JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. dated 10.3.2005, passed in Civil Appeal No. 101 of 2003. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), namely, Kulbir Singh had instituted suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant and proforma respondents, namely, Balraj and Baldev. According to the averments made in the plaint, the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 3.11.1983 from one Sh. Basant Singh, father of proforma respondents No. 2 & 3. He has affixed boundary by placing stones with cement and in the year 1984, the plaintiff had filled the plinth of his residential house after leaving one karam space on both sides of the boundary of the suit land. The plaintiff after raising loan completed his house in the year 1990. The vacant portion of the suit land was left by the plaintiff around his house for drainage, water tap etc. The appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), in collusion with defendants No. 2 & 3 threatened to forcibly occupy the vacant portion of the suit land by raising construction. The cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 17.9.1995 when defendant No. 1 started stacking bricks over the vacant portion of the suit land. It is, in these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed suit with prayer that decree for permanent prohibitory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them not to encroach or raise any sort of construction over the vacant portion of the suit land and defendants be also restrained from raising any construction over the land adjoining the suit land which may cause any obstruction in passage, path, drainage etc. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants denied that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 3.11.1983 from one Basant Singh and after purchasing the suit land plaintiff has affixed boundary by placing stones with cement. It was denied that the vacant portion of the suit land which was left by the plaintiff was used by him for drainage, water tap etc. It was denied that the vacant portion of the suit land which was left by the plaintiff was used by him for drainage, water tap etc. It was also denied that defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 & 3 was threatening to forcibly occupy the vacant land. 4. The replication was filed by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 20.9.1997. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 25.7.2003. The defendant-Ishwar Dass, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.7.2003. The learned District Judge, Mandi, dismissed the same on 10.3.2005. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on 28.9.2005. According to order dated 28.9.2005, various substantial questions of law, as detailed in the grounds of appeal, arose for determination in the appeal. The substantial questions of law have been framed at page No. 5 of the paper book. 6. Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. According to him, the demarcation report Ext. PW-3/A was not in accordance with the procedure laid down by this Court. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 8. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He deposed that he had purchased the suit land from one Basant Singh in the year 1983. He has got demarcated the suit land and had also affixed his boundary. He has also laid the foundation of his house in the year 1984. He has left one karam space of land for drainage etc. He has purchased the suit land by way of registered sale deed. The tatima was also prepared. The old Kh. No. of the suit land was 169 and its area was 3-1-2 bighas. The defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 & 3 has started stacking bricks over the vacant land. PW-3 Kirpa Ram testified that he has carried out the demarcation of Kh. No. 1008/922 on 6.10.1995. The tatima was also prepared. The old Kh. No. of the suit land was 169 and its area was 3-1-2 bighas. The defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 & 3 has started stacking bricks over the vacant land. PW-3 Kirpa Ram testified that he has carried out the demarcation of Kh. No. 1008/922 on 6.10.1995. The defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 & 3 has started stacking bricks over the vacant land. He testified that quarrel had taken place on 17.9.1995. He has proved copy of jamabandi for the year 1980-81 vide Ext. PB. The mutation was also attested in the name of the plaintiff. The copy of demarcation report is Ext. PW-3/A. 9. Defendant No. 1 has appeared as DW-1. He has testified that he had also purchased land from one Basant Singh. The plaintiff has constructed the house on the suit land and no vacant land was left by the plaintiff. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the land qua which suit has been filed, the plaintiff was owner-in-possession of the same. He also admitted that the suit land was purchased by plaintiff in the year 1983. DW- 2 Balraj Singh has deposed that the plaintiff has constructed the house on the land of his father. The land was purchased by the plaintiff from his father. 10. It is evident from the statement of DW-2 Balraj Singh that the plaintiff has purchased the land from his father and raised construction over the same. Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the demarcation report Ext. PW-3/A is not in accordance with the procedure laid down by this Court. However, the fact of the matter is that PW-3 Kirpa Ram has visited the spot on 6.10.1995. The defendants No. 2 & 3 were present on the spot, however, they have not signed the statements. The demarcation report is Ext. PW-3/A. 11. It is duly proved by the plaintiff that he was owner-in-possession of the suit land. He has purchased the land from the father of defendants No. 2 & 3 on the basis of registered sale deed dated 3.11.1983. He has kept one karam of land vacant around the suit land for the purpose of draining etc. The defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 & 3 has staged bricks over the same. He has purchased the land from the father of defendants No. 2 & 3 on the basis of registered sale deed dated 3.11.1983. He has kept one karam of land vacant around the suit land for the purpose of draining etc. The defendant No. 1 in connivance with defendants No. 2 & 3 has staged bricks over the same. PW-3 Kirpa Ram has categorically stated in his demarcation report Ext. PW-3/A that defendant has not associated himself during the course of demarcation. It has also come on record that earlier the suit was filed by defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff and his wife Maya Devi stating that he had purchased some land from defendants No. 2 & 3. In that case it was pleaded that plaintiff and his wife were diverting the water of their entire kitchen towards the land of Somavati and were also interfering with her peaceful possession. The suit was also contested by the plaintiff and his wife and the learned trial Court dismissed the same on 22.9.2000. It has not come in the statement of defendant No. 1 that he preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 22.9.2000. Rather, he has not even divulged this fact in the present case. 12. Mr. Ashok Sood, Advocate, has also referred to sale agreement Ext. DW-2/A. However, the fact of the matter is that the same has not been registered. 13. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vrs. Usha Devi, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 672 , have held that plaintiff has to succeed basing strength of his case and cannot depend upon weakness of defendant’s case. It has been held as follows: “35. Once we have given our finding on the maintainability of the Suit, we need not to go into the other issues. But in view of the alternative argument advanced by the counsel, we are of the view that we should throw some light on those issues. It is the finding of the Trial Court that the lands were retransferred to the Holkar State in the year 1951, and re-transferring is without any authority and it is bad. But in view of the alternative argument advanced by the counsel, we are of the view that we should throw some light on those issues. It is the finding of the Trial Court that the lands were retransferred to the Holkar State in the year 1951, and re-transferring is without any authority and it is bad. The Trial Court held that though it is the specific case of the plaintiff that they are paying Tauzi, there is no evidence to show that they have paid Tauzi prior to 1951 and the correspondence of the plaintiff and her father shows that the Suit scheduled properties were not included in item no 14 of the list of properties and further held that Suit scheduled properties were allotted to the Forest Department. First coming to the issue of transfer of land to Forest Department, it is settled law that parties are governed by their pleadings and the burden lies on the person who pleads to prove and further plaintiff has to succeed basing on the strengths of his case and cannot depend upon the weakness of the defendant’s case. The State having alleged several things, has failed to mark any document to show that the properties were transferred to the Forest Department and the retransfer in the year 1951 was without any authority of law. Though the State has filed certain documents before us, but as they are not part of the evidence, we are not inclined to look at those documents.” 13. The appellant has also moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC alongwith Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for demarcation of the suit land and also for adducing additional evidence bearing CMP No. 166 of 2012. The detailed reply was filed by the plaintiff to the same. The fact of the matter is that defendant No. 1 has not filed any objections to the demarcation report Ext. PW-3/A. The demarcation was carried out strictly as per the statement of PW-3 Kirpa Ram on 6.10.1995 and at this belated stage, the appointment of Local Commissioner cannot be ordered. The purpose of appointment of Local Commissioner is not to garner evidence on behalf of the parties. The purpose of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not to fill up the lacunae. The purpose of appointment of Local Commissioner is not to garner evidence on behalf of the parties. The purpose of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is not to fill up the lacunae. It cannot be said that the defendant was not aware of the old musabis, registered sale deed or jamabandies etc., as mentioned in the application. Moreover, defendant No. 1 has also failed to link these musabis and jamabandies with the suit land. Accordingly, there is no merit in the application and the same is also dismissed. 14. The learned Courts below have correctly appreciated demarcation report Ext. PW-3/A. Ext PW-3/A is as per the laid down procedure. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.