Regular Second Appeal No.2586 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 23, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.2586 of 2010 (O & M ) Hari Singh ….Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.7760 -C of 2010. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 56 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.2586 of 2010 (O & M ) Plaintiff Hari Singh is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby Regular Second Appeal No.2586 of 2010 (O & M ) his suit for recovery of damages from the defendants-respondents on the ground that due to their (defendants’) negligence, the fields of the plaintiff-appellant had inundated with water and crops were damaged, was dismissed. I have heard Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgments. Admittedly, in the month of September, 1995, there were heavy rains in the entire area and the situation went out of the control of the defendants-respondents. For the loss suffered by the farmers, the Government paid compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per acre. Jai Bhagwan (P.W.1), Work Supervisor, who was examined by the plaintiff, stated in his examination-in-chief itself, that as per available record, there was 44 m.m rain on 3.9.1995, 110 m.m rain on 4.9.1995 and 730 m.m rain on 5.9.1995. He also admitted that no water was released in the canal on 4.9.1995 and 5.9.1995. In his cross-examination Jai Bhagwan (P.W.1) admitted that the crops had been damaged due to natural calamity i.e rain. The canals were running due to excess rains. Sunil Kumar Sub Divisional Officer, Loharu Water Services (D.W.1) and Randhir Singh, Sub Divisional Clerk, Loharu Water Services (D.W.2) stated that the pump houses were submerged and had become ineffective as there was no electricity. Obviously, when there was no electricity, pumps could not be run by the officials of the department. Both of them further stated that as soon as the electricity supply was restored, they had started dewatering the areas concerned. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the department did not make any effort to pump out the water. No fault, therefore, can be found with the finding of fact recorded by both the Regular Second Appeal No.2586 of 2010 (O & M ) Courts below that there was no negligence on the part of the defendants for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, also could not persuade me, by pointing out any material on record or by showing that the finding recorded by the Courts below is not based on proper appreciation of evidence, to take a different view than the one taken by the Courts below. No question of law arises in this appeal for the consideration of this Court. In the result, there is no substance in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, hereby dismissed Dated: February 23, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE