JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, JUDGE - 1. THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 07.12.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2002/2000. 2. 'KEY facts' necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for the sake of convenience), has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant for the sake of convenience). It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was allotted house No. MIG-16 in the Social Housing Board Colony, Bilaspur and the parties had executed hire purchase tenancy agreement. The defendant vide letter, dated 15.09.1996, applied for issuance of standard drawing for construction of additional room in the house. The plaintiff vide letter, dated 30.09.1996, supplied standard drawing to the defendant with certain terms and conditions. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has not carried out the construction as per the approved drawing and has constructed stair case unauthorisedly. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has raised additional portion of house, measuring 9 mts. in contravention of hire purchase agreement. A notice was also issued to the defendant not to raise construction. However, the defendant has raised the construction. It is in these circumstances, the suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff for dismantling the un-authorised construction as shown in the map. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to him, the agreement, in question, was unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary. According to him, the drawing supplied was not in accordance with site and was not practicable. According to him, the construction work was already over before the issuance of notice to him. The learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh framed the issues. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. on 28.01.2000. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. He dismissed the same on 07.12.2004. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 3. MR. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed at page No. 8 of the paper-book, has vehemently argued that the learned Courts below has misconstrued and misread the evidence led by the parties, more particularly, Ex. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 3. MR. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed at page No. 8 of the paper-book, has vehemently argued that the learned Courts below has misconstrued and misread the evidence led by the parties, more particularly, Ex. PW-1/E as well as the provisions of the The H.P. Housing Board Act, 1972. He also contended that the findings given by both the Courts below are contrary to the evidence led by the parties. 4. MR. J.R. Poswal, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. SINCE all the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid the repetition of discussion of evidence. 6. PW-1, Ms. Anjori Sharma, Assistant Engineer of the Board has deposed that the defendant has raised un-authorized construction of stairs in plot No. MIG-16, which is not in accordance with the approved plan. She further deposed that the approved plan is Ex. PW-1/A, terms and conditions are Ex. PW- 1/B. Notices Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D were issued to the defendant to stop the construction. However, despite these notices, the defendant has continued with the construction. She has also proved the hire purchase agreement as Ex. PW-1/E. Pw-2 Shri Baldev, Junior Engineer, has testified that he has prepared the site plan, Ex. Pw-2/A. According to him, the unauthorized stairs shown in Ex. Pw-2/A were 9 sq. mts. He has also deposed that Shri Surinder Vashishat, S.D.O., has issued notice Ex. Pw-1/C and notice Ex. Pw-1/D was issued by the Executive Engineer to the defendant. He has gone to the spot and carried out the measurements and found that it was not in accordance with the approved plan. 7. IN his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that the approved plan, Ex. PW-1/A was not in her hand and she did not sign the same. She further admitted that nobody is affected by the construction of stairs. She admitted that the notices Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D were not signed by her. She also admitted that she has not carried out any measurement at the spot with regard to construction of stairs which was carried out by the Junior Engineer. She further admitted that nobody is affected by the construction of stairs. She admitted that the notices Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D were not signed by her. She also admitted that she has not carried out any measurement at the spot with regard to construction of stairs which was carried out by the Junior Engineer. Similarly, PW-2 Shri Baldev, Junior Engineer, in his cross-examination has admitted that there is no date mentioned in Ex. PW-2/A. He has also admitted that no disturbance is caused to any person by the construction of stairs by the defendant. 8. THE plaintiff has not proved the map approved for construction to establish that the construction has been raised beyond the approved map. PW-1, Ms. Anjori Sharma has admitted that the plan did not bear her signature. It is not evident from Ex. PW-2/A in what manner the defendant has raised unauthorized construction. PW-1, Ms. Anjori Sharma has admitted that the construction was raised by the defendant after getting the plan approved. The Junior Engineer has not deposed that he has carried out measurements or when he prepared the plan since no date has been given. Plaintiff has also not led any evidence that in case there was deviation, the penalty could be imposed upon the defendant. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the construction has been raised by the defendant unauthorisedly. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that in the absence of any provision or remedy available to the plaintiff, it could not seek the relief of mandatory injunction. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, including Ex. PW-1/E. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.