C.M. No,1605/C of 2006 ' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- This is application under Order XLI rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for production of additional evidence. It may be observed that the present appeal was dismissed thrice for non-prosecution which was, however, restored and finally on 10-7-2006 it was set down for hearing for today. During the last two years when the appeal was before this Court and prior to that before the first appellate Court, no such attempt was made. Today when the appeal is to be finally heard, this application has been filed. It is a belated attempt. Moreover rule 27 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not entitle a party as of right to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary.
' The application is dismissed accordingly. R.S.A. No,108 of 2004 ' The suit for recovery of Rs,5,72,000 instituted by the respondent was tried by the learned trial Court and was decreed to the extent of Rs,200,000 vide judgment and decree dated 31-7-2003. Appeals filed by both sides were dismissed by the appellate Court on 8-3-2004. This is second appeal by Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited who was defendant in the suit.
2. Though the matter as to quantum of dam ages awarded to the respondent stand concluded by findings of fact yet the learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length who disputes the correctness of the view taken by the Courts.
3. The record of the trial Court which is available before me has been perused and the evidence led by the parties has been considered. The case of the respondent/ plaintiff was that besides the area acquired by the appellant-company for its installations/pipelines, (for which the compensation had been paid) other land was made use of by the appellant-company, which caused damage and loss to the fruit-bearing trees etc. (description whereof was given in the plaint) but no compensation was paid for the same. The suit was contested and necessary issues were framed.
The respondent/plaintiff apart from other evidence produced Riasat Masih (P.W.4) who had been looking after the said trees and appeared himself as P.W.5. The appellant-defendant produced Muhammad Iqbal Khan, representative Land Section (D.W.1) and Kashif Manzoor, Assistant, Land Section (D.W.2). It was on appraisal' of such evidence, that the trial Court observed that damage to the standing crops and trees was caused due to heavy machinery used for the main gas pipelines.
It was noted by the learned trial Court that the land owned by the respondent-plaintiff was used as service road for passing the gas pipelines and that "damage to the crops, trees as well as small bridges was natural as it was not possible to pass such a high pressure gas pipe line without using heavy machinery." He, however, did not agree with the quantum of damages claimed by the respondent-plaintiff and awarded damages to the extent of Rs,200,000. Since both sides felt dissatisfied i.e, the plaintiff qua the reduction of amount of damages and the appellant the award of damages to the extent of Rs,200,000, they went in appeal which were dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 8-3-2004. The judgment of the appellate Court has now been assailed by the appellant through the second appeal. Suffice it to observe that the finding recorded by the trial Court as also by the appellate Court are based on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties.
Reappraisal of evidence is not ordinarily undertaken by this Court in second appeal. The concurrent findings so recorded by the Courts supported by the evidence hardly warrant interference by this Court in second appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the award of damages to the extent of Rs,200,000 is based on conjectures, does not have force inasmuch as in such like cases, while assessing quantum of damages to be awarded, the Court is to make such assessm ent by taking into consideration the entire material on the record.
Though the respondent-plaintiff had claimed damages to the tune of Rs,5,72,000 decree to the extent of Rs,200,000 was only passed by the Courts which hardly calls for interference by this Court.
' The appeal is dismissed accordingly.