JUDGMENT : Prafulla C. Pant, J. This second appeal preferred under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011 passed by District Judge, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2009 whereby said court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2009 passed by the trial court (Civil Judge Junior Division, Haldwani) in Suit No. 43 of 2006. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. No one turned up on behalf of the respondents even after service of notice. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Jai Singh Bora filed Suit No. 43 of 2006 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haldwani, stating that he is Bhumidhar in possession of Plot/Khasra No. 38 measuring 0.322 hectare, Plot/Khasra No. 40/122 measuring 0.250 hectare, Plot/Khasra No. 40/123 measuring 0.193 hectare in Village Bechpur Pargai in Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. Plaintiff further pleaded that adjoining to the land of the plaintiff there is land of the defendant Lachhi Ram (since died) and between the two there was a demarcation boundary wall of stones. It is alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint that defendant demolished the wall and 3 he intends to interfere and encroach upon the land of the plaintiff, as such, the suit for perpetual was sought by the plaintiff. (4) Defendant Lachhi Ram contested the suit and filed his written statement. He did not deny that the plaintiff is Bhumidhar in possession of Plot/Khasra No. 38 measuring 0.322 hectare, Plot/Khasra No. 40/122 measuring 0.250 hectare and Plot/Khasra No. 40/123 measuring 0.193 hectare in Village Bechpur Pargai. But he pleaded that there was no cause of action to the plaintiff as the defendant is in possession of his land which is situated in Plot No. 39, 40 and 41 measuring 0.2393 hectare for which lease was granted by the Government to him. He further pleaded that he was in cultivation of said land since 1961, much before the plaintiff purchased the adjoining land. (5) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues :- (i) Whether the plaintiff is Bhumidhar in possession of the disputed land ? (ii) Whether the defendant has demolished the boundary wall between the plots of the plaintiff and the defendant, if so its 4 effect? (5) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues :- (i) Whether the plaintiff is Bhumidhar in possession of the disputed land ? (ii) Whether the defendant has demolished the boundary wall between the plots of the plaintiff and the defendant, if so its 4 effect? (iii) Whether there is no cause of action that has arisen to the plaintiff (iv) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ? The plaintiff filed documentary evidence and gave oral evidence before the trial court. (6) PW1 Jai Singh, PW2 Narayan Dutt, PW3 Mohan Lal and PW4 Dev Singh were examined. On behalf of the defendant, Lachhi Ram, he filed his examination in chief in the form of affidavit, but he did not get cross examined. Later on, no one turned up on behalf of the defendants and the suit proceeded ex-parte. The trial court found that since the land on which the boundary wall was standing was not part of the land of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has not given boundaries of his land in the plaint, as such, he had no cause of action to file the suit, and the suit was dismissed ex-parte. (7) Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 11.12.2009 passed in Suit No. 43 of 2006 by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haldwani, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2009, before District Judge, Nainital. Said court after hearing the appellant 5 dismissed the appeal . Hence this second appeal. (8) Though, as many as four substantial questions of law are formulated in the memorandum of appeal on which appeal was admitted on 31.10.2011, but only on following substantial question of law the plaintiff/appellant argued his case :- Whether the courts below have erred in law in ignoring Order 7 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in holding that for the want of giving boundaries of land in suit, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed by him ? Answer to substantial question of law :- Rule 3 Order 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as under :- " Where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it, and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers". (9) From the perusal of the Rule 3 Order 7 quoted 6 above it is clear that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to give boundaries as well as numbers of Plots in each and every case. If either of the two is mentioned which is sufficient to identify the land, plaintiff cannot be denied relief claimed on the ground that the boundary is not given. Certainly where mere boundaries or numbers of the Plot is not sufficient to identify the land in that situation the courts can refuse to grant relief on the ground that the land is not identifiable. (10) In the present case, plaintiff has come up with the specific case in para-1 of his plaint that he is Bhumidhar in possession of land of Plot/Khasra No. 38 measuring 0.322 hectare, Plot/Khasra No. 40/122 measuring 0.250 hectare and Plot/Khasra No. 40/123 measuring 0.193 hectare in Village Bechpur Pargai, and said fact has been admitted by the defendants in his written statement in para-1 of his written statement. It is also not disputed between the parties that the land adjoining to the land of the plaintiff was land of Plot/Khasra No. 39, 40 and 41 regarding which defendant Lachhi Ram was granted lease U.P. Government Grants Act. Since there was no dispute as to the identity of the land, as such, this court is of the view that the courts below have erred in law in refusing to grant relief to the plaintiff on the ground that he has not given boundaries by his plot. 7 (11) In the plaint, plaintiff has nowhere stated that the boundary wall allegedly demolished by defendants ever laid in the plaintiff's land. Both the courts below gave too much importance to the fact that plaintiff' and his witnesses have admitted that the defendants occupation in his land was older and the boundary wall already stood before plaintiff' purchased his plots. Both the courts below gave too much importance to the fact that plaintiff' and his witnesses have admitted that the defendants occupation in his land was older and the boundary wall already stood before plaintiff' purchased his plots. It appears that both the courts below erred in not appreciating that the plaintiff has pleaded that after demolition of the boundary wall by plaintiff' the intention of the defendants was to encroach upon and interfere into the adjoining land of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed copies of Khasra and Khatauni taken from the revenue authority is support of this case. (12) In the above circumstances, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and this Court is of the view that the courts below have erred in law in not granting relief in respect of the land of which plaintiff was admitted Bhumidhar in possession. (13) Therefore, the second appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.08.2011 passed by District Judge, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2009 and judgment and decree dated 11.12.2009 passed by the trial court (Civil Judge Junior Division, 8 Haldwani) in Suit No. 43 of 2006, are hereby set aside. The suit of the plaintiff' is decreed for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of Plot/Khasra No. 38 measuring 0.322 hectare, Plot/Khasra No. 40/122 measuring 0.250 hectare and Plot/Khasra No. 40/123 measuring 0.193 hectare, regarding which he is recorded in the revenue record, as Bhumidhar and the fact is admitted in the written statement. In respect of said land the defendants shall not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff'. However, it is clarified that defendants can enjoy their peaceful possession over land of Khasra No. 39, 40 and 41, with regard to which lease was granted to them under the Government Grant Act to defendant Lachhi Ram. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.