1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.37 of 1987 APPELLANTS :-1. Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. Plffs. 2. Panchayat Samiti, Chamorshi, Distt. Gadchiroli. 3. Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. ...VERSUS... RESPONDENTS :- 1. Hana s/o Ganga Wasekar Defts. aged 75 years. 2. Bhagiratha d/o Raghu Wasekar, aged 55 years, Occ.: Cultivation, r/o Bhiwapur (Walsara), Distt. Gadchiroli. 3. Vimlabai w/o Dhiwaru Chalakh aged 30 years, Occ.: Cultivation, r/o Bhiwapur (Walsara), Distt. Gadchiroli. 4. Kamlabai w/o Maroti Chandare, aged 25 years, Occ.: Cultivation, r/o Hiwargaon, Distt. Gadchiroli. 5. Maroti Vithoba Wasekar, aged about 40 years. 6. Shrawan s/o Tukaram Gawhare - (Appeal abated). 7. Tulshiram s/o Adku Dhudbale aged 36 years. 8. Tukaram Bhiku Dudhbale, aged 45 years. 2 9. Shantabai wd/o Bhanu Wasekar, aged 35 years All Cultivators, r/o Bhiwapur (Walsara), Distt. Gadchiroli. 10. Sheoram s/o Sudam Govardhan aged 45 years, 11. Rajaram Bhiwa Ture, aged about 30 years. 12. Nilkanth Bhiwa Ture, aged 35 years. 13. Markandi Kanhu Alone (Appeal abated) 14. Parasram Vithu Dongare (Appeal abated) 15. Nimbaji Jairam Ture, aged 35 years. All Cultivators, r/o Bhiwapur (Walsara), Distt. Gadchiroli. ------------------------------------------------------------- [None for the appellants] [None for the respondents] ------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI,J. DATED : 22.11.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1983 passed by Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Chandrapur, in Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 1978, by which the Civil Court granted decree in the sum of Rs.9,280/- only in favour of original plaintiffs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 against defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, i.e. appellants 1 and 2 herein. 2. This appeal was admitted on 8.4.1987. 3 Thereafter on 6.2.1998 prayer for stay was rejected in view of lapse of time of 11 years from the date of admission of appeal. Thereafter notices to the appellants to prosecute the appeal were issued and served upon them. The appeal stood abated against respondents 6, 13 and 14. The office raised an objection that Stamp Application for bringing legal heirs of respondents was required. None appeared for the respondents. Same state of affairs is going on since then. On 29.8.2011 this Court made an order noticing the above facts and still gave a chance of four weeks. But there is no compliance as such. In the result, the appeal stands abated against respondents 1, 2, 5, 8, 9 and 10. The journey continued and the case was certified for final hearing on 7.10.2011. On 21.11.2011 when the matter was called out for final hearing, none appeared for the respective parties and therefore it was adjourned to 22.11.2011. On 22.11.2011 none appeared for the appellants as well as for respondents. Since none appeared for the appellants, in normal course, this Court would have dismissed the appeal in default but looking to the fact that the appellants are public body, namely Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti, and the decree is in the nature of damages for torts to the extent of Rs.9,280/- and by this time the same must have been recovered, in the interest of justice, it would be better to decide the appeal on merits rather than dismissing the same in default. Hence, I proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit against respondents/original defendants 1 and 2 in the sum of Rs.9,280/-. The suit was decreed because of the negligence on the part of the appellants for not properly maintaining the broken portion of embankment of Gao Talav 4 falling in the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti and Zilla Parishad resulting into damage of crops of the plaintiffs. It finally found that though all the plaintiffs did not succeed in proving the loss caused to them, only plaintiffs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 had established that the broken embankment caused damages to the crops in their favour and that is why the Court decreed the suit, as aforesaid. I have checked the findings recorded by the trial Court which has discussed all the evidence- oral as well as documentary. I do not find any perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) F.A. No. 37 of 1987 is dismissed. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE /TA/