' On 28-9-1987, Muhammad Hussain respondent filed suit for the recovery of Rs,12,000 as damages for the electrocution of his buffalo on 3-8-1987 against WAPDA through its Chairman and S.D.O.WAPDA, Sialkot in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot. The suit was resisted whereon 6 issues were framed. The plaintiff appeared as P.W.3. He produced Rashid Ahmad P.W.1. And Ghulam Muhammad P.W.2 and tendered documents Exs. P1 to P5 in evidence. To rebut this evidence, the defendants/petititioners produced 3 witnesses namely Muhammad Pervez, Lineman, D.W.1, Inayat Ullah D.W.2 and Muhammad Iqbal D.W.3. The trial Court granted decree of Rs, 12,000 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 31-5-1989. The appeal filed by WAPDA and another petitioners/defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 20-2-1990, hence this revision.
2. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the findings of the Courts below only on issue No, 5, which is as under:-- "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs, 12,000 as damages from defendants?
OPP."
' He contended that the respondent/plaintiff had alleged that his buffalo was pregnant at the time of electrocution but no post-mortem was carried on the dead body of the buffalo; that the plaintiff had claimed Rs,12,000 as compensation of the she-buffalo because of her being pregnant, otherwise he had purchased the buffalo for Rs,8,800; that the plaintiff/respondent appeared as a witness after the defendants/petitioners had closed their evidence, therefore, the statement made by him at that stage could not be used as affirmative evidence in proof of issue No, 5; that the findings of the Courts below suffer from misreading/non-reading of evidence and that in any case it was a case of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that Rs, 12,000 have been claimed as a loss for the electrocution of his buffalo and not for the recovery of price on which the buffalo was purchased.
Furthermore, the buffalo was purchased on 12-2-1980 for Rs,8,800. The bufallo died on 3-8-1987. So, the respondent was justified in claiming its value at the time of its death. In his statement, the plaintiff has stated: {{URDU TEXT}} ' This part of his statement has not been questioned in cross-examination. Furthermore, at the time of his examination as P.W.3, no objection with regard to his making affirmative statement was raised. The Courts below were quite competent to believe/disbelieve the evidence produced by the parties. It is a case of concurrent findings.The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of material evidence by the Courts below. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent had also contributed towards the electrocution of his buffalo. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect iii the judgments of the Courts below.
' Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere, in exercise of the revisional power of this Court, with the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.