JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2005 as passed in Civil Appeal No.53/2005 whereby the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar has reversed the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2004 as passed in Civil Suit No.111/2001 by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dantaramgarh. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court has formed an opinion that the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the matter deserves to be remanded for re-consideration of the Appellate Court. As the matter is proposed to be remanded, dilatation on all the factual aspects does not appear necessary. A brief reference to the background aspects would suffice. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit aforesaid seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- against the defendants-non-petitioners for the loss suffered by him due to death of his camel for electrocution. It was alleged that on 22.07.2001, the plaintiff had left his 10 years old camel of Bikaneri breed for grazing near a cremation ground at village Kikralia; and the camel came in contact of low hanging electricity supply line and died for electrocution. The plaintiff submitted that much before this accident, the other villagers had informed the concerned officers of the defendants about the fact of electricity wires hanging dangerously low but the defendants failed to take the corrective steps. The plaintiff submitted that he had purchased the camel for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from Birdaram and was entitled to recover the loss suffered with interest. 4. After taking evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court accepted the evidence adduced by the petitioner including the documents on record particularly showing the cause of death of the camel being the electric shock. While rejecting the plea of the defendants that the supply line was at a height of about 5 metres, the learned Trial Court observed that a camel would not be of a height of 5 metres and if the line was at a reasonable height, the camel would not have come in its contact. The learned Trial Court also rejected the objection of the defendants about want of notice to the Electrical Inspector while accepting the submission that the petitioner was a rustic villager. The learned Trial Court also rejected the objection of the defendants about want of notice to the Electrical Inspector while accepting the submission that the petitioner was a rustic villager. The learned Trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit and directed the defendants to make payment of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation but disallowed the claim of interest. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendants related with Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. preferred the appeal that has been allowed by the judgment and decree dated 07.05.2005. The learned Appellate Court, while rightly noticing that the real question calling for determination was as to whether the plaintiff's camel died for negligence of the defendants, observed that the fact of the camel having died for electrocution was established on record. However, the learned Appellate Court, thereafter, observed that the plaintiff alleged about the complaints having been made by the villagers but the plaintiff did not examine any person living in the vicinity and the witnesses produced by him failed to state if any complaint was made about hanging line to the officers of the defendants. The learned Appellate Court further observed that the plainitff did not state anything about negligence of the defendants or repeated complaints in his report (Ex.P/1) as filed with the police on 23.07.2001; and that admittedly, the plaintiff did not make any complaint to the Electrical Inspector. The learned Appellate Court yet further observed that if the line was hanging and the camel died for coming in its contact, the plaintiff had the adequate opportunity to immediately inform the concerned Department and to get the site verified so as to strengthen his case. On these considerations, the learned Appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the learned Trial Court about the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to negligence of the defendants. 6. This Court is unable to appreciate the approach of the learned Appellate Court in this matter. The fact that the plaintiff's camel died for electrocution has not been in dispute; rather, such has been the finding by the Appellate Court too. After this finding, rejection of the entire case of the plaintiff only for the alleged want of information of the incident to the defendants or for not producing other villagers in evidence but without examining all the other facts and factors available on record cannot be approved. After this finding, rejection of the entire case of the plaintiff only for the alleged want of information of the incident to the defendants or for not producing other villagers in evidence but without examining all the other facts and factors available on record cannot be approved. The learned Appellate Court has also not dealt with other findings of the learned Trial Court wherein the plea of the defendants about adequate height of the supply line had specifically been rejected. The learned Appellate Court has also not examined the issue as to whether non-furnishing of information to the defendants could be considered fatal to the entire claim for compensation in this case. The fact of the petitioner having lodged the police report on the very next day i.e., 23.07.2001 and having got the post mortem conducted, where the camel was found to have been died for electrocution, seem not to have acquired adequate attention of the learned Appellate Court. 7. In an overall analysis, this Court finds the learned Appellate Court having acted illegally and with material irregularity in failing to examine the record comprehensively and in ignoring the relevant considerations. In the totality of circumstances, it appears just and proper that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Appellate Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed; the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.05.2005 are set aside; and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Court. Civil Appeal No.53/2005 in the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar shall stand restored for re-consideration of the Appellate Court in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel appearing in this Court shall stand at notice to appear before the Appellate Court on 17.08.2011.However, there shall be no order as to costs of this revision petition.Appeal partly allowed. *******