Van Mandaladhikari, Van Mandal, Raigarh (CG) v. dagannath Patel, S
Case Details
,^) •I, .// p 70-:'j COURT^|,%%,£ > 'o IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FirstAppealNo._^_2_2_/2009. / SlR9l©1 "ADDITIONAL (ARISING OUT^QF JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE COURT OF DISTRICT JVDGE, SARANGGA^H DISTRICT RAIGARH, IN CIVIL SUIT NOT6-B/2006 DATED*-S1-3- 2009.) FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, L908. ^" APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 51,143/- (THE STATE IS EXEMPTD FROM THE PAYWIENT OF WHOLE OF THE COURT FEES PAYABLE ON THE MEMO OF APPEAL VIDE NOTIFICATION BEARING N0. D-2870/21-B/C.G./05 DATED 21-12- 2005. >- 2. 3. Stateof Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh (CG) Van Mandaladhikari (Samanya), Raigarh (CG) •••» Up-Van Mandaladhikari, Van Mandal, Raigarh (CG). Versus dagannath Patel, S/o Shri Neelambhar Patel, aged - 50 years, occupation - service R/o village Patharipali, Police Station and Tahsil Saranaciarii Appellants: Defendants ..^js^ •,-?1 ' .\ (i.L-W' %^1' .--.^ Yr«*"'; s^-- y*' Respondent:
Legal Reasoning
Sinale Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Samav K. Agrawal First Appeal No.199 of 2009 Appellants State of Chhattisgarh and others versus Respondent Jagannath Patel Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Appearances of the counsel: Shri Vinay Harit, the State/appellants/defendants. None for the respondent/plaintiff. Deputy Advocate General for O R A L J V D^B_V^_^T (Delivered on 28t-h November, 2013) ' The defendants have (1) filed the instant appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the Code') challenging the judgment and decree dated 31-3-2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Sarangarh in Civil Suit No:6-B/2006. The civil suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed by the trial Court. (2)- The facts in brief are as under: (2.1)The tractor bearing registration No.MP 26 214.1 and trolley bearing registration No.MP 26 E E 2142 of the plaintiff was seized by the forest authorities for forest offences and proceeded under .'^:-'.r^s^^^^^^"^^:^:^^^^'^^^i^!^^^^^^1?-''^'^"^"^—--—1 _.,!, ( 2 (Cl-' Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act and ultimately the Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest) by order dated 18-6-1999 confiscated the tractor and trolley and wood The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the appellate authority (Conservator of Forest). The revisional authority, i.e., the Court of -Session, by its order dated 29-5-2002, allowed the revision and set aside the order confiscating the tractor and trolley and wood and directed for return of the confiscated vehicle and wood, for which the plaintiff filed an application on 10-6- 2002 but the vehicle was not returned. Anyhow, the vehicle was returned on 13-8-2002 which was damaged and most of the .parts of the tractor and trolley were missing leading to service of notice under Section 80 of the Code and filing of the instant suit for recovery of Rs.58,227/- along with interest. The said suit was resisted by the State/defendants by filing a written statement stating Inter alia that the vehicle in question was returned by the forest authorities gn 13-8-2002 in presence of Panchas and no objection was raised by the plaintiff while taking the vehicle in question. (2.2)The trial Court, by its ijudgment and decree, partly granted the suit holdin^ Inter alia that the plaintiff was entitled for Rs.51,143/- towards !>~^^ - niUSi^ftXLBBUCB^uS 1^4 damages. (3) Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellants/defendants would submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court granting the suit while answering issue No.2 in affirmative is contrary to the facts and law (C available on record and it deserves to be set aside. Whereas, Shri R.S.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would support the impugned judgment and decree. (4) I have heard and considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the civil suit. (5) On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, 4 witnesses have been examined. The plaintiff himself examined as AW-1. He deposed that on 29-5-2002, the order of the forest officer confiscating the vehicle in question was set aside and he filed the application on 10-6-2002, but the said vehicle was not returned and ultimately the said vehicle was returned on 13-8-2002 in which most of the essen.tial parts of the tractor and" trolley were missing for which he had served the notice under Section 80 of f-. t the Code to the Government on 19-12-2002 and he filed the suit and also filed copies of the bills which have been exhibited. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the counsel for the State but nothing has been brought on record to hold that the vehicle was handed over/returned by the State authorities to the plaintiff in a good and running condition or in the condition . in which it was seized and confiscated. (6) Hari Sahu (AW-2), who accompanied the plaintiff to the office of the forest officer to take delivery of the vehicle on 13-8-2002 has also supported the case of the plaintiff. Dhwajaram (AW-3) and Sunil Patel (AW-4) have supported the case of the plaintiff. (7) The State/defendants have filed Ex.D-1, i.e., the memo returning the tractor and trolley and Ex.D- 2, i.e., Panchnama. Defendants' witnesses P.L.Patel (DW-1), C.P.Dubey (DW-2) and Premlal Yadav (DW-3) have been examined. They have stated that the vehicle was returned to the plaintiff in running condition The fact remains that the vehicle was returned to the plaintiff on 13-8-2002 and on the same- day, he had submitted a memo received by him on 13-8-2002 in which he has'complained about missing of various parts. It is also clear from the f: evidence on record that the vehicle was kept in an open 'place. The vehicle was seized in running .condition on 18-6-1999 and was returned on 13-8 ~wif'^?^-W^yi^',-^-^ftt^~' w 2002, i.e., after more than a period of 3 years and in the meanwhile, the tractor and trolley was kept in the open place and during that period most of the parts got missed and the vehicle was even not returned iimnediately after the order passed by the revisional Court on 29-5-2002 and it was returned only on . 13-8-2002 after some contempt notice was issued by the competent Court. The plaintiff has also stated that he had incurred expenses of Rs.41,543/- and the wood have not been returned to him for which he is entitled for Rs.13,000/-. The trial Court has granted Rs.38,143/- towards the repairing charges of the vehicle and for return of the tractor and trolley after delay of 65 days @ Rs.200/- per day. The aforesaid damages granted by the trial Court is based on the material available on record as, admittedly, most of the parts of the vehicle in question were missing when it was returned to the plaintiff on 13-8-2002. Thus, the
Decision
order granting damages is based on the material available on record. (8) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. fhe »> impugned judgment and decree is hereby affirmed Sd/- Saajay K. Agrawal Judge Gopal u' ''•W-^K^SSWK'VV^'