consideration of the material on record held that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to look after and maintain the water supply line and decided issue No.3 in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent. As for issues Nos.4 to 6, the learned trial Court relying on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff /respondent held that his house had fallen due to leakage of water from supply line which occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner/ Municipal Committee and found that the respondent was entitled to recover Rs.10,000 as damages from the defendant/ petitioner against the claim of Rs.25,000 because the respondent had failed to give details of the estimated loss. Against this decree the petitioner took an appeal to the District Judge but without any success, hence this revision.

3. I have heard the learned counsel at some length and also perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below, in any manner, suffered from illegality or material irregularity. No misreading or non‑reading of any evidence has been pointed out either. As such this petition being without merit is hereby dismissed in limine.

A.A. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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