PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its General Manager vs JAVED IQBAL

ORDER

' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby the decree passed in favour of the respondent by the learned trial Court was restored and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs,10,460 with interest.

2. On 19-12-1960 when the respondent/plaintiff was a child of about six years and while playing with playmates on the Railway line he was struck by the Railway engine causing injury to him. As a result of the injury his leg had to be amputated. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs,25,000 as damages. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for Rs,10,460 by judgment dated 23-12-1964.

However, in appeal the learned Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit. The respondent filed regular second appeal before the High Court and by the impugned judgment decree as aforesaid was passed against the petitioner.

3. This meagre claim in which only a decree of Rs,10,460 had been granted is lingering for the last about 30 years when the respondent with his amputated leg has crossed almost half of his age. In fact by the injury suffered by him the respondent has become incapacitated and invalid, a disadvantage and suffering which he would continue to suffer for the entire life and not only to himself, but has been a source of anguish for his parents and for his children, if there are any.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the question of duty and care of the Railway with regard to a child trespasser is involved and further that the interest ought not to have been granted. In the facts and circumstances of the case no legal questions of general importance arise in this case. Admittedly the respondent had suffered an injury on the Railway track, which was unfenced and that the learned trial Court as well as High Court have held that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the Railway's employees. In view of such finding it is not necessary to enter into any other question. The learned counsel contended that the respondent had not claimed any interest. However, in the interest of justice the Court was competent to grant interest to the respondent as an ancillary relief. From the arguments of the learned counsel the impression is gathered that so far this amount of Rs,10,460 has not been paid to the respondent. In these circumstances, no interference is called. We refuse to grant leave.