MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, C.J.---This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 31-7-2001, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was accepted.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that a suit for payment of Rs.5,00,000 as damages was filed by respondent No.1, Syed Muhammad Afzal Shah, before the District Judge, Muzaffarabad on 20-6-1996 against the appellants and pro forma-respondent No.2 herein. It was alleged in the suit that the defendants-appellants constructed a road from Miani Bandi to Airport on the basis of which the debris was put on the road-side. In view of construction of road and the protection wall, the water was diverted towards the land of the plaintiff-respondent which resulted into serious damage to his land. It was alleged that the land of the plaintiff-respondent was damaged because of negligence and carelessness of Public Works Department. The plaintiff- respondent in the para. Of relief claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000 as damages from the defendants-appellants for causing damage to his land. The defendants---appellants controverted the averments made in the plaint however, they stated in the written statement that the respondent would be entitled to get compensation for the land which has been damaged by the construction of road. It was also alleged in the written statement that because of natural unforeseen calamities, if any loss has occurred to the respondent, he should have moved the relevant authorities for getting compensation of that. At the time of construction of road, the respondent did not object to the work undertaken by the Contractor which was allotted to him by the Public Works Department.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed as many as five issues including the one for relief. The first issue was as follows:-- "Whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive the amount as damages which was caused to his land? OPP. "
The above stated issue is essential to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of present appeal.
4. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff-respondent got examined Abdul Khaliq Banday, Tehsildar Settlement, the Commission, Syed Ghulam Ali Shah, Syed Shaukat Hussain Naqvi, Advocate and Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi, Advocate, attorney for plaintiff. The defendants-appellants produced Muhammad Aslam, S.D.O. As .a witness and got recorded the statement of one of the defendants.
5. From the perusal of evidence produced by the plaintiff not a single word has been stated by the witnesses that how much damage was caused to the land of plaintiff-respondent. Even the attorney for plaintiff, Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi, Advocate, did not utter a word about the amount of damages which the plaintiff was entitled to get from the defendants-appellants The learned District Judge while dismissing the suit of plaintiff-respondent unequivocally observed in his judgment that plaintiff- respondent has failed to prove his case. Similarly the High Court at page No.8 in para. No.7 of its impugned judgment observed as follows:- At the time of granting relief in para. No.9 of the impugned judgment, the, High Court issued the following direction:--
6. It was contended by Mr. Riaz Navid Butt, the learned Additional Advocate---General, appearing on behalf of the appellants, that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for damages of Rs.5,00,000 but, the High Court despite making the clear observation that the plaintiff-respondent failed to prove positively the damage caused to him due to debris of the road which was thrown in the water and the construction of protection wall in consequence of which the water was diverted towards the land of the plaintiff---respondent and as such a great loss was occurred to the plaintiff- respondent, passed a decree in favour of respondent which was not claimed in the pleadings of the plaintiff---respondent. It was no more the case of plaintiff-respondent that the Public Works Department may be given direction to construct a retaining wall on the side of the land of the plaintiff-respondent so that it may be protected from being eroded. The learned counsel contended that the High Court has fallen in error in granting a decree which was outside the scope of the pleadings.
7. Controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, Messrs Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi and Syed Azad Hussain Naqvi, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that from the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff--respondent it is abundantly proved that due to erosion of debris and diversion of water towards the side of land of plaintiff--respondent a considerable loss has occurred to plaintiff-respondent. Therefore the direction given by the High Court is perfectly valid and is in accordance with the ends of justice. The learned counsel also pointed out that it was duly prayed in the suit of plaintiff-respondent that any other appropriate relief which the Court deems fit may be granted. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, by giving the direction to the Public Works Department the High Court has committed no illegality.
8. After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant record, it may be stated that the basic suit filed by plaintiff-respondent is for a decree of Rs.5,00,000 as damages against the defendant-appellants. The case of respondent precisely is that due to construction of road. Its debris fell in the water and due to protection wall built by the Public Works Department the water of river diverted towards the land of plaintiff-respondent. Thus the land of plaintiff eroded, causing him considerable loss. The plaintiff-respondent however could not bring on record an iota or evidence showing that due to illegal actions of defendants- appellants the plaintiff respondent has suffered a loss or Rs.5,00,000. There is no evidence whatsoever as to loss of how much amount has been caused to plaintiff-respondent nor towards this side any attention was concentrated by the plaintiff-respondent or his counsel who conducted his case.
9. It is unfortunate to observe that the case of plaintiff-respondent has been spoiled due to ignorance of law by the counsel conducting his case who did not even take the trouble to seek advice from his seniors. The, civil cases are always proved keeping in view the issues and the parties have to lead their evidence in support of their pleadings and issues framed thereof. It has become growing tendency in some of the young generation of legal fraternity that even if they do not know anything about law, they claim themselves to be master of that. In our humble view one who does not know anything and claims to be the master of that, is the most ignorant person. This observation has been made simply for the purpose that the young generation should come forward and they should replace the old generation by dint of their hard work. They should not hesitate from asking their seniors if they come across some legal proposition about which they do not know.
10. Adverting to the instant case, it may be stated that the contention raised by Mr. Riaz Navid Butt is correct that the High Court was not justified in issuing the direction to the defendants-appellants which was not sought for in the pleadings of the plaintiff. In order to support our view, there is plethora of rulings out of which we may refer only a few.
Similarly, in a case reported as Azad Government and 4 others v. Messrs Spintex Limited (1998 PTD 3200) it was observed at page 3215 as under:-- "---------A Court has to go by the pleadings of the parties and should not allow the parties to travel beyond them. The order of the Prime Minister which the learned Judge has ordered to be implemented, does not find any mention in the writ petition. The mere fact that a photostat copy of the order was appended with the writ petition does not warrant that it should have been brought under consideration. "
11. From the survey of case-law, it becomes absolutely clear that the law stands settled on the point that the relief which is not the part of pleadings of a party cannot be given to it by the Courts as the civil law is the law of omission and commission. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that it was duly prayed in the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent that "any other appropriate relief which the Court deems fit may also be granted in his favour," therefore, the relief granted by the High Court definitely falls within the ambit of prayer made by him. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the view of both the learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent. So far as we understand the law, the term any other appropriate relief which the Court deems fit relates to a relief which is akin to or flows out of the main relief prayed for by the party and not such a relief which is alien to the pleadings of the parties.
12. Before parting with the judgment, it may be stated that we as lawyers are having a lot of experience while in the profession as well as Judges of this Court which spreads over couple of decades. Despite the above fact even we cannot claim ourselves to be the master of law. On the other hand we are still humble students of law. It is such a field that a person learns it for his whole life and even then cannot claim himself to be the master in any branch of learning. We expect from the young generation that they should not hesitate) in seeking the assistance of their seniors for the purpose of understanding the difficult proposition and by dint of their hard work and only by the hard-work they can replace their seniors.
13. In the light of what has been stated above, we accept the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree under appeal dated 31-7-2001 passed by the High Court and maintain the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Muzaffarabad dated 31-3-1996. The costs shall be borne out by the respondents throughout.