JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.20 12, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 96-S/ 13 of 2012. 2. Material facts necessary for 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 appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’ for the sake of convenience). According to the plaintiff, he is owner-in-possession of two storied building existing over land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 73, 123, Khasra Nos. 485 and 490, situated in Mauza Gahi, Pargna Basal, P.O. Jabli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. and adjoining to his house is the house of the defendants, situated at the back side of the plaintiff’s house. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have constructed a septic tank just next to the back wall of the plaintiff’s house and the same is leaking human waste towards the inner side of the plaintiff’s house. The defendants have also diverted the waste water of their bath room on the slab of the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiffs are forced to live in unhygienic conditions due to foul smell of human waste leaking from the septic tank. The plaintiff has requested the defendants to remove the septic tank and not to throw the waste water of the bathroom on his slab, but in vain. The plaintiff has also approached the Gram Panchayat, Jabli and Pollution Control Board. It is in these circumstances, he has filed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the septic tank and not to divert the flow of waste water of their bathroom over the slab of the plaintiff’s house. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. It is admitted that the house of the defendants is adjoining to the plaintiff’s house. It is denied that the defendants have constructed septic tank at the back side of the plaintiff’s house. According to the defendants, the plaintiff did not construct back side wall of his house, but the natural wall/land has been used as a wall and there is no gap in between the land and his house. It is denied that the defendants have constructed septic tank at the back side of the plaintiff’s house. According to the defendants, the plaintiff did not construct back side wall of his house, but the natural wall/land has been used as a wall and there is no gap in between the land and his house. According to them, they have requested the plaintiff to leave the space between his house and the house of the defendants, but the plaintiff did not leave any space. He has damaged the drainage system. It is submitted that the defendants have constructed a pucca septic tank in the year, 1982, which is underground beneath the defendants’ house and not adjoining to the plaintiff’s house. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh framed the issues on 18.09.2009. Learned trial Court passed a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on 11.04.2012, directing them to remove the septic tank within the period of one month from the date of judgment and the defendants were also directed not to divert the flow of waste water of their bathroom over the slab of the plaintiff’s house and to make proper arrangement for the flow of said water. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree, dated 11.04.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, the defendants have filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. He dismissed the appeal on 25.09.20 12. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 6. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed at page No. 8 of the paper-book, has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-construed the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 8. 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. 9. Plaintiff, Kamal Dutt, has appeared as PW- 1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.-PW1/A. He has re affirmed the averments made in the plaint. 8. 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. 9. Plaintiff, Kamal Dutt, has appeared as PW- 1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.-PW1/A. He has re affirmed the averments made in the plaint. According to him, the house of the defendants is 60 to 70 years old as per photograph, Ex.-D1. He has admitted that the wall of the house is natural strata/earth. According to him, there was no gali/alley between his house and natural wall. He has also admitted that below his house, the house of Shyam Dutt is situated. He has denied the suggestion that the defendants have requested him to leave space. He has denied the suggestion that waste water from the bathroom of the defendants passes through pipes. He further submitted that he has called the President and Members of Pollution Board at the spot, who advised him to file a suit in the Court. He denied the suggestion that there is no seepage of waste water and human waste into his house and suit has been filed to harass the defendants. 10. PW-2, Kusum Lata wife of the plaintiff has led her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.-PW-2/A. She has supported the version of PW- 1. However, in her cross-examination, she has admitted that the defendants have constructed septic tank beneath their house. According to her, there is a distance of 1 feet between her house and the house of the defendants. She has denied the suggestion that there is no seepage of waste water and human waste into their house from the septic tank of the defendants. 11. PW-3, Harish has also led his evidence by filing an affidavit Ex.-PW3/A. He has taken the photographs of the spot Ex.-PW3/B 1 to Ex. PW3/B6, whose negatives are Ex.-PW3/B7 to Ex.-PW3/B- 12. 12.PW-4, Naresh Kumar has also led his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.-PW4/A. According to him, on 25.07.2006, he alongwith other members of the Panchayat, went to the spot on the basis of the complaint filed by the plaintiff on 06.07.2006. He found that due to septic tank of the defendants, human waste was seeping into the house of the plaintiff and there was smell in the house of the plaintiff. He found that due to septic tank of the defendants, human waste was seeping into the house of the plaintiff and there was smell in the house of the plaintiff. He further deposed that the waste water from the bathroom of the defendants, was also flowing on the roof of the plaintiff’s house. He asked the defendants to remove the septic tank, but the defendants did not agree. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the septic tank of the defendants is beneath their house. He has also admitted that the plaintiff has left no set back behind the back of his house. 13. Similarly, PW-5, Kishan Dutt, has led his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.-PW5/A. According to him, there was seepage of human waste from the septic tank of the defendants into the house of the plaintiff and water from the bathroom of the defendants’ house flows in to the plaintiff’s house, due to which the house of plaintiff is unhygienic and not fit for habitation. He has admitted in his cross-examination that back wall of the plaintiff’s house is natural strata/wall. He did not know whether the defendants have constructed septic tank. He denied the suggestion that there was proper drainage system. 14. DW- 1, Ganesh Dutt is the power of attorney of defendant Shadi Ram. he has also led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.-DW1/A. He has deposed that his father is 74 years and was physically weak. In these circumstances, he has authorized him to appear in the Court by way of GPA Ex.-DW1/B. He has re-affirmed the averments contained in the written statement. He has admitted that in 1995, his father has constructed a toilet under the scheme. He has also admitted that the houses of the parties are adjoining to each other. He also admitted that septic tank of defendants’ toilet is towards the back wall of the plaintiff’s house. He then volunteered that septic tank was beneath his house. According to him, the waste water shown in the photograph Ex.-PW3/B-6 is of rainy water. 15.DW-2, Rajender Kumar has also led his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. DW-2/ A. He has supported the version of DW- 1. He has admitted that septic tank of the defendants was towards the back wall of the plaintiff’s house. 16. The house of the defendants is on the upper side. 15.DW-2, Rajender Kumar has also led his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. DW-2/ A. He has supported the version of DW- 1. He has admitted that septic tank of the defendants was towards the back wall of the plaintiff’s house. 16. The house of the defendants is on the upper side. PW­1, Kamal Dutt and PW-2, Kusum Lata have deposed that the waste water is leaking from the septic tank constructed by the defendants. It is creating unhygienic conditions. The water from the bath room also flows on their slab. PW-1 has approached the Gram Panchayat by way of complaint Ex.-PW1/C. PW-4, Naresh Kumar has visited the spot on the basis of the complaint, dated 07.06.2006, Ex.-PW1 /C. He has also noticed that the waste water was leaking from the septic tank and the waste water was also flowing on the roof of the plaintiffs house. He has requested the defendants to take remedial measures. 17. To the similar effect is the statement made by PW-5, Kishan Dutt. PW-3, Harish has duly proved the photographs. According to these photographs also, the house of the plaintiff is on the upper side. 18. Shadi Ram, defendant has not deposed before the Court. Defendants have examined Ganesh Dutt, DW-1, S/o Sh. Shadi Ram. There is sufficient evidence on record that Shadi Ram was physically fit and was working under Manrega programme. The defendants have not rebutted the evidence led by the plaintiff that the waste water is flowing from the septic tank constructed by the defendants and the water from the bath room also spills over the slab of the plaintiff’s house. The cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff when no remedial steps were taken by the defendants, even when requested by the Gram Panchayat and when the Pollution Board told the plaintiff to file the suit. It was not necessary to implead the other co-sharers, as argued by Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. It is only the plaintiff, who is affected by the flow of waste water from the septic tank towards his house. 19. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the plaintiff has not examined any expert. However, there is overwhelming evidence to establish that there is leakage of waste water from the septic tank of the defendants. 19. Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the plaintiff has not examined any expert. However, there is overwhelming evidence to establish that there is leakage of waste water from the septic tank of the defendants. PW­1, Kamal Dutt, PW-2, Kusum Lata, PW-4, Naresh Kumar and PW­5, Kishan Dutt have duly supported the case of the plaintiff. The septic tank constructed by the defendant is causing nuisance and creating unhygienic conditions to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has duly established that there is seepage from the septic tank constructed by the defendant, though on their own land and the dirty water is also diverted towards the slab of the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. Consequently, no substantial questions of law are involved in this Regular Second Appeal. 20. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis 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.