FA/1170/1986 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1170 of 1986 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 ? ====================================== STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS Versus SHANKERLAL RATANLAL MARVADI AND ANOTHER ====================================== Appearance : MS MINI NAIR, AGP for Appellants. NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No.1. (MR SR SHAH) for Respondent No.2. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the State of Gujarat has challenged judgment and order of the City Civil Court dated 13th March 1996, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff, Shankarlal Ratanlal Marwadi was allowed. FA/1170/1986 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The facts in brief, as emerging from record, are as under: 3. Respondent no.1 herein had filed a suit being Civil Suit No.213 of 1983 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, for recovery of compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the compound of Bapunagar General Hospital. In the said suit, the defendants have filed their written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. After considering the evidence on record, trial Court partly allowed the suit by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by it, State of Gujarat has filed this appeal. 5. Heard Ms.Mini Nair, learned AGP appearing for the applicants. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. She submitted that the cycle stand officially provided by the hospital is in the open compound of the hospital and no part of the hospital building is situated nearby it and therefore, if the original plaintiff has sustained any injuries while unlocking his cycle, hospital cannot be held responsible for it. She submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the appellants for the injury caused to respondent no.1. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and also gone through the judgment of the trial Court and other relevant documents. Considering the issues framed below Exh.26, and after considering the evidence on record, City Civil Court found that because of negligence of the State of Gujarat the victim was injured and suffered loss. Accordingly, after considering the evidence on record, trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for damages of Rs.44,000/-. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and FA/1170/1986 3/3 JUDGMENT finding arrived at by the City Civil Court while passing impugned order. No other evidence is shown to me to take a contrary view. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) /malek