JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This Second Appeal was heard by me earlier and decided on 18th April, 1985. After framing an issue, the matter was remitted to the Court below for recording finding on the question after giving opportunity to the parties on that question. The findings have since been received and the same are paper No. 156-A on the record dated 25th January, 1986. 2. Despite opportunity being given to the respondent to file an objection against the findings recorded by the Court below, no objection has been filed. Several opportunities were given to the respondent's learned Counsel to enable him to argue the appeal but ultimately today the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri S.R. Misra stated that he has no instructions in the matter and that he was unable to argue the appeal. Therefore, the appellant's learned Counsel alone was heard and the Court did not have the advantage of hearing the other side. 3. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased 30 decimal area out of plot No. 449 under a sale deed dated 15th September, 1959. The defendant also claimed to have purchased 43 decimal area out of the same plot. The area of plot No. 449 admittedly is much more than the area sold to the parties. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendant was trying to encroach upon the area purchased by her and in that view of the matter a relief of injunction to restrain the defendant from raising any construction over the area purchased by her and from interfering in her possession was filed. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal the decision of the trial Court was reversed necessitating the filing of the Second Appeal by the defendant. 4. According to my decision given earlier, the only controversy involved in the suit was as to the particulars of the portion of plot No. 449 area 30 decimal which was purchased by the plaintiff and 43 decimal area of the same plot purchased by the defendant. The matter required the location of the two portions which have been purchased by the parties respectively. 5. Despite opportunity being given by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff-respondent did not think it worth while to adduce any further evidence in the matter. The matter required the location of the two portions which have been purchased by the parties respectively. 5. Despite opportunity being given by the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff-respondent did not think it worth while to adduce any further evidence in the matter. The Court below on examination of the entire evidence on the record has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the exact location of 30 decimal area purchased by her out of plot No. 449. However, it has found that according to the admission of the plaintiff's own son, Parcel of land purchased by the plaintiff must be towards the east in plot No. 449, which admittedly extends towards the east of the Rasta shown in the map paper No. 101/C prepared by the Amin. It is thus clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the land which was purchased by the defendant really encroached on any part of the area purchased by her under the sale deed 15th September, 1959. The Plaintiff cannot take any advantage of the defendant's failure to prove the exact location of 43 decimal area purchased by her from out of plot No. 449. The plaintiff has to succeed only on the strength of her case which she has miserably failed to prove in spite of an opportunity being granted when the matter was remitted to the Court below for the Specific purpose. 6. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and Decree under appeal is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout.