JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of District Court, Karaikal, dated 03.11.2011 made in OS.No.11 of 2008.)

1. The First Appeal on hand is filed to set aside the judgment and decree of the District Court, Karaikal dated 03.11.2011 passed in OS.No.11 of 2008.

2. The defendant is the appellant before this Court. The respondent, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court, filed the Suit in O.S.No.11 of 2008, claiming damages, stating that his residential house got damaged on account of explosives kept in the defendant’s house, which was exploded.

3. It is contended that a criminal case was registered in this regard by the jurisdictional Police, which is marked as Ex.A1. At the outset, it is contended in the plaint that the plaintiff and the defendant are neighbours and the defendant kept certain explosive material in his house, which got exploded, resulted causing of damages in the house of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to file a Civil Suit, claiming damages.

4. The defendant in his written statement, denied the entire averments by stating that the plaintiff himself was kept certain chemicals, which are highly flammable and there was no explosion in the house of the defendant and there is no proof to establish that there was an explosion in the house of the defendant.

5. It is contended that the plaintiff has to prove regarding the damages, if any occurred in his residence. It is not possible for the asbestos sheet to get damage in the fire. The contention of the plaintiff that the articles worth about Rs.4,24,100/- was damaged in the fire accident is false and frivolous. There was an explosion of gas cylinder in the house of one Mr.Gnanamani and in order to put blame on the defendant, the plaintiff has filed a vexatious suit against the defendant.

6. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the fire accident that took place on 06.05.2007 was due to explosion of stored explosives in the house of the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff has suffered monetary damages to tune of Rs.4,24,100/- and mental torture, which is calculated at Rs.80,000/- as alleged in the plaint?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages for Rs.5,00,000/- as against the defendant by way of damages?

4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The defendant examined himself as DW.1 and he has not chosen to mark any document on his behalf.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a submission that the entire suit averments set out by the plaintiff are based on certain assumptions and presumptions and there is no proof to establish that the explosives, if any, kept in the house of the defendant got exploded and caused damages to the residential building of the plaintiff. In the absence of any proof, the Trial Court also erroneously arrived a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation from the defendant. The findings of the Labour Court is directly in contradiction with the deposition made by the witnesses, more so, by the statement of the plaintiff himself. Thus, the Trial Court judgment is perverse and liable to be scrapped.

9. To substantiate the said contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant solicited the attention of this Court with reference to the deposition of the witnesses and more specifically, Ex.A1 document reveals that one Mr.Gnanamani has lodged a complaint on 07.05.2007 at about 01.30 hours with Karaikal Town Police Station regarding the fire accident, that has taken place in his house. The said Mr.Gnanamani is also residing adjacent to the residential building of the plaintiff and the defendant. It further reveals that a case has been registered under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.139 of 2007. As there was no reference with reference to accused, the FIR has been registe