Life of Ahmad — Page 712
THE WALL as 712 brother of the plaintiff. The son of the plaintiff, Mirza Sultan Ahmad, is the son-in-law of Mirza Imam Din, the defendant. Just as the parties are near relations their houses are also next to one another. But there is bitterness, malice and enmity between the parties. It is an admitted fact. This case also is a result of their enmity. Apart from their religious bitterness and opposition in creed their worldly enmity is also admitted. The first point under dispute is: Is the plaintiff barred from a civil suit? In my opinion the plaintiff is not prevented by law from having recourse to a civil suit. As the way under dispute is declared by the plaintiff to be a public way, therefore he can have no cause of complaint unless he proves special damage which he suffers in this case. The special damage suffered by the plaintiff on account of the wall raised by the defendant has, therefore, to be seen. The plaintiff relies on Punjab Record, July 1901, No. 64 Chief Court. . . and the defendants No. 1 and No. 2 rely on Punjab Record No. 10, 1878: After enquiry the finding of this Court is that the plaintiff suffers the following special damage. The employees of the plaintiff working in the printing press, school and the boarding house take longer time in coming to him on accouut of the wall which intervenes