1 S.A.No.590/10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.590 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.12.2010. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed suit for damages against the present Respondents on the ground that on account of their illegal acts, they demolished the compound wall. The plaintiff has incurred Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs). The trial Court partly decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 42,433/- (Rupees forty two thousand four hundred thirty three). The defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and restricted the sum to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) on account of mental 2 S.A.No.590/10 torture and agony. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.V.D.Hon, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court on appreciation of evidence had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had incurred damages of Rs.42,433/- (Rupees forty two thousand four hundred thirty three). The trial Court has taken into consideration the Commissioner's report and had arrived at the conclusion to award damages of Rs.42,433/-. The lower appellate Court has not considered the same and has erroneously modified the said decree. There was no reason to discard the Commissioner's report Exh.28. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. The lower appellate Court has considered the report, so also the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, in fact, on the basis of the Commissioner's report had claimed damages of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs). The same was not accepted in toto by the trial Court and had 3 S.A.No.590/10 only awarded Rs.42,433/- (Rupees forty two thousand four hundred thirty three). Either the report ought to have been accepted in toto or rejected in toto. The lower appellate Court considering that aspect of the matter and also the fact that except the bare statement, there is no proof of actual loss or damage caused has awarded the damages on account of agony and torture. 4. The view taken by the lower appellate Court is a possible view. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view may be possible. 5. In that light of the matter, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.07.12.2010. asp/office/sa590.10 4 S.A.No.590/10