MAHADEV Vs. TEK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 13849-C of 2011

(2.) The defendants, in defence, apart from taking various preliminary objections with regard to locus standi, maintainability and limitation, denied that Mahadev had caused any injury along with other defendants and defendant No. 1 along with defendant No. 4 were repairing the wall along with other persons. The plaintiff, along with other persons, came there and started uttering abuses and when defendant Nos. 1 & 2 raised objections, the plaintiff and other persons started beating them and since the plaintiff and his companions were armed with lathis and danda, defendant Nos. 1 & 4 rushed towards the roof of the house of the defendants and the said persons followed the defendants and climbed the roof of the house. It is pleaded that the plaintiff gave lathi blow on the back of defendant No. 4. Plaintiff, Manohar Lal also gave lathi blow on the head of defendant No. 4 and Itbari also gave a lathi blow on the leg of defendant No. 4. Thus, it has been pleaded that the defendant had not caused any injury and the plaintiff got his eye operated without any injury and the liability to pay was denied. The other defendants also filed similar written statements.

(3.) The trial Court, after taking into consideration the issues framed and the statements of 9 plaintiffs witnesses and 11 defendant's witnesses, noticed that the following injuries were there on the person of the plaintiff: