Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. The principal question, for determination in the appeal is, whether defendant 1, the owner of the motor-bus which, while being driven by defendant 2, caused injury to the horse of the plaintiff, as, a result or which it became permanently lame, is also liable in damages?

2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant to the appeal are these:

3. The plaintiff had a horse and the members of his family used to ride on it. On the 10th September, 1954, at about 1 P.M. in the broad day-light, the plaintiffs sisters son, Gulab Narain Jadav (P. W. 2), was proceeding on the horse towards Nathnagar. When he reached near a bridge, called Champanala, he got down from the horse, held its reins, waited towards the left side of the road for he syce to come and take charge of the horse. At that very time, the motor bus, driven by defendant 2, belonging to defendant 1, was coming from the opposite direction.

4. According to the plaintiff, on seeing the bus coming near him, P.W. 2, Gulab Narain Jadav, raised his hand giving a signal to the driver (defendant 2) to stop the bus, so that he could remove the horse from the road, but the driver did not Pay any heed to his signal, and, came driving the bus, rashly and negligently, towards the wrong side of the road, blowing the horn, and, passed by the side of P.W. 2. The horse on this got trightened and, the bus dashed against the horse causing serious injury to it making it permanently lame.

5. The plaintiff, therefore, brought an action in damages in ion against defendant J the owner of the bus, and its driver, defendant 2 and, another, who was also alleged to be the owner of the bus, but we are not concerned with him now. The plaintiff alleged in his suit that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by defendant 2 that the horse was seriously injured, and, therefore, be claimed Rs. 1200/-, the price of the horse, as damages jointly against all the defendants.

6. The suit was contested only by defendant 1, the appellant. The driver, defendant 2, did not appear, nor did he file any written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff nor, was he examined in the suit.

7. The main defence of defendant 1, with which alone we are concerned, was that the horse of the plaintiff was straying on the road unattended by any person, and, when the bus reached near the Champanala bridge, the driver, defendant No. 2 blew the horn and the horse moved away from the road, and, defendant 2 drove the bus further, but as soon as th e bus crossed the bridge the horse all on a sudden took its turn and came on the road and began jumping and it got collided with the bus, and, the driver, in spite of his due care and caution, could not avoid the accident. It was, accordingly, alleged that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, defendant 2, and, as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to any damage. The quantum of damage was also challenged.

8. The trial Judge, who heard the suit, in the first instance, held that on the evidence "it could not be concluded that the accident, was caused by the negligent driving of defendant No. 2" and, that, therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any damage. He, further, held that since the horse had become lame and permanently useless the plaintiff, if the suit had been decreed, would have been entitled to Rs. 1200.00 as damages, as claimed, both against the owner, defendant 1, and, his driver defendant 2. He, therefore, on the earlier finding, dismissed the suit.

9. The plaintiff, thereafter, preferred an appeal to the first appellate court, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur. He held that the driver was driving the bus on the wrong side of the road, that he was also driving it negligently, that there was no negligence on the part of P.W. 2; that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence, that the horse of the plaintiff got injury by the sole negligence of defendant 2, and,