1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2005 as passed in Civil Appeal No.53/2005 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar has reversed the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2004 as passed in Civil Suit No.111/2001 by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dantaramgarh.

2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court has formed an opinion that the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the matter deserves to be remanded for re-consideration of the Appellate Court. As the matter is proposed to be remanded, dilatation on all the factual aspects does not appear necessary. A brief reference to the background aspects would suffice.

3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit aforesaid seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- against the defendants-non-petitioners for the loss suffered by him due to death of his camel for electrocution. It was alleged that on 22.07.2001, the plaintiff had left his 10 years old camel of Bikaneri breed for grazing near a cremation ground at village Kikralia; and the camel came in contact of low hanging electricity supply line and died for electrocution. The plaintiff submitted that much before this accident, the other villagers had informed the concerned officers of the defendants about the fact of electricity wires hanging dangerously low but the defendants failed to take the corrective steps. The plaintiff submitted that he had purchased the camel for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from Birdaram and was entitled to recover the loss suffered with interest.

4. After taking evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court accepted the evidence adduced by the petitioner including the documents on record particularly showing the cause of death of the camel being the electric shock. While rejecting the plea of the defendants that the supply line was at a height of about 5 metres, the learned Trial Court observed that a camel would not be of a height of 5 metres and if the line was at a reasonable height, the camel would not have come in its contact. The learned Trial Court also rejected the objection of the defendants about want of notice to the Electrical Inspector while accepting the submission that the petitioner was a rustic villager. The learned Trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit and directed the defendants to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation but disallowed the claim of interest.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendants related with Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. preferred the appeal that has been allowed by the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2005. The learned Appellate Court, while rightly noticing that the real question calling for determination was as to whether the plaintiff's camel died for negligence of the defendants, observed that the fact of the camel having died for electrocution was established on record. However, the learned Appellate Court, thereafter, observed that the plaintiff alleged about the complaints having been made by the villagers but the plaintiff did not examine any person living in the vicinity and the witnesses produced by him failed to state if any complaint was made about hanging line to the officers of the defendants. The learned Appellate Court further observed that the plainitff did not state anything about negligence of the defendants or repeated complaints in his report (Ex.P/1) as filed with the police on 23.07.2001; and that admittedly, the plaintiff did not make any complaint to the Electrical Inspector. The learned Appellate Court yet further observed that if the line was hanging and the camel died for coming in its contact, the plaintiff had the adequate opportunity to immediately inform the concerned Department and to get the site verified so as to strengthen his case. On these considerations