SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the contesting defendants pray for amendment of their written statement. According to the defendants, due to oversight and bonafide mistake, they could not plead certain material facts which are relevant and necessary for the just and proper decision of the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.15 lacs on account of damages, caused to his house, due to the excavation of the land, above his house, by the defendants for the purpose of construction of the building, "Nirman Bhawan", for the H.P. Public Works Department. Case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is. that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land and residential house, named and styled "Fair Villa" which is located opposite to Victoria Place, Nigam Vihar, Shimla. The defendant -State is the owner of the land just beneath of the property of the plaintiff. Boundaries of the defendant touched Western side of the property of the plaintiff which is located above the circular road. The defendant -State started excavation work through his contractor defendant No.4 for the construction of Nirman Bhawan. This excavation work, according to the plaintiff, was done without taking into consideration the basic engineering standards or soil strata. The defendants over looked the damage, likely to be caused, by the excavation work, to the property of the plaintiff. Initially, some cracks appears in the retaining wall of the plaintiffs house which were brought to the notice of the officers of the defendant -State of Public Works Department but no remedial measures were taken to obviate the damage caused to the property of the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that due to acts of negligence of the defendants in excavation of the land, for the purpose of construction of Nirman Bhawan, foundation of the house of the plaintiff has been disturbed resulting into cracks in the wall. The floor basement has sunk. The retaining wall has collapsed and big cracks have appeared in the ground floor. The building resultantly has become dangerous and unfit for human habitation. Inspite of notices issued by the plaintiff to the defendants, remedial measures were not taken.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds. The defendants took up a plea that the construction is being raised in accordance with law and rules. It is denied that any loss or damage has been caused to the plaintiff due to the excavation work executed by the defendants. According to the defendants, for precautionary measure, they raised a retaining wall to avoid any loss to the properties in the locality.