1989 PLP 76 (CLC)

Niaz Ahmad Khan for Appellants. Imam Ali Kazi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 13th September, 1987. This appeal is directed againt the judgment and decree dated 14‑1‑1982 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Badin in Suit No. 88/68 and new No.88/76.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the Provincial Government acquired certain land for the Federal Government under a Notification dated 2‑7‑1968. The total area covered by the above Notification was 10 acres, 9 ghuntas and 60 square yards but it was alleged that the appellant had illegally occupied total area measuring 79 acres 30 ghuntas and, therefore, the respondent filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000 for damages and further damages at the rate of Rs.300 per day from the date of trespassing land in dispute till possession. The above suit was resisted inasmuch as the written statement was filed. However, it seems that at the stage of evidence nobody appeared for the appellants. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence dercreed the suit as follows: ‑ "(a) For a sum of Rs.10,000 (b) For damages at the rate of Rs.300 per day with effect from 9th May, 1966 (i.e. with effect from first year prior to plaintiff's application a/0 6, R. 17 (Ex.27) presented on (9‑5‑1969), till the decree of this suit (4958 days) for Rs.14,86,400 are also awarded to the plaintiff payable by the defendants. (c) For further damages at the same rate of Rs.300 per day till the defendants either restore the possession of 69 acres 20 ghuntas and 61 sq.yds. proved to be in their illegal and unauthorised possession, to the plaintiff or the same is also acquired under the Land Acquisition Act proceedings. (d) The costs of the suit is also awarded. (e) The plaintiff is liable to pay the deficit court‑fees accordingly."

3. It is true that the appellants have not cross‑examined the respondent at all as there was no counsel present but at the same time in my view it was the duty of the learned trial Court to have applied his mind to the question of quantum of damages. From the statement of the respondent, it appears that he has merely mentioned a figure of Rs.300 per day without giving any. further detail as to the number of crops which he could grow on the disputed land, the total cost and sale price etc. nor anything was stated about the yields or earning from the adjacent land. I am inclined to hold that in a case for recovery of damages, the heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to produce cogent and reliable evidence as to the quantum of damages. Merely mentioning of a figure without any break up or basis, in my view was not sufficient for the purpose of obtaining a decree for a sum of ds.14,86,400 and further damages at the rate of Rs.300 per. day till the restoration of the possession which may run into another rupees one million or more. I would, therefore, allow the above appeal and set aside the judgment and decree and would remand the case to the learned Sr. Civil Judge Badin with the direction to have further evidence on the question of damages and on merits. There will be no order as to costs. S.Q./E‑9/K Case remanded.