( 1 ) APPLICATION for discharge of guardian is allowed. ( 2 ) THE present appeal is filed by the Union of India as against the judgment and order dated 2-12-1982 in second appeal confirming the judgment of the first appellate court wherein the trial court judgment was reversed and thus decreeing the suit for Rs 42,000 with proportionate costs of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiffs suit was filed for the recovery of rs 60,000 by way of damages. This was based on the fact that the Mall Road, ambala Cantt. is in between the Sirhand Club on the east and the Military hospital on the west, which is owned by the Government of India and maintained by the Garrison Engineer, Ambala, at the behest of the government of India; that the road near the Military Hospital in front of the sirhand Club was excavated and was not properly repaired and maintained as per details set forth in para 4 of the plaint by the plaintiff ex-Captain, who was coming on his scooter from Amar Naths house on 25-10-1970 at 9. 00 p. m. along with his mother, who was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter, met with an accident on account of the damaged road which lacked proper repairs and there being no signs for danger, the scooter jumped and the mother fell down along with the Captain and she received head injuries; she was removed to the Military Hospital and ultimately died on 26-10-1970 at 11. 30 a. m. Thus the aforesaid damage was claimed. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed by the trial court. The appellate court set aside the trial court finding and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for Rs 42,000 with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by that, the Union of India filed the impugned second appeal, which is also dismissed. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal by the Union. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any error in the judgment recorded by the first appellate court which is confirmed by the High Court. It is not a fit case for interference. In fact, on account of death of the mother the damages if at all were on the lower side being Rs 42,000. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.