Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. 1. Having been non-suited by both the learned courts below, thereby dismissing their suit for declaration, plaintiffs have filed the instant regular second appeal. Since on the joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, CWP Nos. 19117 of 2006, 19118 of 2006 and 19180 of 2006 were tagged together and ordered to be decided alongwith the appeal as suit land is the same and parties also being the same, all these writ petitions are being decided with the present regular second appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 raised separate construction in various parts of the suit property by spending lacs of rupees from their own pockets, which has been shown in different colours in the attached site plan. They are also using the passage of 15 feet in width leading from Ferozepur-Mukatsar road to their village since the time immemorial and they are taking their tractors, trolley, cars, four wheeler etc., for the ingress and outgress to their house. Therefore, they have acquired the right of easement for the last more than 30 years. This is the only passage leading to village Jhoke Hari Har Basti Panditanwali. Defendant No. 3 disputed the boundaries of the area of the Cantonment upon which demarcation of the area was got conducted in the presence of the defendants and their officers on 6.8.2003 and the entire suit property was found the part of the civil area but the officers of the defendants Union of India refused to sign the demarcation report No. 537 dated 6.8.2003. Sometimes back the employees of Union of India threatened to block the passage and to demolish their houses and tried to put barbed wire but their attempt was foiled with the intervention of the respectable of the locality. The defendants have no right to block their passage of demolish the buildings erected by the plaintiffs in the land owned by them. The plaintiffs requested the defendants many times not to block the passage in question but to no effect. Hence, the present case was filed by the plaintiffs. 3. The defendants have no right to block their passage of demolish the buildings erected by the plaintiffs in the land owned by them. The plaintiffs requested the defendants many times not to block the passage in question but to no effect. Hence, the present case was filed by the plaintiffs. 3. Upon notice the defendants appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections to the effect that the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and the present suit has been filed with malafide intention to harass the defendants and to occupy the A-1 land by raising unauthorized construction on that land. They have concealed the material facts from the Court. The true facts are that all the plaintiffs are the residents of Basti Panditanwali which is located on the periphery of Ferozepur Cantt. This piece of land was carved out of land belonging to this village, who mischievously sold some portion of defence A-1 land alongwith their own land to gullible ex-servicemen and others to construct their houses in connivance with the revenue officials. The residents of Basti Panditanwali encroached upon A-1 Defence land and also carried out the constructions on defence land. The encroachment came into light in the year 2003 when Battalion 18 Grenadier demolished unauthorized construction which had taken place on A-l defence land. The cantonment land has been demarcated with Cantt. Board Pillars which were erected during the British Regime, numbering from Cantt Board Pillars are as per the survey of India Map Cantt. Board and the Cantt., Board pillars are correctly erected. Representative of DEO Mr. Kulwant Singh, who has vested interest in Basti Panditanwali wanted that Cantt. Board Pillar No. 42 should be shifted 99 feet from present location towards army area, thus making encroachment illegal on the defence area. The residents of Basti Panditanwali were making use of defence land which run along Sukar Nala adjoining to ammunition depot which could be a prime target of the terrorists. Consequent to the terrorist incident in Jammu, the security of Cantonment is of paramount importance. Various pockets of Ferozepur Cantt. have been fenced and no dispute has been raised by anybody except the residents of Basti Panditanwali. They were making use of the passage through A-1 defence land. Consequent to the terrorist incident in Jammu, the security of Cantonment is of paramount importance. Various pockets of Ferozepur Cantt. have been fenced and no dispute has been raised by anybody except the residents of Basti Panditanwali. They were making use of the passage through A-1 defence land. Fencing on the defence land along Jhoke road has been carried out one year ago, thus blocking their short routes which were passing through A-l defence land. An alternative route already exists but the villagers were not using it being a circuitous one. On merit also these pleadings was reiterated and after denying the other averments it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. 4. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property as detailed in head note of the plaint? OPP 3. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether construction raised by the plaintiffs are authorized and legal? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff is using the 15 feet route as described in the head note of the plaint as ingress and egress? OPP 5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? 6. Whether suit filed by the plaintiffs is false, frivolous and vexatious to their knowledge. 7. Whether plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court? If so, its effect OPD 8. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD 9. Relief." It is pertinent to note here that after filing the civil suit by the plaintiff-appellant, ejectment proceedings have been initiated against them under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short "the Act"). It seems that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, since question of title was raised by the appellants, they thought it appropriate to file the civil suit for declaration. During the pendency of civil suit before the learned trial court, ejectment order dated 21.5.2005 came to be passed by the Estate Officer, Station Headquarter, Ferozepur Cantt, which is Annexure P-7 in CWP No. 19117 of 2006. 5. Plaintiffs filed their statutory appeal against the above-said ejectment order. During the pendency of civil suit before the learned trial court, ejectment order dated 21.5.2005 came to be passed by the Estate Officer, Station Headquarter, Ferozepur Cantt, which is Annexure P-7 in CWP No. 19117 of 2006. 5. Plaintiffs filed their statutory appeal against the above-said ejectment order. Statutory appeal of the plaintiffs against the above-said ejectment order came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 4.9.2006 Annexure P-10 in CWP No. 19117 of 2006. Civil suit of the plaintiffs-appellants also came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.1.2006. It was held by the learned trial Court that despite having availed numerous opportunities, no evidence, whatsoever, was led by the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied, plaintiffs filed their first appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.9.2011. Hence, this second appeal at the hands of the plaintiffs. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiffs appellants were not granted due opportunity to prove their case. They were not in unauthorized possession of the suit land. Since, the learned courts below failed to appreciate true facts of the case, impugned judgments and decrees were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below, by allowing the present appeal. 7. Similarly, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in writ petitions submits that the ejectment order passed by the Estate Officer vide order Annexure P-7 as well as the appellate order Annexure P-10 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, were patently illegal and the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners would further submit that petitioners were the bona fide purchasers and their possession cannot be said to be unauthorized in any manner. Since the Estate Officer as well as the learned Additional District Judge failed to consider and appreciate the sale deed showing the title of the petitioners on the land in question, impugned ejectment orders were liable to be set aside. Finally, he prays for setting aside the ejectment order (Annexure P-7) as well as the appellate order (Annexure P-10), by allowing the writ petitions. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-UOI submits that estate officer was competent to pass the impugned ejectment orders. The petitioners were found in unauthorized possession. Finally, he prays for setting aside the ejectment order (Annexure P-7) as well as the appellate order (Annexure P-10), by allowing the writ petitions. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-UOI submits that estate officer was competent to pass the impugned ejectment orders. The petitioners were found in unauthorized possession. There was no evidence available on record to show that the petitioners in the writ petitions and the appellants in the regular second appeal, were in authorized possession in any manner. He further submits that the suit land belongs to the Union of India, being part of cantonment area. Plaintiffs-appellants in the regular second appeal and the' petitioners in the writ petitions have encroached upon land situated within the cantonment area and their eviction orders were rightly passed by the Estate Officer. Learned Additional District Judge was also justified on facts as well as in law, to dismiss the appeal of the petitioners. So far as the present appeal is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that despite availing numerous opportunities plaintiff-appellant failed to lead any evidence, whatsoever, to prove their case pleaded before the learned trial court. In the absence of any evidence, learned courts below were left with no other option except to dismiss the suit. Both the learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings because of which there was hardly any scope for this Court to interfere. He prays for dismissal of the appeal as well as the writ petitions. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noticed hereinabove, present one has not been found to be a fit case warranting interference, at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC"). To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 10. It is a matter of record and not in dispute that plaintiffs-appellants did not lead any evidence before the learned trial Court. Issues were framed in the civil suit on 27.4.2005. Thereafter, appellants availed as many as four opportunities to lead their evidence. However, appellants failed to lead any evidence. 10. It is a matter of record and not in dispute that plaintiffs-appellants did not lead any evidence before the learned trial Court. Issues were framed in the civil suit on 27.4.2005. Thereafter, appellants availed as many as four opportunities to lead their evidence. However, appellants failed to lead any evidence. They did not examine even a single witness. Anyone out of the plaintiffs, who were nine in number, did not appear in the witness box to substantiate the stand taken in their pleadings. No explanation was forthcoming on behalf of the plaintiffs, as to why they did not deposit the diet money and process fee for summoning any of the official witnesses. 11. It goes without saying that the appellants being the plaintiffs, onus was on them to prove their case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, in the present case, appellants failed to discharge their onus. When the appellants were not leading any evidence even costs were imposed on them vide order dated 15.12.2005, while granting further opportunity. Neither they paid the costs nor any evidence was led. In such a situation, learned trial court was left with no other option except to proceed further with the matter. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that learned courts below committed no error of law, while passing their respective impugned judgments and the same deserve to be upheld. 12. Once the plaintiffs-appellants who are also the petitioners in the writ petitions, have failed to establish on record before the learned trial court that they were bonafide purchasers, they had no case either on facts or in law. It is neither pleaded nor argued case on behalf of the appellants that they had no opportunity to prove their case. It is also pertinent to note that question of title was not decided and rightly left open by the Estate Officer, while passing the ejectment order so that the parties may get the question of title decided, by the learned court of competent jurisdiction. 13. Petitioners were fully justified in approaching the civil court so as to get their question of title decided. However, a bare combined reading of both the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below, will make it crystal clear that the plaintiffs proceeded on a very casual approach at every relevant point of time. 13. Petitioners were fully justified in approaching the civil court so as to get their question of title decided. However, a bare combined reading of both the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below, will make it crystal clear that the plaintiffs proceeded on a very casual approach at every relevant point of time. They never made any sincere effort to prove their case despite knowingly well that they were plaintiffs and they were supposed to stand on their own legs, without waiting for the alleged weakness of the case of the defendants. 14. Plaintiffs also did not express any genuine difficulty before the Court that they needed more opportunity to lead evidence. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely concluded that the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court did not exceed their respective jurisdiction, while passing the impugned judgments and the same deserve to be upheld, for this reason also. 15. So far as the eviction orders impugned by way of writ petitions are concerned, jurisdiction of the estate officer was never in question. In the eviction proceedings also, petitioners were granted due opportunity to defend themselves. They were found in unauthorized possession on the land in question. After considering each and every relevant aspect of the matter, eviction orders were passed by the Estate Officer, recording his cogent findings. However, question of title was rightly left open to be decided by the learned civil court. Petitioners availed their statutory remedy of appeal before learned District Judge. Their appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order Annexure P-10. 16. Before recording his cogent findings, learned Additional District Judge rightly re-appreciated the true facts of the case as well as the material available on record, in the correct perspective. Thus, the impugned orders Annexure P-7 as well as Annexure P-10 passed by the authorities under the Act cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality and the same deserve to be upheld, for this reason as well. 17. Thus, the impugned orders Annexure P-7 as well as Annexure P-10 passed by the authorities under the Act cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality and the same deserve to be upheld, for this reason as well. 17. Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, the learned first appellate court rightly re-appreciated the facts of the case, so as to record his own cogent findings, in para 12 of the impugned judgment and the same reads as under:- "A perusal of the record of the learned trial court would show that issues in this case were framed on 27.4.2005 and thereafter the appellant availed four opportunities to lead their evidence but they failed to examine even a single witness. Even none of the plaintiffs, who were nine in number, appeared in the witness box in support of their case. No explanation was ever given by them for not examining any witness on those opportunities. There is nothing on the file that they had deposited any diet money and process fee for the summoning of any official witnesses. Thereafter, it was the duty of the appellants to produce their evidence at their own responsibility but as stated above, they have miserably failed to lead any evidence on the file despite getting four opportunities for that purpose. On 15.12.2005 even a costs of ` 150/- was imposed upon them but that was not paid by them. Thus finding no justification to grant any other opportunity to the appellants to lead their evidence, their evidence was closed by order by the learned trial court. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. Even the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure require the parties to complete their evidence in three opportunities only whereas in the instant case the appellants, admittedly, have availed four opportunities for leading their evidence." 18. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the petitioners failed to substantiate any of their arguments. They also could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case in either of the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below as well as the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. They also could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case in either of the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below as well as the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine quo non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naryanan Rajendran and another v. Lekshmy Sarojini and others, 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 286. 19. No other argument was raised. 20. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal as well as the writ petitions are misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, these must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, instant appeal as well as the writ petitions stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.