SRJ wp-2267-10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2267 OF 2010 Damu T. Jadhav (since deceased) through LR s Pratap D. Jadhav & Others .. Petitioners. V/s. Bhiwaji N. Borade .. Respondent. Mr. V.S.Tadke i/b. Shri M.L.Patil, for Petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th MARCH,2010. P.C. : 1] Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners are the original Defendants and the Respondent is the Plaintiff. According to the case of the Respondent/Plaintiff, on 2nd December, 2001, in the afternoon, while he was returning to his residence, there was some exchange of words took place between him and the Petitioner. It is alleged that the third Petitioner assaulted the Respondent on his head by using an iron rod. As a result, he sustained injury. The Respondent lost vision of his left eye permanently. A suit for damages was filed by the Respondent against the Petitioners. The Trial Court decreed the suit by granting a money decree for the sum of Rs.20,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. An Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner. SRJ wp-2267-10.sxw 2 Though the finding recorded by Trial Court were confirmed, the Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the amount to Rs.17,392/-. The interest @ 18% per annum fixed by Trial Court was reduced to 6% per annum. Earlier, a second appeal was preferred by the Petitioner which was permitted to be withdrawn as the same was not maintainable. 2] The only submission made by the Advocate for the Petitioner is that on the basis of the same incident, an offence was registered against the Petitioners under section 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and by judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2009, the Petitioners have been acquitted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. He submitted that there is a clear order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate by holding that the prosecution has failed to establish involvement of the Petitioner. 3] I have carefully considered the submission. The judgments of both the Courts below are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The entire evidence on record has been considered by the Courts below. There are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The findings of the Criminal Court are not relevant. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. 4] Hence, Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J. ) SRJ wp-2267-10.sxw 3