J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners assailing the judgment and decree dated 19/03/2015 passed by the lower appellate court dismissing the Civil Regular Appeal No.109/2007 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 18/08/2007 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 86/2002.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.24,453/- against the defendants-petitioners before the trial court. The trial court, after filing written statement by the defendants-petitioners and after framing issues as well as recording evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent vide judgment and decree dated 18/08/2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants-petitioners preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court which too came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree impugned herein dated 19/03/2015. Hence instant revision petition has been preferred by the defendants-petitioners.
(3.) Counsel for the defendants-petitioners contended that it was duty of the plaintiff-respondent to take care of the material and other things as the period initially was upto 31st March, 1999 and thereafter it was extended to 30/06/1999 and it is a finding of fact that the doors, windows and other material came to be stolen during the intervening period and therefore, it was duty of the plaintiff-respondent to take care of the same and to safeguard the interest of the houses and quarters which were being constructed by putting appropriate security guards and other persons. He contended that the respondent acted in negligent manner and thus for his fault, why the appellant should suffer. He further contended that both i.e. the trial court and lower appellate court have not taken into consideration these and other vital facts in the right perspective and the issue requires consideration.;