Short Note : 1. This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff whose claim for ejecting the defendant from the suit land comprising of a strip of land of about 7 to 8 feet in width in between the adjacent fields of the parties has been dismissed by the Courts below after recording a fielding that the plaintiff appellant could not establish the fact of encroachment. 2. The judgment and decree of the Courts below were attacked by the appellant-plaintiff mainly on the ground that the conclusion reported by the commissioner after making the survey and taking measurements on spot was not liable to he accepted inasmuch as the same did not give the definite and accurate position about the extent of the fields of the respective parties and that the survey was not based on any permanent survey marks fixed at the time of settlement. The position of the two Chandas on the basis of which survey done was also found to be unascertained because on survey there was a difference of about 10 links and the aforesaid margin of difference and mistake was very much material in the present case as the dispute involved in the suit was in respect of small width of a strip of land measuring about 8 ft. only. It was contended that 10 links are equal to 7½ feet nearly. The survey was criticised on various other grounds also. 3. After going through the report of the commissioner and his statement, I am of the opinion that the criticism made by the learned counsel for the appellant is correct. The survey report does not establish the fact of encroachment. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent was also not in a position to meet the objections about the correctness of the commissioner's report in view of the fact that the apparent margin of difference was material looking to the small width of the strip of land in dispute. 4. But this in itself does not help the appellant who is the plaintiff. In order to get the relief of ejectment against the defendant, it was for the plaintiff to establish the fact of encroachment and its extent and so long as the same was not established, it was not possible to decree the claim. 5. 4. But this in itself does not help the appellant who is the plaintiff. In order to get the relief of ejectment against the defendant, it was for the plaintiff to establish the fact of encroachment and its extent and so long as the same was not established, it was not possible to decree the claim. 5. Shri Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that if the commissioner's report was vague and defective, the trial Court or the lower appellate Court should have directed issue of fresh commission because in the absence of proper survey and measurement, the controversy in between the parties could not be decided. He therefore, urged that even at this stage, this Court can direct issue of a fresh commission. 6. On behalf of the respondent, it was pointed out that no useful purpose is going to be served by issuing a fresh commission in view of the fact that the survey marks were not available in the vicinity of the spot and even if a new Commissioner was to be appointed, the survey will be done with the same margin of difference and mistake. This difficulty has arisen because survey marks fixed at the time of settlement were not properly maintained. Under these circumstances, it was urged that the Courts below have rightly relied on the other circumstances for holding that the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant encroached on any part of plaintiff's field by throwing earth at the time of digging his field was not proved and the finding concurrently recorded by the Courts below on this question of fact was not open for interference at this stage in second appeal. 7. I have gone through the evidence on record and the reasons stated by the lower appellate Court in Paragraphs 9 and 12 of its judgment. The other circumstances relied were about the situation and the height of encroachment and the existence of the Gasha Medh. At any rate, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by relying on the other circumstances is perverse. It is based on some evidence and even if it was possible to take a different view on fact, it would not be permissible to do so at this stage in second appeal. Appeal dismissed.