This second appeal by the Municipal Committee, Gujrat under section 100, C.P.C., calls in question the judgment and decree, dated 19-11-1969 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant and maintained the judgment and decree passes' by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat dated 6-2-1969.
2. The facts are: that Allah Ditta/respondent, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,000 as damages. It was pleaded therein that the water of the houses existing towards north of his house used to pass towards the south-west and then flowed in the fields-side; that a wall around the pond existing towards the eastern street had crumbled down and rain water as well as the water of the houses collected in the pond; that on account of over-flow, the water entered the house of the plaintiff and caused damages. It was further pleaded that his house had become waterlogged on account of the above circumstances and had developed cracks. On the above basis it was contended that the respondent had suffered damages to the extent of Rs.2,000 and claimed a decree of Rs.1,000 as f, damages.
3. The suit was contested. On the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the defendant has not made adequate arrangement for the flow of street water to outside the street?
(2) If not, whether it has caused any damage to the plaintiffs' house, if so, to what extent?
(3) Whether defendants 2 to 8 have raised the level of the street and have thus created nuisance and serious injury to the plaintiff and with what effect?
(4) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties and causes of action?
(5) Whether the plan of the house is not correct?
(6) Relief.
4. The parties led their evidence. Upon consideration of the same, the learned Court of first instance found that the house of the plaintiff was water--logged on account of negligence on the part of the appellant. On this finding, the learned Court of first instance decided issues Nos.1 and 2 against the appellant and decreed the suit, vide decision dated 6-2-1969. Feeling aggrieved from the above decision, the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat vide decision dated 19-11-1969.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned two Courts below have decided issues Nos. l and 2 by misreading and non-reading of material evidence. When the learned counsel was asked to pin point any misreading or non-reading of evidence, he was not able to show any. It is a settled law that this Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the concurrent conclusions of facts reached by the Courts below unless and until these conclusions are vitiated by non-reading/misreading of evidence or from some contravention of express provisions of law. No such circumstance was successfully pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, calling for interference under section 100, C.P.C. The decisions of the two Courts below are eminently correct, just and in accord with the bulk of evidence on record. These conclusions, therefore, in my estimation are unexceptionable.
For the reasons noted above, this R.S.A. Is found to be wholly meritless and is accordingly dismissed. The appellant shall bear the costs of the proceedings throughout.