THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION Nos.1 & 3 OF 2023 IN/AND SECOND APPEAL No.1540 OF 2011

COMMON JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by appellants-defendants aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded in Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.18 of 2007 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial (for short ‘the learned first Appellate Court’) confirming the Judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in O.S.No.73 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Jagtial (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) in a suit filed seeking damages of Rs.3,00,000/- for the unnatural death of one Dubbaka @ Duvvaka Narasaiah (hereinafter referred as the deceased).

02. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Nos.1 to

4 filed suit against defendant Nos.1 to 3/Electricity Department for damages on account of unnatural death of the deceased namely Dubbaka @ Duvvaka Narsaiah.

Plaintiffs are the wife, minor son, father and mother of deceased. According to them, the deceased owned agricultural land on the outskirts of Mallial village and he used to cultivate the land with the help of water that was obtained from the Electric bore well. On 05.08.2002, around 11.00 a.m, deceased went to irrigate his land using well water and while operating motor, he received electric shock and died instantaneously. The dead body was discovered at the scene and later suit was filed for compensation on the ground that the death was due to the negligence of Electricity department.

03. After conducting full-fledged trial, the learned trial Court decreed the original suit vide the Judgment and decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in O.S.No.73 of 2004. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred appeal before the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court after reevaluating the entire evidence dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the learned trial Court.

04. Both the Courts below found that it is the duty of the electricity department to supply electricity up to the starter and it is for the department to take care of the starter box fixed to the electric pole and ensure safety. According to the evidence, the electric wire at the hole iron box was cut and consequently, the current passed to the starter box. The electric pole to which the starter box was fixed is under the control of the electricity department and the electric wire was damaged due to rats. There was no inspection of the concerned officials of the starter box and the electrocution of the deceased was only on account of department not taking care and maintaining the wire that runs from the pole to the electric starter. Accordingly, damages were granted.

05. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by learned trial Court as well as learned first Appellate Court, appellant-plaintiff filed this Second Appeal before this Court.

06. As seen from the proceeding sheet, this Court vide Order dated 05.12.2011 considered ground Nos.1 to 8 of memorandum of this Second Appeal, as substantial question of law.

07. In Narayanan Rajendran and another v.

Lekshmy Sarojini and others, [Civil Appeal No.742 OF 2001] the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that:

“24. Similarly, before amendment in 1976, this Court also had an occasion to examine the scope of Section 100 C.P.C. In Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya and Others, [AIR 1959 SC 57], the High Court of Madras set aside the findings of the District Judge, Guntur, while deciding the second appeal. This Court observed that notwithstanding the clear and authoritative pronouncement of the Privy Council on the limits and the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, “some learned Judges of the High Courts are disposing of Second Appeals as if they were first appeals. This introduces, apart from the fact that the High Court assumes and exercises a jurisdiction which it does not possess, a ga