CHAIRMAN ASEB Vs. MD SUNAHAR ALI LASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred by the appellants separately against the impugned judgement and decree dated 6.4.88 and 21.4.88 respectively passed in Money Suit No. 9/88. The MA (F) has been preferred by appellants Assam State Electricity Board against the order passed in Misc Case No. 23/88 by the Asstt District Judge, Hailakandi, the executing court rejecting a claim made under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC by the appellant ASEB. As both the appeals have arisen from the same judgement I decide to dispose of the appeals by this common judgement.

(2.) The respondent as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 9/88 in the court of the Asstt District Judge, Hailakandi, claiming Rs. 1,69,000/- only as price of an elephant belonging to the plaintiff and also claiming Rs. 6,500A per month as income of the elephant against the Chairman of the ASEB and other officers and also against the State of Mizoram on the ground that the domesticated elephant of the respondent (Plaintiff) was electrocuted at a point where the transmission line was maintained by the State of Mizoram and the electricity energy was transmitted by this line to the State of Mizoram by Assam State Electricity Board. The defendant officers of the ASEB contested the suit by filing written statement and the State of Mizoram filed written statement but did not adduce evidence, inspite of giving sufficient time for adducing evidence, Admittedly the ASEB, the corporate body was not made a party, in the suit, only the officers of ASEB, with designation were arrayed as defendants. The suit was decreed against both the defendants (appellants). The ASEB preferred appeal (FA 37/88) impugning the judgment and decree and stay was granted with condition to pay 50% of the decretal amount. As it appears, the dispute has arisen when the respondent plaintiff made application before the executing court for attachment of certain properties of the appellants and the learned executing court passed order to attach the value of the properties of the appellant ASEB, allegedly, presuming the property as the property of the said officers.

(3.) In both the appeals the appellants have taken similar grounds challenging the judgement and decree.