Judgment V. K. Bali, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Sugan Chand and Budh Ram, plaintiffs in the original lis. They sought a decree for injunction restraining the defendents from interfering in possession of the suit land described by them as bara. It was inter alia pleaded that they are collaterals and Biswedars in the village and owners in possession of the suit land i. e. , bara. They and their forefathers had been using it for tethering their cattle and for making and storing cow dung cakes. Their agricultural implements were also lying there and they were using it as owners as the same was lying in front of their house after leaving the street. They had also constructed pucca boundary wall towards the Eastern side which was jointly owned by them with neighbourer Chander Bhan. 2. The defendants entered defence and contested the cause of plaintiffs by pleading that they were allotted the land in question during consolidation proceedings and they were using it for various purposes ever since. 3. The respective pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues : "1. Whether the plaintiffs are joint owners in possession of the suit land OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs have not filed the correct site plan? OPD 3. Whether the plaint has not been properly verifed according to the provisions of CPC? OPD 4 ). Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD , 5. Whether the amendment made by the plaintiffs in the amended plaint are not in accordance with the orders of the Honble High Court? If so to what effect? OPD.6. Relief. 4. After resultant trial, learned court decreed the suit of the plaitniffs, thus, constraining the defendant to file first appeal which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge and has since been allowed thereby setting-aside the judgments and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence present appeal. 5. The controversy between the parties as reflected from the issues framed in this case is all factual. It is on the strength of evidence, which was by and large, oral, led by the parties that a firm finding of fact has been recorded by the first appellate Court that it is the defendants and not the plaitniffs, who are owners and in possession of the property in dispute. It is on the strength of evidence, which was by and large, oral, led by the parties that a firm finding of fact has been recorded by the first appellate Court that it is the defendants and not the plaitniffs, who are owners and in possession of the property in dispute. No occasion at all arises to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned first Appellate Court which, as mentioned above, have come into being after evaluating the evidence led by the parties and which, as referred to above, is by and large, oral. 6. Mr. Narottam Kaushal, learned Counsel for the appellants, however, contends that the finding of the learned first appellate Court is contrary to the pleadings and evidence led by the defendants. When confronted with the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, wherein they have clearly mentioned that they are owners in possession of the land in question, having been allotted to them during consolidation proceedings counsel then simply contended that the finding of learned appellate court is contrary to the evidence of the defendants, one of whom appeared as DW1. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the statement of DW1, Balbir Singh. All through in his examination-in-chief he has deposed in tune with other defendants is owner and in possession of the land in question which came to be allotted to them during consolidation proceedings as bara. It is no doubt true that in cross-examination he stated that they are using the land in question presently as a passage. From this statement of DW1 in the cross-examination, it cannot be said that the finding of learned appellate court that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land, is contrary to the statement made by DW1. It is the choice of a party to use the land having been initially allotted as bara, for whatever purpose it might feel later in point of time. On that count alone, it cannot be said that the finding given by the learned first appellate Court pertaining to ownership and possession of the defendants is countray to evidence of DW1. Be that as it may, no question of law, least substantial one, arises in this case. 7. Finding no merit in this appeal, I dismiss the same, leaving. However, the parties to bear their own costs. 8. Be that as it may, no question of law, least substantial one, arises in this case. 7. Finding no merit in this appeal, I dismiss the same, leaving. However, the parties to bear their own costs. 8. The application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence is rejected as all that is sought to be led by way of additional evidence is that a wall was constructed in the suit land by the plaintiffs. Even if there be a wall in existence, it would all again depend upon oral evidence of the parties as to who had constructed it. The said application is also, thus, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.