MANGAT RAM Vs. BHAG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2006 rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide which it decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent for damages and interest and the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2008, rendered by the court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which it dismissed the appeal.

(2.) Facts in brief are that on 13.11.2001 at about 7/7.30 a.m., plaintiff-respondent along with his son Sube Singh had gone to his fields for sowing wheat crop. On reaching there, he saw defendants-appellant Nos. 2 and 3 sowing wheat in their fields and defendant No. 1-appellant ploughing their land. The common ridge of the fields of parties, as also the watercourse had been dismantled by the defendants-appellants. When plaintiff-respondent objected to the act aforesaid, defendant-appellant Mangat Ram started abusing plaintiff-respondent. An altercation took place. Mangat Ram inflicted a lathi blow on the shoulder of the plaintiff-respondent. Defendant-appellant Pradeep with an intent to kill him caused injuries with the front wheel of the tractor on his left foot and left knee. The plaintiff- respondent fell down. When his son Sube Singh was trying to save him, defendants- appellants attacked him as well. Sube Singh fell down and the defendants-appellants gave him fist and leg blows. The plaintiff- respondent and his son raised cries of 'save save', upon which Jaswant Singh reached the spot and saved them from the clutches of the defendants-appellants. Thereafter, the defendants-appellants fled from the spot. Sube Singh and his brother-in-law Ishwar Singh took the plaintiff-respondent to Civil Hospital, Karnal, where he and his son were medico-legally examined by the doctor at about 11 a.m. As per the X-ray report, there was a fracture of left femur suffered by the plaintiff-respondent. The police was informed and the statement of the plaintiff-respondent was recorded. On receipt of the X-ray report, F.I.R. No. 286 dated 22.11.2001 under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the defendants-appellants. Charges were framed against the accused by the then Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal. It was further stated that the plaintiff-respondent remained admitted as indoor patient in the General Hospital, Karnal and his leg was operated upon. He spent Rs. 20,000 on his treatment as indoor patient. He also incurred expenditure on transportation. He remained bedridden for a long time and was not in a position to walk due to fracture of his left femur. It was further stated that the plaintiff-respondent had become handicapped and could not do agricultural work. He had suffered pecuniary loss due to the injuries caused by the defendants-appellants on his person. It was further stated that he had become permanently disabled. Plaintiff-respondent also underwent extreme mental agony and physical pain when he remained admitted in the hospital. Ultimately, a suit for damages in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was filed.

(3.) The defendants put in appearance and filed written statement wherein they took up various objections and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff- respondent had no locus standi to file the present suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff-respondent came to the court by suppression of material facts. It was further pleaded that plaintiff- respondent had got no cause of action to file the suit. It was stated that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was premature as the criminal case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karnal, was still pending. It was denied that the plaintiff- respondent was an agriculturist and was maintaining himself and his family from the income from agriculture. It was further denied that the defendants-appellants caused injuries on the person of plaintiff- respondent as alleged by him. It was stated that the plaintiff-respondent, in collusion with the local police falsely implicated the defendants-appellants in a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 286 dated 22.11.2001 under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further stated that it was yet to be ascertained by the court whether the defendants-appellants had caused injuries on the person of the plaintiff-respondent or not. It was further stated that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent only to extract money. It was denied that the plaintiff-respondent remained admitted in the hospital as an indoor patient for a long time and spent a sum of Rs. 20,000 on his treatment. It was further denied that the plaintiff-respondent had become physically handicapped and the defendants-appellants were liable to pay compensation to him. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.