BELABEN Vs. RATANBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-original defendant no. 2 challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad dated 27/01/1983 in Civil Suit No. 4325/1979 by which the learned Judge has partly allowed the said decree in favour of respondent no. 1-original plaintiff directing the appellant-original defendant no. 2 to pay a sum of 15,800/- with running interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under;

(3.) RESPONDENT no. 1-original plaintiff examined himself at Exh. 19 and also examined one Dr. R.D. Patel at Exh. 49. The defendant examined defendant no. 2 herself at Exh. 57 and one Dr. Hiraben Solanki, who was the head of the Department of the hospital was examined at Exh. 27 and Dr. K.M. Banker was examined at Exh. 62. On behalf of defendant no. 2 number of documentary evidences were produced to show and prove that on 19/10/1978 she was on maternity leave and she was not on duty and that there was no injection prescribed to respondent no. 1-original plaintiff and, therefore, she was not liable to pay damages as prayed for. On appreciation of evidence, documentary as well as oral, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad vide impugned judgment and award partly allowed the suit and decreed the suit only against the appellant-original defendant no. 2 by directing the appellant-original defendant no. 2 to pay a total sum of Rs. 15,800/- with running interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit so far as respondent no. 2-original defendant no. 1 is concerned. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad dated 27/01/1983 in Civil Suit No. 4325/1979 the appellant-original defendant no. 2 has preferred the present First Appeal.