JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant Regular Second Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal RBT No. 57-J/XIII/11/2008 of 31.10.2011, whereby the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. of 15.11.2007 stood affirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants herein have instituted a suit before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn), Jawali, District Kangra H.P., claiming therein a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants/respondents herein to remove the blockage caused by them by raising construction over a path comprised in Khata No. 176 min, Khatauni No. 266 min, Khasra No. 144 measuring 0-16-45 Hms (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) situated in Mohal Jakhara, Mauza Jhakara, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. 3. The defendant No.1/respondent No.1 herein contested the suit and filed written-statement. He in his written-statement has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, cause of action, limitation, locus standi, valuation, jurisdiction, plaintiffs having not approached the Court with clean hands and estoppal etc. On merits, it is averred that the suit land is abadi deh and the verandah has been raised by defendants, respondents herein over the suit land. The defendant No.2/respondent No.2 herein in his written-statement filed by him admitted the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants herein in toto and did not contest the suit and thereafter he was proceeded ex-parte. 4. No replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellants herein. An appeal was preferred therefrom by the aggrieved plaintiffs/appellants herein before the learned first Appellate Court. The latter Court on an appraisal of evidence adduced before it affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. In sequel, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellants herein before the first Appellate Court came to be dismissed. 6. An appeal was preferred therefrom by the aggrieved plaintiffs/appellants herein before the learned first Appellate Court. The latter Court on an appraisal of evidence adduced before it affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. In sequel, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellants herein before the first Appellate Court came to be dismissed. 6. The appellants herein standing aggrieved by the judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate Court have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 7. When the appeal came up for admission on 13.9.2012, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- “ (1) Whether the findings of the learned courts below are sustainable in view of Ex. P4 and statement of DW3 which shows that the width of the path in question is 6 meters, which has been reduced to one meter by encroaching the path by the defendant.” Substantial question of Law No. (1): 8. The plaintiffs/appellants herein in support of the averments constituted in the plaint, of the respondents having, by their raising construction upon the path, reduced its width, hence necessitating the rendition of a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants/respondents herein for the dismantling of the construction purportedly raised thereupon at their instance, to bring its width to the one as existed prior to the construction raised thereupon by the defendants/respondents herein, have relied upon oral evidence comprised in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. The oral evidence in support of the averments aforesaid constituted in the plaint was construed by both the courts below to be insufficient as well as scanty to constrain them to render an executable decree as claimed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein. 9. The reasoning afforded by the both the Courts below in declining the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed by the plaintiffs/appellants herein against the defendants/respondents herein appears not to be suffering from any infirmity, as the oral evidence in proof of the defendants/respondents herein having raised construction upon the purported path, hence its width being reduced, was lacking in specificity with exactitude and precision qua whether the construction as purportedly raised by the defendants/respondents herein was raised upon the purported path hence reducing its width or if raised the specific portion thereof having come to be subjected to encroachment by the defendants/respondents herein by theirs raising a construction thereupon. The specific and precise evidence conveying the factum of the defendants/respondents herein by their act of purportedly raising construction thereupon had hence narrowed its width, was constituted alone in the demarcation report having come to be prepared by a Revenue Officer concerned in sequel to his carrying out a valid demarcation of the suit land. However, there is no demarcation report placed on record by the plaintiffs/appellants herein delineating therein with specificity and exactitude, the precise portion of the path encroached upon by the defendants/respondents herein by theirs raising a construction thereupon. The plaintiffs/appellants herein having omitted to adduce into evidence the demarcation report prepared by the Revenue Officer concerned after his having carried out a lawful demarcation of the suit land portraying therein or lending sustenance to the factum porbandum of the defendants having raised construction upon any specific portion of path comprised in khasra No. 144, obviously rendered the oral evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs/appellants herein in proof of the factum probandum, of the defendants/respondents herein having raised construction upon any specific portion of Khasra No. 144 whereupon a path exists and whose width has been purportedly narrowed by construction thereupon having been raised by the defendants/respondents herein to be in its entirety nebulous as well as hazy to constrain both the Courts below to render a decree with a depiction therein of the specific portion of Khasra No. 144 whereupon a path exists and whose width has been purportedly narrowed by the respondents by theirs raising construction thereupon. Moreover, the omission of the aforesaid evidence also constrained the learned courts below to render a decree qua any specific portion of Khasra No. 144 being liable to be dismantled by the defendants/respondents herein. Since the ascription of a specific portion of Khasra No. 144 in the decree of mandatory injunction was imperative for its attaining executable force necessarily then, the oral evidence of the plaintiffs/appellants herein in support of the averments in the plaint of the respondents having narrowed the width of the path comprised in khasra No. 144 by their raising construction thereupon, trammeled as well as constrained both the Courts below to with specificity ascribe with precision in its decree for mandatory injunction the apposite portion of khasra No. 144. The constraint which hence beset both the courts below, to render a decree for mandatory injunction, may have been overcome by documentary evidence comprised in a valid demarcation report prepared and proven by the Revenue Officer concerned, yet it being amiss precluded both the Courts below to with specificity ascribe with precision the exact portion of Khasra No. 144 qua which a decree for mandatory injunction was renderable by them. Concomitantly then with a constraint besetting both the courts below to render an executable decree for mandatory injunction, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below therein declining to the plaintiffs/appellants herein the relief of mandatory injunction, cannot be construed to be suffering from any perversity or absurdity arising from any misappreciation of evidence on record or non-appreciation of germane and relevant evidence on record. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Consequently, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.