JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, JUDGE - 1. THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 19.05.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2006/05. 2. 'KEY facts' necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant" for the sake convenience). According to the plaintiff, the defendant was allotted house No. 98 in Social Housing Colony, Bilaspur and the parties had executed a conveyance deed on 22.06.2000. The allotment letter is dated 23.09.1993. According to condition No. 19, the additions to the house shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the standard drawing to be supplied by the Housing Board on the prescribed fee. A similar condition was inserted in the conveyance deed. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has forcibly raised unauthorized construction in the back side of the house and has left no back and left side offsets, as required under the H.P. Housing Board bye laws. According to the plaintiff, the construction raised by the defendant was in contravention of the allotment letter and conveyance deed and that too without getting any approval from the Board. The defendant was directed not to raise construction, but in vain. Show cause notices were issued to the defendant on 18.04.2001, 20.04.2001 and 2001. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, the suit land measuring 18.00 sq. meters was sold to the defendant by the plaintiff as additional land adjacent to House No. 98. The possession was delivered to him vide letter, dated 27.09.2000 by the Estate Manager, Housing Board. According to the defendant, he has not raised any construction against the terms and conditions of the allotment letter as well as conveyance deed. 3. LEARNED Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. has framed the issues. He dismissed the suit on 24.03.2005. Plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. He dismissed the appeal on 19.05.2007. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 11.06.2012: "Whether the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable when the revised plan was pending for sanction with the plaintiff?" 4. MR. Plaintiff has preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. He dismissed the appeal on 19.05.2007. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 11.06.2012: "Whether the suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable when the revised plan was pending for sanction with the plaintiff?" 4. MR. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of substantial question of law framed, has vehemently argued that his client has already submitted the revised plan and no decision has been taken by the Board and in these circumstances, the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable. He also contended that the First Appellate Court has misconstrued Ex.-P6 while reversing the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court, dated 24.03.2005. He has also supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dated 24.03.2005. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and decree, dated 19.05.2007, passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and the records carefully. 6. ACCORDING to PW-1, Rattan Chand, S.D.O., Housing Board, the defendant has raised unauthorized construction without standard drawing approved from the plaintiff-Board. The plaintiff has also examined PW-2, Gopal Chand, Junior Engineer Housing Board. According to him, he has prepared the site plan, Ex.-P6, whereby the unauthorized construction raised by the defendant has been shown in red ink and green ink shows the additional land of defendant. He has served notice, Ex.-P3 upon the defendant about the unauthorized construction. Ex.-P1 is the allotment letter of MIG-II, House No. 98. Ex.-P2 is the deed of conveyance, dated 22.06.2000. Ex.-P3 is notice given to the defendant. Ex.-P4 is notice given by the Assistant Engineer to the defendant regarding unauthorized construction raised by the defendant. Ex.-P5 is a notice issued by the Executive Engineer to the defendant regarding the unauthorized construction raised by the defendant. Ex.-P6 is site plan. According to Ex.-P6, the unauthorized construction shown by the defendant is reflected with red ink and the green ink shows the additional land and the sky blue ink shows the total allotted plot. The possession was handed over to the defendant on the basis of Ex.-P7. Ex.-P8 is approved map of construction. Ex.-P6 is site plan. According to Ex.-P6, the unauthorized construction shown by the defendant is reflected with red ink and the green ink shows the additional land and the sky blue ink shows the total allotted plot. The possession was handed over to the defendant on the basis of Ex.-P7. Ex.-P8 is approved map of construction. Dw-1, Pritam Singh has deposed that he has not raised any unauthorized construction. According to him, he has raised construction only on the allotted plot. He also deposed that he has submitted the revised plan, but he has not received any reply from the Board. Dw-2, Shri Mateen has carried out the construction on behalf of defendant No. 2. 7. PW -1 has admitted that the suit land was allotted to the defendant on 27.09.2000. He has also admitted that he has not got the land demarcated. He has not disclosed when the site plan was prepared. When the Junior Engineer has visited the spot and what was the source of information regarding the unauthorized construction, has not been answered by the plaintiff. It has also not come on record whether the site was inspected by the Junior Engineer in the presence of defendant. 8. IT has come on record that the defendant has applied for standard drawing, but the same was not supplied to him. Once the defendant has applied for the supply of standard drawing, the same should have been supplied to him. The contents of Ex.-P3 are also sketchy. What has been stated in Ex.-P3, is that the defendant was raising some construction on the back side of the house. What was the nature of unauthorized construction raised by the defendant, has not been disclosed. The plaintiff was required to point out the exact nature of unauthorized construction after visiting the spot and getting the demarcation report prepared. Plaintiff was also required to disclose the extent of unauthorized construction, if any, raised by the defendant on the spot. There is no date stated in the site plan. PW-1, concerned S.D.O., has not signed the document. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the First Appellate Court has misconstrued Ex.-P6 while reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court. There is no date stated in the site plan. PW-1, concerned S.D.O., has not signed the document. In view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the First Appellate Court has misconstrued Ex.-P6 while reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has discussed the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and thereafter recorded the finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant has raised any unauthorized construction. The First Appellate Court has only discussed Ex.-P6 and has not taken into consideration the other oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. ACCORDINGLY, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree, dated 19.05.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2006/05 is set aside and the judgment and decree, dated 24.03.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 105/1 of 2001, is restored. The pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. No costs.