' This Civil Revision has been filed by Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur through its Chairman against the judgment and decree passed by Mr. Rustam Ali. Malik, Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur dated 10-12-1983, and affirmed by the District Judge requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 18,000 to the respondent Gulzar Akhtar, as damages.
2. The relevant facts briefly are that Gulzar Akhtar plaintiff/respondent owned house No. 1274/B-IV in Mohallah Chah Fateh Khan, Bahawalpur City which was in his sole occupation. A drain constructed by the defendant/petitioner ran along the southern wall of the said house. This drain was not properly maintained and cleaned, therefore, its water started seeping into the foundation of the said house and caused cracks in its walls thereby rendered the house unworthy of living. The respondent instituted suit praying that a decree be passed against the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 to the respondent as damages. The petitioner resisted the suit. On pleadings of the parties following issues were framed and tried:
(1) Whether this suit is barred by time? O.P.D.
(2) Whether defendant did not maintain the drains and because of its negligence towards the maintenance of the drains, the water damaged the house of the plaintiff? O.P.P.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get damages from the defendant for its negligence to maintain the drains, thereby causing damage to the house? If so, how much? O.P.P.
(4) Relief.
' Besides the other evidence Muhammad Rafique (P.W. 3) Sub-Engineer Building Department, Bahawalpur who was appointed as the Local Commissioner stated that after having made spot inspection on 9-2-1982 in the presence of the parties he prepared report Exh.C.I. According to him the condition of the drain was very bad. It leaked from one side and the water seeped into the foundation of the house of respondent so much so that it became unuseable and required reconstruction. He estimated the cost for reconstruction at Rs. 17,955. The witness proved the report at the trial. In rebuttal the defendant/petitioner produced Muhammad Akram Sial, Sub-Engineer, Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur (D.W. 1), who stated that the water properly flowed through the said drain and the house of the respondent was not damaged due to the negligence of the committee. In his cross-examination however, he stated that sanitation was not his concern and that the said drain was not prepared during his tenure of office. He further conceded that he did not see the house of the plaintiff/respondent from inside. The learned trial Court having considered the material on record accepted the report of Muhammad Rafique, Local Commissioner (P.W. 3) as being reliable and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.18,000 entitling the plaintiff/ respondent to recover the same from the defendant/petitioner. Against this an appeal was taken to the District Judge, Bahawalpur who upheld the findings of the learned trial Court on all the issues and affirmed the decree, hence this revision.
3. Record in this case was sent for and perused. I have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length.
4. The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the two Courts below have not taken into consideration the admission made by the plaintiff/respondent that he had constructed a new wall of the house. Learned counsel on the basis of this admission argued that the drain had been damaged due to construction of new wall by the plaintiff/respondent and therefore defendant/petitioner cannot be blamed for damage caused to his house.
5. I have read the evidence of plaintiff/respondent as well as that of the Local Commissioner Muhammad Rafique (P.W.-3). The Local Commissioner was asked if the drain had been damaged due to construction of the new wall by the plaintiff/respondent who resolutely parried the suggestion. In the circumstances, therefore, objection of the learned counsel failed to make out a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence and 1 am convinced that the concurrent finding on facts by the two Courts below is in consonance with the record and there is hardly any valid reason calling for interference with the same particularly when no objection as to the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order by the two Courts below has been taken. The result is that this revision petition being without merit is hereby dismissed in limine.
Revision .