' This revision petition is directed against concurrent judgment and decree of the learned two Courts whereby suit for damages filed by respondent was decreed.
2. The case set up in the plaint was that the plaintiff-respondent had purchased disputed land measuring 14 Kanals and 16 Marlas in Chak No,166/EB, Tehsil and District Vehari which was being cultivated by the petitioner herein. He refused to deliver possession of the said land to the plaintiff/respondent and also refused to give the share of produce. Instead, he filed a civil suit before the Civil Court at Vehari and obtained an interim injunction. This suit was, however, withdrawn on 27-11-1990. The plaintiff-respondent claimed damages on three counts.
(a) Cost of produce Rs,11,378
(b) Expenses of litigation of Rs,2,000
(c) Mental physical torture Rs,6,000 Total Rs,19,378
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried. Vide judgment and decree, dated 29-11-1995, it was decreed in the sum of Rs,9,689.87 which included Rs,5,689.70 as the cost of produce under Rs,2,000 as cost of litigation and Rs,2,000 on account of mental torture.
4. On appeal having been taken before the learned District Court the decree was modified. An amount of Rs,2,000 paid as the fee of the counsel was disallowed and the decree to the extent of Rs,7,689.87 was maintained.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no evidence on record justifying the grant of damages to the respondent. It was not proved that the suit brought by the petitioner was malicious. According to him it was withdrawn on the basis of a compromise. The plaint in the suit filed by the petitioner and the decision rendered was not placed on the record. He also contended that the appellate judgment did not meet the requirements of Rules 30 and 31 of Order XLI of the C.P.C. And lastly that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder has contended that out of the total decretal amount a sum of Rs,5,689 represents the cost of produce. According to him the amount of damages awarded is just, fair and reasonable and no interference is called for.
6-A. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The amount of Rs,5,689 represents the costs of produce from Kharif 1988 to Rabi 1990 and basis to work out this amount was the Jhaar Pedawar Exh.P.3. Undisputedly, the respondent was entitled to the amount of which he was deprived by the petitioner. An amount of Rs,2,000 has been allowed as mental torture while even the amount of Rs,2,000 claimed by the respondent as expenses incurred on the litigation in which the plaintiff/respondent was involved has been denied to the respondent.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that there was no basis to work out the quantum of damages awarded to the respondent is not sustainable. His other contention that the plaint or the decision rendered in earlier suit was not produced on the record was not either correct because order, dated 27-11-1990 whereby the petitioner had withdrawn the suit is on the record. It has not been brought on the record as to what were the terms of the compromise, and therefore, the contention that after the compromise the respondent was not entitled to maintain the suit is not tenable. Likewise, the objection that Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the natter fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities has also no force because not only the contention was not raised before the learned Courts below but it was not either pleaded that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent. Suit for mesne profits or damages for use and occupation of the land by the respondent was, therefore, maintainable before the Civil Court.
7. No case has, therefore, been made out for interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
The petition, is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.