IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RSA.No.106/2008. Date of Decision: 17th March, 2008. Lekh Raj. …Appellant. Versus: Vijay Chander. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. . For Respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. The plaintiff filed a suit for a recovery of a sum of Rs.68,206/- as damages. According to the plaintiff the defendant who is his neighbour, constructed a breast wall without following any specifications and in an unplanned, haphazard and non-technical manner. Some time in August, 2003 the breast wall collapsed as a result of which the debris of the retaining wall fell and damaged the plaintiff’s property. The damage was assessed to the extent of Rs.67,330/-. As per the case of the defendant the breast wall was constructed by him to protect his court yard in accordance with the established procedure, but, however, since the plaintiff started digging and excavating his land immediately below the wall, due to heavy rains the wall collapsed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The trial court, on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount in the sum of Rs.68,206/- as damages and cost from the defendant as alleged?. …OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? …OPD. 3.Whether the court has no jurisdiction as alleged?. …OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct as alleged? …OPD. 5.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? …OPD. 5. Relief. After examining the statements of the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the breast wall had been constructed by the defendant in a haphazard manner and in violation of the specifications. The court found that the retaining wall had been damaged due to heavy rain fall. The judgment dated 17th June, 2004 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.64/1 of 2004 titled as Lekh Raj Vs. Vijay Chander was assailed by the plaintiff by way of an appeal No.33-S/13 of 2007 titled as Lekh Raj Vs. Vijay Chander before the District Judge, Shimla. . The First Appellate Court, after carefully examining the entire material on record including the statements of the parties, arrived at a conclusion that there was nothing to establish any negligence on the part of the defendant in the construction of the wall, which in fact collapsed due to heavy rains. The appeal was dismissed in terms of the impugned judgment dated 5th December, 2007. 3 Reference to the word strict in para 41 of the impugned judgment has to be in the context of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. The plaintiff has failed to prove negligence, if any, on the part of the defendant in the construction of the wall in question. Both the courts below have concurrently held against the plaintiff and in my view, no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is consequently dismissed. (Sanjay karol), Judge. March 17, 2008(R)