MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE vs MUHAMMAD ABDUL AZIZ RAHMANI
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which dismissed in limine the petitioner's civil revision against concurrent findings of lower courts. The respondent had filed a civil suit for the recovery of damages against the Municipal Committee for causing structural damage to his house by diverting water, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. The core legal question involved the assessment of damages and whether the lower courts misread evidence regarding the extent of damage caused to the property. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding the quantum of damages were unexceptionable, noting that the witness had admitted the higher figure in his oral testimony and was not properly confronted with his earlier written report. The petition was accordingly found to be without merit, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts regarding the assessment of damages?
- Can a revision petition succeed on the ground of alleged misreading of evidence when the witness admits the fact during cross-examination?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHANJ.--By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench dated 28-10-1986 passed in Civil Revision No. 300/ D of 1986/ BWP .
2. Respondent Muhammad Abdul Aziz Rahmani filed a civil suit for the recovery of Rs.24,000 as damages against the petitioner/ Municipal Committee for causing damage to the walls of his house by diverting water. The suit was resisted, the parties led the evidence and the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for Rs.20,000 vide judgment and decree dated 9-3-1986. Appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgment dated 22-9-1986. The petitioner then filed revision petition in the Lahore High Court challenging the finding of the Courts below on issue No.4 which reads as under: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.24,000 as damages from the defendant."
The revision was dismissed by the learned High Court in limine vide the impugned order dated 28- 10-1986.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from misreading of the report Exh.P.2 prepared by Babu Shakil Ahmad P. W.2 which indicates that the total damage caused to the property of the respondent was to the tune of Rs.1,920; that the respondent had not constructed his house in question according to Plan 'Exh. D/2 sanctioned by the petitioner/ Municipal Committee and has also not paid the development charges, and, therefore, he was not entitled to any damages for illegal construction; that the petitioner had constructed Pucca drain for diverting the flow of water and the plaintiff failed to prove malfeasance on the part of the petitioner.
3. We have considered the arguments and find no reason to interfere with the finding of facts by the Courts below. Babu Shakil Ahmad P. W.2 has candidly admitted in his statement that damages caused to the property of the respondent amounted to Rs.19,420 and he was not confronted with his report Exh. P.
2. We find no merit in this petition. Leave refused. Petition is consequently dismissed.