M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 347/j969 in the Court of the Principal munsiff, Belgaum. The suit was for an injunction against the respondents who were the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the western wall of premises in part-1 bearing CTS. No. 184 in Belgaum City and also for preventing the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs constructing the wall at two given points in part-4 of the same premises. Part No. 1 is the building portion in which the plaintiffs as owners are in actual possession, while Part No. 4 of the suit premises is an open site also in the actual possession of the owners, the plaintiffs. It is necessary to state that in addition to the injunction prayed for there was a prayer for a declaration that the western wall of Part No. 1 property should be declared as in the exclusive ownership of the plaintiffs. ( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit claim denying totally the averments of the plaintiffs. They stated that premises bearing CTS No. 185 was owned by the joint family of. defendants, and plaintiffs had no right, title 01 interest in the said property. They further contended that the western wall was an ancient foundation wall of the defendants and it had been resting there from the very beginning and there had been no change from the very beginning in the said wall by the side of the plaintiffs' house at any time. They further alleged that the measurements given by the plaintiffs in the plaint sketch were not correct but false. However, the existence of the western wall between the property of the defendants and the plaintiffs, namely, cts. 184 and 185 was admitted. The defendants further stated that in so far as part No. 4 the vacant site was concerned, they did not allow the plaintiffs to dig the foundation as the plaintiffs tried to encroach on their property namely, CTS. No. 185. They also denied that the plaintiffs' roof rested on the western wall and therefore the suit be dismissed. ( 4 ) ON these pleadings the trial Court framed as many as five issues. No. 185. They also denied that the plaintiffs' roof rested on the western wall and therefore the suit be dismissed. ( 4 ) ON these pleadings the trial Court framed as many as five issues. Issue No. 1 related to whether the plaintiffs proved that they were exclusive owners of the western wail in part No. 1 ? issue No. 2 related to whether the defendants encroached on the suit wall to the extent of 2' x 3" east-west and 28' x 8" north-south? issue No. 3 related to whether the plaintiffs proved lawful possession of the open site in part No. 4 measuring 34' north-south and 12' x 3" east-west as shown in the plaint sketch on the date of suit ? issue No. 4 related to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration and possession of the suit wall in part-1 of the plaint sketch ? issue No. 5 related to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for ? ( 5 ) THE trial Court heid against the plaintiffs On issues Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, while issue No. 3 relating to the vacant site was held in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the suit came to be dismissed for the reason that while there was no dispute regarding the ownership of the vacant site in Part No. 4 of the premises, the plaintiffs had not proved the obstruction of the defendants. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs preferred R. A. No. 207j1972 in the Court of the Principal civil Judge, Bclgaum. The lower appellate Court while agreeing with the conclusions reached by the trial Court dismissed the suit in all respects with the modification of the trial Court's decree in respect of part No. 4 the vacant site of the premises and granted permanent injunction in respect of the vacant space restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, this second appeal is filed in so far as it relates to Part No. 1 of the premises consisting of the western wall claimed to be common by defendants, while the plaintiffs claim exclusive ownership of the same. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, this second appeal is filed in so far as it relates to Part No. 1 of the premises consisting of the western wall claimed to be common by defendants, while the plaintiffs claim exclusive ownership of the same. ( 7 ) THE Courts below have appreciated the evidence placed on record which is quite voluminous and have come to the conclusion that the wall was not the exclusive wall of the plaintiffs. ( 8 ) THE only question urged before me in this appeal by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants is that the trial Court erred in law in dismissing I. A. No. 1/1967 filed for a direction to the defendants to produce the original of a mortgage deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants' father thereby causing injustice to the plaintiffs' case, inasmuch as production of that document a copy of which had already been filed in Court earlier would have clearly established the admission of the defendants as regards the ownership of the western side wall which was in dispute. The trial Court rejected LA. No. 1/1967 not by a separate order but in the course of the judgment in the main case itself. This act also, it has been argued, was contrary to law. ( 9 ) THE lower appellate Court took this question as the first point for determination and dealt with it negativing the claim made for the plaintiffs-appellants. The said mortgage deed a copy of which ' had already been produced in the trial court along with the list of documents before evidence was adduced and wag sought to be marked as en exhibit by the device of presenting an I. A. after both sides had closed the case and the matter had been set down for arguments. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of notice contemplated under S. 66 of the Evidence act conforming to the provisions of o. 11, R. 16 of the CPC. in respect of production of documents in the possesion and custody of the opposite side, the trial Court was correct in rejecting the i. A. Similarly, it -took the view that there was no error of law committed by the trial Court in disposing of I A. No. 1/1967 in the course of the judgment itself instead of making a separate order. ( 10 ) I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the lower appellate court on both counts. . It is seen from the order sheet that the case was closed for both sides on 23-6-1972 and on 11-7-1972 it was ordered to be called for arguments on 13-7-1972. On 13-7-1972 for want of time the case was adjourned to 15-7-1972 and it was on the same date the plaintiffs have presented the I. A. On 19-7-1972 objections to I. A. were filed and the case was posted for hearing on 19-7-1972 and on the same date the case was heard and reserved for judgment. It is clear that there was no effort made by the plaintiffs to get an order on I. A. No. 1 even before the suit itself was argued. I, therefore, see no infirmity in the learned Munsiff disposing of l. A. No. 1 in the main judgment itself. What is strange is the fact that l. A. No. 1 does not disclose that to the knowledge of the plaintiffs the original mortgage deed was in the possession of the defendants. The certified copy was obtained by the plaintiffs as far back at july, 1969. There was no allegation in the application or the supporting memo that the original mortgage deed was ever with the defendants. The memo was yague as could be seen from the records. As already stated if there was non-compliance with the provisions of S. 66 of the Evidence Act read with O. 11, R. 16 of the CPC. , it cannot be said that the refusal to allow l. A. No. I was an error of law. The plaintiffs themselves were guilty or laches and negligence. ( 11 ) IN this view of the matter, there is no merit in the Second Appeal and therefore it is rejected. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment of the lower appellate Court. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .