Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Veterinary Jurisprudence

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
R.S.A. No. 4342 of 2002
Leelu Ram & Ors.
v.
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
{Decided on 03/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100 & 96--Second Appeal--Finding of fact arrived at by the first appellant Court--High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with--Jurisdiction of High Court in interfering with the judgments of the Court below is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. (P.12)
(B) Veterinary Jurisprudence--Electrocution--Death of animal--Effects of--Rigor mortis develops and passes quickly; and there is early putrefaction and singeing or burning marks on the feet or muzzle besides other changes. (P.12)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100 & 96--Law of Torts--Electrocution--Compensation--Death of buffalo due to electrocution--Plaintiff was not present at the time his buffalo died--He could not say as to what was the cause of death--His wife was present at that time not examined--Sign of electrocution not mentioned by veterinary surgeon in post mortem report--Electrocution changes did not appear in necropsy report--It creates doubt regarding cause of death of buffalo--Plaintiff admitted before the Panchayat, that his buffalo died, on account of ailment, and he dragged the dead buffalo, upto the stray wire, to claim compensation--Suit rightly dismissed. (P.12)