' This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos.437-D and 710-0 of 1981, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. Ghulam Mohyuddin and Mahmud Ahmad brought two separate suits against the L.D.A. For damages. It was alleged that on account of the bursting of water pipe belonging to the L.D.A., the property belonging to the plaintiffs was damaged. Ghulam Mohyuddin brought a suit claiming damages to the tune of Rs,44,415 and Mahmud Ahmad for recovery of Rs,80,325 depending on the estimates prepared by them. The case of the L.D.A., on the other hand, was that the two buildings were quite old and the cracks in them were the result of the,natural consequence of age of the buildings and not on account of the bursting of the pipe. The trial Court, however, decreed both the suits to the tune of Rs,20,000 each. The decree of the trial Court, dated, 30-1-1980 was confirmed when the L.D.A.'s appeal was dismissed on 24-11-1980. The L.D.A. Has challenged the two decrees in two separate revision petitions. The case of L.D.A. Is that the trial Court has, misread the evidence. It has also been urged that there was no basis for judging the quantum of the damage.
3. As regards the quantum of the damage, the trial Court has granted decree in two cases to the tune of Rs,20,000 each as against the claim of Ghulam Mohyuddin of Rs,44,415 and of Mahmud Ahmad o Rs,80,325. It is true that the estimates furnished by the plaintiffs were prepared by persons who do not have the necessary formal education in this regard. But their evidence was not adequately rebutted by the L.D.A. By producing any expert witness in this regard. No objection, therefore, can be taken to the judgments of the two Courts below regarding the, quantum of damage. As regards the question of misreading, the learned counsel for the L.D.A. Has referred to the statement of Muhammad Khalid D.W.1, who appeared as witness in Ghulam Mohyuddin's case.
On going through the judgments of the two Courts below it can clearly be seen that the deposition of Muhammad Khalid D.W.1 has faithfully been reflected in the judgment. It is, therefore, not a case of misreading. It is true that while appraising the evidence, the Court did not accept the version of the L.D.A., but this will not be a case of misreading of evidence and consequently not a case of jurisdictional error. In the case of Mahmud Ahmad, the evidence of, the L.D.A. Is B still weaker. They produced a person who was not posted there when the damage took place.
4. In view of the above considerations, I find no reason to interfere with the decrees passed by the Courts below. The two revision petitions are dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.