FA/88519/1990 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 885 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= NAVINCHANDRA RAMJIBHAI & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus LALJIBHAI NANALAL - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KH DAMANI for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. MR JK PARMAR for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 11/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th April, 1990, passed by the learned City Civil Judge, in Summary Suit No. 3461 of 1983 whereby, the learned trial Judge had directed the appellants- FA/88519/1990 2/4 JUDGMENT original defendants to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally with running interest @ 9% per month to the respondent-original plaintiff, from the date of t he suit till realization. 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The respondent-original plaintiff was doing the business of utensils in the name and style of 'Shanker Vasan Bhandar' and the appellants-original defendants were also doing the same business in the name and style of 'Buch Brothers'. It is the case of the respondent that since there was business relation between them, the respondent-original plaintiff used the purchase the goods from the appellants-original defendants. It is further the case of the respondent that on 8th September, 1980, while he was at his shop, the appellants along with other two strangers entered the shop of the respondent and demanded the amount on the ground that of outstanding dues to be paid by the respondent. Since the respondent did not agree to their demand they forcibly took away the good from his shop worth Rs.25,000/-. 2.2. The respondent therefore, filed a criminal compliant against the appellant for the alleged FA/88519/1990 3/4 JUDGMENT commission of offence under Section 452, 392 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1792 of 1980. In the said case the appellants were held guilty for the aforesaid offences and were sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and Rs.1000/- each. It is the case of the respondent that on account of the criminal proceedings, his business had suffered great financial loss and that he has to undergo shock, pain and suffering. The respondent therefore, preferred Suit being Summary Suit No.3461 of 1983 before the City Civil Court for recovering the damage caused to his business and compensation for the shock, pain and suffering caused on account of attending the Criminal proceedings. 2.3. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, allowed the said and directed the appellants to pay Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation for the pain, shock and suffering caused to the respondent. Hence, this appeal. 3.0. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Court below has awarded compensation since the respondent had suffered loss in business and he had to engage an FA/88519/1990 4/4 JUDGMENT advocate in the Criminal case, for the complaint which had been filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, against the appellants. The said fact is established from the evidence of witness Mohmedbhai Ibrahimbhai Patel at Exh. 49. The appellants-original defendants had also admitted the said fact in their reply, which is at Exh.35. 4.0. In view of the above, in my opinion, the impugned award passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/