SUKH RAM. Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit, claiming therethrough, rendition, of, a decree, of, Rs. 21,00,000/-, against, the defendants, and, the afore suit claim became rested, upon, (a) inasmuch, as, during the course, of, construction of Sarain-Jhokar Road, in, Tehsil Chopal District Shimla, H.P., hence, in December, 2008, rather, co-defendant No.3, who became awarded the work, of, execution, of, the afore road, throwing debris, upon, the plaintiff's land, hence, damaging 80 fruit bearing trees,growing thereon (b) and, also hence towards the expenditure, incurred or incurable by the plaintiff, for, removal of debris, as became thrown, upon, his land, (c) besides toward costs of erecting retaining wall(s), for, protecting his land, from, landslides.

(2.) Through the impugned verdict, recorded, upon Civil Suit No. 3-S/1 of 2015/11, by, the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, the latter partly decreed the plaintiff's suit, for, a sum of Rs. 13,73,179/-, along with costs, (a) and, the afore part decreeing, of, the plaintiff's suit, was, made dependent, upon, Ext. PW- 1/A, and, exhibit whereof, is, reflective, vis-a-vis damage, to, 80 fruit bearing trees, hence occurring, on the plaintiffs land, rather becoming encumbered. However, the learned trial Judge, declined, to decree, the, further suit claim, towards monetary damage(s), vis- a-vis, expenditure(s) to be incurred, by the plaintiff, for, removal of debris, as, became purportedly thrown onto his land, by defendant No.3, (b) besides also declined, to, decree qua him, the further suit claim, hence appertaining, to, defendant No.3, becoming directed, to, erect retaining wall(s), for, protecting his land, from, landslides. The plaintiff becoming aggrieved, from, the non-decreeing, vis-a-vis, him, the, afore alluded suit claim(s), and, also the defendants, becoming aggrieved, from, the afore part decreeing, of, the plaintiff's suit claim, hence, by the learned trial Court, rather both thereagainst(s) rear RFA No. 128 of 2016, and, RFA No. 381 of 2016, before this Court, whereupon, they, strive to beget reversal, of, the afore made verdict, by, the learned trial Judge.

(3.) Since both the afore RFAs, arise, from a common verdict, hence, both are amenable, for, a common verdict, becoming made thereon.