Sharma, J.—This is an appeal by the defendant Kishanlal against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Sikar, dated the 28th of October 1952. It arises out of a suit for damages filed by the plaintiff-respondent Laxminarain against the defendant-appellant Kishenlal on account of certain injuries having been caused to him by the defendant by the beating given by the latter to the former.

2. According to the plaintiff, beating was given by the defendant to him with lathis on the 26th of December 1947. Four injuries were caused to the plaintiff including the one in the right leg which was a grievous injury. The plaintiff was removed to Sawai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, and was treated there. Four injuries were found on his body including a grievous injury in the shape of fracture of both joint at the lower third of the right leg. He had to remain in Sawai Man Singh Hospital for 18 days. He claimed Rs. 260/-on account of the cost of his treatment and other expenses and claimed Rs. 800/- on account of general damages as a consequence of the injuries.

3. The defendant denied that he had caused any injury to the plaintiff. He also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to any damages. Learned Civil judge, Neem-ka-Thana who tried the suit, partially decreed the suit awarding him Rs. 800/- on account of general damages and Rs. 185/1/- on account of treatment and other expenses, by the judgment dated the 30th of July 1952. The defendant went in appeal and the learned District Judge, Sikar, by his judgment dated the 28th of October 1952 reduced the amount of general damages from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 500/- and thus gave a decree for the recovery of Rs. 685/1/- in all. The defendant has come in second appeal.

4. I have heard Shri R.S. Purohit on behalf of the defendant-appellant and Shri B.K. Bhargava on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent.

5. It has been argued by Shri Purohit that it was not proved by the evidence on the record that the defendant had caused any injury to plaintiff. It was argued that out of the four witnesses, all excepting the plaintiff, himself was disbelieved by the lower courts and the courts were not justified in relying upon the evidence of the p!aintiffalone. Further it was argued that the plaintiff failed to prove that he had suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 185/1/- on account of treatment and other expenses. Finally it was argued that the sum of Rs. 500/- on account of damages for bodily pain and mental agony as a result of the injuries was awarded without any evidence and was in any case excessive It was argued that the learned lower appellate court has said that the plaintiff had failed to prove the loss which he suffered in his business, and that there was no evidence abut loss of earning and loss of prospect of lucrative employment and shortened expectation of life. Under these circumstances, it was argued that the lower appellate court ought not to have awarded Rs. 500/- as damages for bodily pain and mental agony.

6. On behalf of the respondent, it was argued by Shri Bhargava that so far as the question of causing injuries is concerned, this is a question of fact and has been decided by both the lower courts in favour of the plaintiff on evidence produced. This question cannot be gone into in second appeal. As regards the amount of Rs. 185/1/- on account of treatment and other expenses, it was argued that this point was not pressed before the first appellate court and therefore the appellant could not raise this question in second appeal. As regards damages for bodily pain and mental agony, it was argued that it was proved that the defendant caused four injuries to the plaintiff and one of them was grievous. On proof of this, the plaintiff became entitled to damages. As regards the quantum, it was argued that such questions cannot be weighed in golden scales and the lower courts discretion cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless the damages were inordinately excessive, or wer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document