The burden of proof lies with the party claiming damages, and it is incumbent upon such party to bring cogent and reliable evidence to establish the illegal act as well as the quantum of the damages.

1. Heard Mr. Vengurlekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. The above appeal challenges the judgment dated 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco, whereby a suit filed by the appellant for damages came to be dismissed.

3. Mr. Vengurlekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that though the evidence on record discloses that the respondent no.4 who is a practicing advocate was present at the time of the morcha nevertheless, the learned Judge has erroneously refused the damages claimed by the appellant. The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant was falsely implicated in an allegation of rape against the victim who was working at the relevant time in the establishment of the appellant. The learned counsel further pointed out that the respondents with a common intention illegally organized the morcha and trespassed into the suit premises of the appellant thereby causing damages to the shop to the tune of over 5 lakhs. The learned counsel further pointed out that the partner of the appellant at the relevant time was out of the station and taking an advantage of the said situation the respondents ransack the business establishment of the appellant and caused substantial damages. The learned counsel further pointed out that on account of the said incident, a FIR was lodged before the local Police Station against all the respondents in the suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that though the respondents have been acquitted in the said proceedings nevertheless, there is enough material on record which conclusively establishes the involvement of the respondents in committing the damage to the suit shop. The learned counsel thereafter has taken me through the impugned judgment of the Trial Judge and pointed out that the learned Judge has misconstrued the evidence on record and has erroneously come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish his claim of damages. The learned counsel further pointed out that on account of loss of reputation of the partner of the appellant, the respondents are liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. The learned counsel further pointed out that on account of malicious prosecution and defamation by filing a false complaint against the appellant, the respondents are also liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground that the actual damages have not been established though according to him the claim for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.5 lakhs was on account of non pecuniary damages. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record especially the evidence of the respondent no.4 and pointed out that the said respondent has categorically admitted that he was found guilty in the disputed proceedings initiated by the Bar Council which according to him clearly establishes the implication of the said respondent in the illegal acts in the business establishment of the appellant. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has failed to consider that the appellant has duly established his claim for damages and as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the appellant deserves to be decreed.

4. The respondents though served have failed to remain present.

5. Upon hearing of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and on perusal of the records, the following points for determination arise in the present appeal :

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

(i) Whether the appellant has established that the respondents were responsible for the damages claimed in the suit?

(ii) Whether the appellant has proved the damages claimed by him in the suit?

6. With regard to the first point for determination, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 Ramchandra, I find tha