Pankaj Mithal, J.- The plaintiff appellant has failed before both the courts below in a suit for permanent injunction concerning land measuring 718.3 sq. yards allegedly situate in the western portion of plot no. 53 Mauja Delhi Sujanpur Gandhi Gram, Krishna Nagar, G.T. Road, Kanpur Nagar. 2. It is admitted to the parties that plot no. 53 belongs to the plaintiff and plot no. 54 belongs to the defendants. 3. The only issue before the courts below was whether the land in dispute forms part of plot no. 53 or not. 4. In the suit, a vakil commissioner was appointed for locating the land in dispute who submitted report dated 18.9.1971 paper no. 52 Ga Exhibit No. 1 A. The trial court discarded the aforesaid report for various reasons and concluded that there is no evidence on record to establish that the disputed land forms part of plot no. 53. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 5. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. In appeal the then District Judge vide order dated 8.2.1978 framed the following issue and remitted it to the trial court for its finding:- 6. Whether the land shown by letters ABGH in the site plan attached with the plaint is part of survey plot no. 53 as alleged, if so, is the plaintiff owner of this land?. 7. On the remittance of the above issue one Sri Jaidev Kumar Srivastava was appointed Advocate Commissioner who submitted report dated 18.1.1980 paper no. 236 Ga as well as the additional report dated 18.9.1982. On 7.8.1983 one Sri M.P. Srivastava was appointed as the survey commissioner and he submitted report paper no. 254 Ga. Another report was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner Sri K.K. Saxena who was appointed on 29.1.1987. This report is dated 30.11.1982 paper no. 272 Ga. He also submitted an additional report. The trial court vide order dated 11.10.1993 decided the issue and remitted its finding to the appellate court. The appellate court on consideration of the aforesaid finding concluded that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 8. I have heard Sri Jitendra Kumar learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant and Sri Som Narain Misra, learned counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 2. Respondent no. 3 is a formal party and as such no one has appeared on his behalf. 9. 8. I have heard Sri Jitendra Kumar learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant and Sri Som Narain Misra, learned counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 2. Respondent no. 3 is a formal party and as such no one has appeared on his behalf. 9. The appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law no. 1,5 and 7 which read as under:- i) Whether the appellate court has erred in deciding only issue no. 1 out of 7 and totally ignored the mandatory provision of law which is Order 20 Rule 5 C.P.C., this grievous error of law is enough to set aside the judgment of the appellate court. v) Whether the Trial Court has erred in not deciding the issue no. 1 as directed by the appellate court by its order dated 8.2.1978 and further the trial court has ignored the mandate given in the order and decided it on 11.10.1993. vii) Whether the Trial Court erred in applying the principle laid down in the amendment in Order 1 Rule 9 CPC (Act No. 104 of 1976) which was enforced w.e.f. 1.2.77; whereas the suit was decided on 3.1.77, the amended provision was "provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non joinder of a necessary parties". 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has failed to demonstrate that the above questions are questions of law much less substantial questions of law and how they arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in (2005) 2 SCC 500 : 2005 (3) ARC (Suppl.) 1 : 2005 SCFBRC 409 Govindraju Vs. Mariamman to the effect that at the hearing of the appeal respondent is at liberty to show that the question so formulated was actually not involved. I proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of the arguments made and the question raised by the counsel for the plaintiff appellant at the time of hearing. 11. Two submissions have been made by the counsel for the plaintiff appellant; first, the courts below have manifestly erred in law in not considering the survey commission report 236 Ga which proved that the land in dispute is part of plot no. 53. 11. Two submissions have been made by the counsel for the plaintiff appellant; first, the courts below have manifestly erred in law in not considering the survey commission report 236 Ga which proved that the land in dispute is part of plot no. 53. The second submission is that the appellate court has not considered all other issues except for issue framed by it and therefore the judgment and order of the lower appellate court stands vitiated under law. 12. The plaintiff had instituted the suit claiming ownership over the disputed land and alleging it to be part of plot no. 53. It was admitted that plot no. 53 belongs to the plaintiff. Therefore, the only issue was whether the disputed land was part of plot no. 53. The plaintiff claimed it to be part of plot no. 53. Therefore, the burden to prove the same was upon her. 13. In order to locate the disputed land, Sri Govind Tripathi, Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial court had submitted his report dated 18.9.1971 paper no. 52 Ga. The Advocate Commissioner had submitted the said report on the basis of the map attached with the plaint which was not found to be correct as per the position of the two plots on the spot. The Commissioner in his statement also admitted that he did not tally the dimensions of plot and the area of the field. Moreover, the Commissioner had taken points A and B as fixed points which were part of the disputed land. The location of the disputed land could not have been correctly determined by taking fixed points within the disputed land. Accordingly, inter alia for the above reasons the trial court discarded the said Commissioner report and proceeded to decide the lis on the basis of the other evidence on record. On the basis of the other evidence the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the disputed land to be part of plot no. 53 which belongs to her. 14. In appeal, the issue was remitted to the trial court for recording a fresh finding vide order dated 8.2.1978. On remittance, Advocate Commissioner Sri Jaidev Kumar Srivastava submitted a fresh report dated paper no. 236 (Ga) and an additional report dated 18.9.1982. 53 which belongs to her. 14. In appeal, the issue was remitted to the trial court for recording a fresh finding vide order dated 8.2.1978. On remittance, Advocate Commissioner Sri Jaidev Kumar Srivastava submitted a fresh report dated paper no. 236 (Ga) and an additional report dated 18.9.1982. However, on the objection of the defendants, the said report was set aside by the court vide order dated 2.7.1983. After the aforesaid report was set aside, a fresh survey commission was ordered and Sri M.P. Srivastava was appointed as the survey commissioner on 7.8.1983. He submitted report dated 9.1.1984 (paper no. 254) However, the aforesaid report was discarded as no fixed point was taken for locating the disputed land. Thereafter, one Sri K.K. Saxena was appointed as the survey Commissioner on 19.1.1987. He submitted his report on 30.11.1992 paper no. 272 Ga as well as the additional report paper no. 275 Ga. The said report was confirmed vide order dated 22.2.1993. Accordingly, on the basis of the said survey report, the trial court vide order dated 11.10.1993 recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that disputed land is part of plot no. 53 and accordingly remitted the finding on the issue to the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court on receiving the aforesaid finding dismissed the appeal holding that as the land in dispute is not part of plot no. 53 which belong to the plaintiff, no decree of permanent injunction in respect of it can be granted in his favour. 15. The submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant that judgment and order of the lower appellate court stands vitiated for want of non consideration of the survey commission report paper no. 236 Ga is of no substance. The said survey commission report had been discarded and set aside by the specific order of the court dated 2.7.1983 whereupon a fresh survey commission was appointed. Once the said survey report had been set aside, it became meaningless and could not have been treated as part of the evidence. It is important to note that once a fresh survey report is called for and comes into existence, the same alone is to be considered as part of the evidence and not the earlier reports which stood superseded or discarded. 16. It is important to note that once a fresh survey report is called for and comes into existence, the same alone is to be considered as part of the evidence and not the earlier reports which stood superseded or discarded. 16. It may be worth noticing that the courts below have made full attempt to get the land in dispute identified and located with the help of survey commissions and not one but four surveys made one after the other failed to locate the land properly as such the courts were left with no alternative to decide its location on the basis of the other evidence wherein plaintiff could not succeed in proving his case. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, non consideration of the survey commission report paper no. 236 Ga does not vitiate the judgment and order of the appellate court. 18. The finding that the to disputed land is not part of plot no. 53 is a finding of fact and involves no substantial question of law. 19. The second submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant is that the lower appellate court has not considered the other issues involved in the suit is also devoid of substance. All issues framed were decided by the trial court and the suit was dismissed. In appeal the only point for determination was whether the disputed land forms part of plot no. 53 or not which has been decided by the lower appellate court. The aforesaid point is sufficient for adjudicating the rights of the parties involved in the suit and as such no other point or any issue was required to be dealt with again by the lower appellate court. Thus, with the decision of the aforesaid point arising in the appeal, the controversy stood at rest completely. 20. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant is unable to explain and point out the manner in which other issues could have affected the decision of the lower appellate court or the finding with regard to location of the disputed land as concurrently recorded by the two courts. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant could not make out any substantial question of law for decision in this appeal. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant could not make out any substantial question of law for decision in this appeal. The submissions made by him fails for the reasons indicated above and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. However, under the facts and circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.