' The appellants had filed a suit against Municipal Corporation, Multan claiming Rs,24,500 by way of damages on account of illegal demolition of their tannery by the staff of said Corporation. It was alleged that the said construction was made by them in accordance with the site plan approved by the respondent-Corporation and they were doing business in the said premises under licence issued by the respondent-Corporation which was valid up to 31-3-1978 whereafter due to its non- extension the business was closed.
2. The suit was opposed by the respondent-Corporation inter alia on the grounds that the building was not demolished by or under the orders of the Corporation, therefore, question of payment of any money by way of damages did not arise. Some legal objections were also raised. The learned trial Court framed the relevant issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing their learned counsel came to the conclusion that from the evidence produced on record the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the building was demolished by the staff of the Corporation Out of the five P.Ws P.W.1 Mushtaq Ahmad and P.W.2 Muhammad Khan had admitted that they had not witnessed the demolition. Testimonies of P.W.3 Bashir Ahmad and P.W.4 Noor Hussain were discrepant and contradictory on material points, which went to show that they could not have witnessed the demolition and solitary statement of Altaf Hussain, one of the plaintiffs, was not supported by any independent evidence. The suit was, therefore, dismissed by the learned trial Court on 13-10-1985.
3. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan on 17-3-1986 after holding that findings of the learned trial Court were correct.
4. The plaintiffs have now come up in second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment and decrees urged as under:--
(i) The learned Courts below did not consider at all documentary evidence Exhs.P.1. To P.10 which was produced during the trial by the appellants.
(ii) Wrong inferences were drawn from proved facts and;
(iii) Impugned judgments suffer from misreading and non-reading evidence and are contrary to law.
6. Appeal was opposed by Haji Muhammad Aslam Malik, Advocate on behalf of the respondent- Corporation. During his arguments he fully supported the impugned judgments.
7. Arguments heard and record also perused.
8. Adverting to the first submission of the appellants' counsel it may be observed that case of the appellants was that the respondent-Corporation had unlawfully demolished their tannery, therefore, it was liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs,24,500. The said allegation was totally denied by the respondent. Besides oral evidence the appellants had also produced documents P.1 to P.10 in support of their case which according to the appellants' counsel, were not considered by the two Courts below. The said documents are as follows:-- ' Exh.P.1. Is notice, dated 9-5-1978 issued by the P.W.1 Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of the appellants, to respondent-Corporation calling upon it to pay damages to the tune of Rs,30,000 failing which it was informed that legal proceedings would be initiated.
' Exh.P.2. Is receipt of Post Office showing that a registered letter was dispatched to the Administrator of Municipal Corporation, Multan.
' Exh.P.E. Is A.D. Receipt of said letter.
' Exh.P.4/1-4 are four photographs showing demolished structure of tannery.
' Exh.P.5 is letter dated 13-5-1979 issued by the Chief Officer, Municipal Corporation, Multan informing the appellants that site plan for construction submitted by them on 24-2-1975 was approved on 12-3-1975.
' Exh.P.6 is the blue print of the approved site plan of the tannery.
' Exh.P.7. Is licence issued in the name of Altaf Hussain, one of the appellants, for carrying on business of tannery from 1-4-1977 to 31-3-1978.
' Exhs.P.8 and P.9 are respectively copies of judgment and decree passed in civil suit instituted on 14-5-1978 in the Court of Civil Judge, Multan by the appellants against Municipal Corporation, Multan for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the said Corporation from demolishing the building in question and mandatory injunction directing the Corporation to renew their licence.
' Exh.P.10 is notice issued by the Health Department of Municipal Corporation, Multan to the appellants informing them that their licence of tannery business has expired on 31-3-1978, therefore, they should stop that business.
9. According to the judgment and decree Exhs.P.8 and P.9, dated 6-12-1980, appellants suit to the extent of perpetual injunction regarding demolition of building was decreed but that suit was instituted on 14-5-1978 after the building was demolished because in their present suit in para. No,4 of their plaint it is stated that demolition was completed on 1-5-1978.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants had failed to show as to how it was proved from the aforesaid documents Exhs.P.1 to P.10 that building was unlawfully demolished by the respondent- Corporation. Even if those documents were considered by the Courts below, it could not be inferred or established from the said documents that the tannery was illegally demolished by the staff of the respondent-Corporation. The fate of the appellants case would have been the same even if the said documents had been considered by the lower Courts.
11. Reverting to the second submission, appellants' counsel could not draw my attention to any fact which was proved on record and wherefrom wrong inference was drawn by the Courts below.
12. Referring to the last submission of the appellants counsel it may be observed that in order to prove that the appellants were .Entitled to damages on account of an unlawful or unwarranted act of the respondent-Corporation, it was necessary that they should have produced evidence showing that the alleged demolition was ordered by the Administrator or some other competent officer on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and the said order was executed by the Corporation through its staff. Without such evidence the respondent-Corporation could not be saddled with the liability of paying damages. Even if it be assumed that officials of the respondent- Corporation had demolished the construction, without there being any such order from the competent Authority of the Corporation. The Corporation cannot be held liable and responsible for the act of its employees which may be done without any authority or direction from the Corporation. In that event liability of unauthorized act would be on the employees in their personal capacity. Anyhow from the evidence produced on record it was not proved that the tannery was demolished by the staff of the Corporation.
13. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is liable to fail. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.