IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. SECOND APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2002. Shri Ramrai Dattaram Sawant, Proprietor of M/s. Sawant Bakers, Amona, Goa, through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Sanjay Ramrai Sawant, r/o Amona Sawantwada. ... Appellant. Versus The Chief Secretary, State of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondent. Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. G. Tamba, Government Advocate for the Respondent. Coram: P.V. HARDAS, J. Date: 9th January 2003. ORAL ORDER. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 81 of 1991. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim, by Judgment and Decree, dated 28th February 2000, dismissed the suit. The suit of the appellant/plaintiff was for mandatory injunction, damages and other consequential reliefs. The appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2000 and the Additional District Judge, Mapusa, by Judgment, dated 17th November 2001, partly allowed the appeal and directed the present respondent, by an order of mandatory injunction, to restore the electric supply to the bakery of the appellant/plaintiff and, further, - 2 - directed the respondent/defendant to pay the amount of Rs. 6,046/-, being the amount received in excess of the consumption charges. The learned lower appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the learned trial Court in respect of the damages of Rs. 52,000/- claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. It is this part of the Judgment of the lower appellate Court, refusing to award damages to the appellant/plaintiff, that is under challenge. 2. The learned lower appellate Court in paragraph 12 of its Judgment has held that the claim of the plaintiff for damages on account of loss of business is not substantiated by any material on record. The learned lower appellate Court has also held that the plaintiff has not produced any details on record to show that he had purchased raw materials for his bakery business from January 1990 to May 1990, that is, the period of disconnection of the electric supply. The learned lower appellate Court in the same paragraph has further observed: "the only material is the oral testimony of the plaintiff which does not sound plausible and hence the claim of the plaintiff for loss of business cannot be sustained.". The learned lower appellate Court has also appreciated the evidence of the witness, one Tari, who has been examined by the plaintiff and who claims that he has been purchasing - 3 - breads from the bakery of the plaintiff for his hotel. The lower appellate Court has also appreciated the evidence of P.W.3 Gawas. After appreciating the oral evidence, the learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to substantiate his claim for damages. 3. I have heard Mr. Sonak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. Tamba, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. I have also perused the Judgment of the learned lower appellate Court. No substantial questions of law are involved in the Second Appeal. The reasonings and findings of the learned lower appellate Court are not perverse and, therefore, need no interference in this Second Appeal. 4. The Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. (P.V. HARDAS) JUDGE. ed’s.