JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge, Una, H.P. dated 30.9.2005, passed in Civil Appeal No.70 of 2002. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has instituted suit for permanent injunction against the respondent defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). According to the plaintiff, Smt. Promila Dogra applied for the allotment of LIG plot in the Housing Board Colony, Rakkar, Una, H.P. Plot No. 157 was allotted to her on 9.5.1977. The possession was also delivered. Subsequently Smt. Promila Dogra applied to the plaintiff for permission to sell the plot and accordingly the permission was accorded on 9.10.1991 and the defendant Kailash Nath Lath purchased the pot. The defendant was required to get the permission of the Board for construction after getting the site plan approved of the construction, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and the defendant was required to raise the construction according to the approved site plan. The defendant started the construction and made certain additions in the construction and the construction was raised against the approved site plan unauthorisedly and illegally. The defendant was served with the notices on 20.2.1993 and 24.2.1993. The plaintiff has asked for decree for injunction restraining the defendant from raising construction over the ground floor of the suit land and also for demolition of the unauthorized construction raised by the defendant and in the alternative for demolition of the construction raised over the ground floor, if any, during the pendency of the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, the construction was raised in the presence and supervision of the representatives of the plaintiff and was completed before 4.2.1993. The construction was neither unauthorized nor illegal. 4. The issues were framed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. II, Una, on 18.8.1993. The suit was decreed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. II, Una, on 14.6.2002. The defendant, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2002, filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Una. The learned Addl. District Judge, Una, allowed the same on 30.9.2005. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The suit was decreed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. II, Una, on 14.6.2002. The defendant, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2002, filed an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Una. The learned Addl. District Judge, Una, allowed the same on 30.9.2005. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 19.7.2006: “1. Whether the first Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the trial court that the respondent-defendant has raised construction in deviation of the approved plan?” 6. Mr. C.N.Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 14.6.2002. According to him, the defendant has raised the construction in deviation of the site plan. On the other hand, Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court dated 30.9.2005. 7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 8. PW-1 K.K.Kalia deposed that LIG, Plot No. 157 was earlier allotted in favour of Smt. Promila Dogra vide allotment letter Ext. P-2. It was transferred in her favour by conveyance deed Ext. P-3. She obtained permission vide Ext. P-4 for sale of this plot in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff had delivered the possession of the plot in favour of Smt. Promila Dogra vide Ext. P-5. The construction plan Ext. P-6 was got approved by the defendant. However, defendant did not construct the house according to the approved site plan. He was issued notices Ext. P-7 and Ext. P-8. The defendant did not stop the construction and the suit was filed. The plan of the unauthorized construction is Ext. P-9. 9. PW-2 Ramesh Bhatia has deposed that he had prepared the site plan Ext. P-9 wherein the unauthorized construction has been shown in blue ink. 10. DW-1 Raj Kumar Dogra, Clerk PNB, Una has proved conveyance deed vide Ext. DW-1/A. 11. The defendant has appeared as DW-2. He has purchased the LIG plot No. 157 from Promila Dogra after permission from the plaintiff vide sale deed Ext. DW-1/A. He obtained permission from J.E. for construction of the house and the J.E. had given the demarcation of the spot. The J.E./S.D.O. visited the spot. DW-1/A. 11. The defendant has appeared as DW-2. He has purchased the LIG plot No. 157 from Promila Dogra after permission from the plaintiff vide sale deed Ext. DW-1/A. He obtained permission from J.E. for construction of the house and the J.E. had given the demarcation of the spot. The J.E./S.D.O. visited the spot. The construction was completed by him in the month of January, 1993. He sought water and sewerage connection from the plaintiff but he was told that the connections would be given after the construction was completed. He sent letter Ext. DW-2/A and reminder Ext. DW-2/B. 12. PW-1 K.K.Kalia, in his cross-examination has admitted that in the conveyance deed Ext. P-3, there is no condition about the area of the plot over which the construction could be raised. However, according to him, it has been written in the allotment letter that the construction plan was to be approved. He has admitted that the approved site plan Ext. P-6 was bearing the signatures of the defendant Kailash Nath. He admitted that the site plan Ext. P-6 does not bear the approval of the Chief Engineer and architect. He had no knowledge that after the approval of the plan, the defendant had applied for additional construction and also filed supplementary map. He has admitted categorically that the defendant has raised the construction within his plot. PW-2 Ramesh Bhatia, in his cross-examination, has admitted that while preparing the site plan, the location was fixed towards the north side. He admitted that in Ext. P-9, no location had been fixed. He also admitted that the defendant has not made any encroachment on the land of the plaintiff. He could not depose that when he prepared the plan Ext. P-9. 13. In Ext. P-2, there is no condition that if the construction was not carried out as per the approved plan, the same was liable to be demolished. Ext. P-6 is the plan of the proposed house of Kailash Nath Lath. It has only been signed by the Assistant Engineer. It was not signed by the architect of the plaintiff or any other officer. The plan is not complete. Only half of the plan has been placed on record. There was no explanation as to why the complete plan was not filed with the suit and why only half portion was filed. It was not signed by the architect of the plaintiff or any other officer. The plan is not complete. Only half of the plan has been placed on record. There was no explanation as to why the complete plan was not filed with the suit and why only half portion was filed. The plaintiff was bound to place on record the complete approved building plan instead of filing half portion of the plan and that too signed by the Assistant Engineer and not by the architect or Chief Engineer. There is no contemporaneous material placed on record to show as to who has authorized the J.E. to prepare Ext. P-9-plan. No architect or authorized Officer has come to the Court to depose about the correctness of the plan Ext. P-9. Rather PW-2 Ramesh Bhatia, J.E. could not narrate the date when he prepared the plan Ext. P-9. 14. The plaintiff has also not placed on record the planning of the Rakkar Colony. There is no evidence led by the plaintiff that the construction led by the plaintiff, in any manner, has obstructed the ventilation of other adjoining plot holders. The plaintiff has categorically admitted, as discussed herein above, that the construction has been raised within the plot. The plaintiff has failed to prove that the construction raised by the defendant was unauthorized or illegal by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are in accordance with law. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 15. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Appeal dismissed.